sydney coastline #2 Sunburst finish

There isn't anything about this image that doesn't move me! I find it difficult to stop looking at it, and I'm completely captivated by it. I aspire to create images of this quality, and evoke such strong emotion. Superb job, Leigh!

My own feelings about the structure of the photo are closest to the impressions expressed by David Estlund. It's significant that he used the term 'optimism'. I tend to think of this photo as 'optimism' and the one taken a little later as 'pessimism' (or perhaps 'realism'). The central placement of the rock doesn't bother me but I understand why it does bother some of you.

As Carl mentioned, there was a conscious choice to stand back and include the S-curve rather than to loom the foreground large in the composition. Not that I had a lot of time anyway -- these conditions lasted a couple of minutes at most. I took 3 shots, but only one had the sunburst flare. The others also had partial waves interfering with the S-curve, so there was a fair degree of luck involved in it all coming together in this exposure.

Gordon's point about overly dark clouds has some validity because of the emphasis of the grad, although with the sea at right being directly lit and the cloud above it being in shadow, it may be possible in reality to have cloud darker than sea. But I'm no physicist. Shawn's point about film characteristics creating exaggerated reality is also well taken. I am currently experimenting with this issue in a project tentatively titled Peripheral Vision.

Thanks for all the compliments, complaints, comments, and suggestions. And please don't hold back with any meaningful critique...

The bottom line is that most people do not want to see an image(especially landscape)that reminds us of the mediocrity of life in general.Any image that is not shot during the magic hour or under magic circumstances are usually panned by the public no matter how good the composition is or how creative your lens work was..albeit you would have a better chance of acceptance if it was in B&W.

 

I find that most peoples perception of landscape photography IS based on some sort of fantasy which is evidenced by the numerous,highly rated supersaturated images that grace the TRP pages of any photo site today.Mostly Leigh you are an exception to this with your choice of imagery which as Carl pointed out is more realistic than most and certainly more so than many of my images.The late Galen Rowell epitomized the use of nuetral grad filters in landscape and he is still considered one of the very best,not to mention his use of saturated Velvia.In his lifetime he was constantly accused of distorting reality with his use of color and filters but in much the same way as you Leigh in the fact that he did not articially saturate other than film usage.Ironically he was branded a postcard shooter by some magazine editors who refused to accept his vision of reality.

 

Ansel Adams has most assuradely biased many people's views of art by his usage of B&W,and since he set the standards of composition and print making then anything else almost seems a bastardisation to some.This is unfair I believe because surely color is as much art as B&W is.The controversy with color lies in our perception of reality and manipulation,not the medium itself.

After looking at your Peripheral Vision series I must say that it does tie in nicely to this discussion in the fact that I do not believe these images will attain mainstream acceptance due to percieved lack of content.I like them for their distortion free elements(the yellow tones are a bit overpowering at times)and the feeling of absolute vastness which is as real as an emotion can be when looking at the sea.To me you have captured a true essence here in all it's simplicity and although we have all seen this many times there is still an element of fantasy to them.

It's definitely a steak, as Doug said, but very well done.

 

I do like the crispness of medium/large format for a change, and I think that the photo works on a number of levels. The ND grad filter doesn't bother me, since I have had instances where white clouds behind me at sunset have backlit the foreground so that the ground is brighter than the sky as one looks west into the setting sun.

 

Nice work, and congratulations on getting the Photo of the Week.

... but I'm not sure I agree with the criticism that came with this observation in the present thread.

I kind of like what I see. Colors are beautiful - not too strong, not weak either (although I may want to tone down that blue with some magentaat top left); clouds are wonderful, exposure is spot-on - and difficult; great result in so many ways... Now how about the composition...?

I think it works. I may even submit that (imo) compositions like this - where the eye is not direcly guided from point A to point B are not necessarily bad - eventhough many photonetters seem to often see it as a weakness. Is there a "focus" of our attention here ? Yes. It's the steak - sorry, I meant the rock. But the sun is another one - not so far from the rock in the frame. Then we see the clouds and the blue sky and the rest of the picture. Our eye is not trapped into a one-way road and the picture feels vast and empty because there's plenty of space to travel into: to me, that's not a problem.

Yes, going nearer the main rock was a neat possibility, and yes, it would have added depth, andadded guidance for the viewer's (lost?) eye, but what I see here is more original and works in a subtle way, as it seems to avoid the road that many landscape photographers so often choose. Original composition to me. I would not endlessly admire a picture like this, but it did at least give me a real sense of the place AND... a real sense of the peace in this place. Nice work. Congrats, Leigh.

I'm not sure I get it. Nice photo. But the composition is dominated by a rock that just sits there like a beached whale. Or maybe a beached flank steak. It doesn't seem dangerous, as someone else noted, or particuarly interesting. The rock is flat, depriving us of the sort of shadow detail that might come with a more interesting shape. The S curve of the sand looks like it's lying down in the frame, off to one side. The sand is flat, a mildly interesting reflective surface. But the composition is such that you just keep coming back to that flat rock, and I've seen more interesting rocks.

 

Technically well done - I'd love to have Leigh teach me technique - but this particular scene doesn't touch me, and the photograph doesn't convince me that the scene itself is of extraordinary interest. The optimism/pessimism contrast pointed out doesn't strike home for me, either, perhaps because I just don't find either side truly bright or truly foreboding - rather, it all strikes me as somewhat in-between.

First thng came into my mind is that this significant photo gives me the moment of joy and sadness... is the combination of the clear and cloudy sky. It beautiful. Is ALIVE....

 

Cheers,

Ivy

See my photo

 

http://www.capetownskies.com/7739/07_sunset_miltn_widet.jpg for an example of an untouched, uncorrected sunset photo. A 3-stop ND grad will turn my photo into your photo, but to what purpose (qui bono?)

3-stop ND applied to my sunset photo:

Attachment:

Thanks Thomas for your interesting points. I see myself somewhere in the middle of the saturation arc. While my work is more saturated than some, others produce images more saturated than mine, often much more. It's a personal choice. I currently feel myself drifting further away from saturation but there are many I admire who use hypercolours to their distinct advantage.

 

Marc & Sam have summarised the two opposing (valid) views on the composition. My sentiments align more closely with Marc's than Sam's, but then I would say that, wouldn't I? :p

 

Many thanks.

I like the general look and feel of the photo very much... would like it even more if the rock weren't so strongly centered. Colors to me are fine, just have that one comment on composition.

I do like this photo. The tone/mood is delicat. Regarding the composition wich is the theme of discussion here (of course exactly what elves was hoping :-) The center of attention here is the midplaced rock, wich many would see more off center. But in my opinion, because there are so much to look at everywhere in the frame, the midplacment is the best place to have it, to avoid too strong leading lines to the left. And the smaller right rock get an easier job balancing the left side. However, the left side gets perhaps a bit to much attention, much due to the blue sky. So the suggestion to crop a bit tighter (and try to reduce the blue a bit) could be good here. Could also crop out the right small rock, wich will give a dynamic right to left comp...but im not shure that would be the right thing here.

Technically its a perfection. Unfortunatelly an average photographer will never be able to take such a stunning photos because of slim wallet. I like this shot because some elements important for me in sceneries similar this are included. There are amazingly lighted clouds, sun hiding behind them, very detailed waves and coast. Its a perfect caption at good moment so got the POW.

I just want to point out to all that there is another photograph of the same rock in Leigh's portfolio where I think the rock itself is shown in a much more interesting way - because the action of wave and sand has created a circular pattern around the rock and there are some odd colors caught in it.

 

On colors, I think Leigh's saturation balance is excellent, and avoids the candy sweetness of many oversaturated sunsets. The saturation balance is part of what I like here - even if I can't get the composition to work for me. And I like that saturation balance more in some of Leigh's other shots.

Congrats Leigh. 'Looking back' at this image now, it seems more agressive than the style you presently seem to be persuing, but I still think it is one of your strongest works. The range of light incorporated by using the ultrawide lens again strikes me as amazing, as it did when I first saw this a few years ago. While I probably agree from what I see on my monitor that moderating the saturation in the blue sky slighlty might better balance the rest of the image, I expect it will really take an iteration or two in prints to get it just right. The centred rock works fine for me too, perhaps because (as some have pointed out) it is in itself not that interesting. That leaves plenty of opportunity for the eye to explore the elements that encircle it instead. In fact in that regard, stepping closer to it would probably have weakened the image.

 

I guess it's not unexpected that without some sense of connection to the beauty of the natural world around us, some people don't see the landscape as offering much in the way of content. For me however this is a fine example of this being very untrue. In contrast to the "happy ending" (sun after the storm) impression mentioned, this one evokes a strong sense of fleetingness and urgency with me.

 

A few have expressed a concern that the 3-stop grad is objectionable. However, short of perhaps using a reverse grad, I think there was no better alternative here. Shooting without grads in a situation like this, at least until we have a medium that can handle 8-10 stops, is total nonsense and gets results that look much less like what the human eye sees, not more. Finally, while there is clearly some effect of film and scanning here, I'd recommend to anyone who outright objects that deeply saturated colours are unnatural spend a few dozen sunrises or sunsets along a smog-free coast first :)

I really like ti contrast cetween the dull part and the bright where the sun appears. It is very good. One of the best photo of the week 7/7

Congratulations. i like this for all the reasons already mentioned. Attached is a crude attempt to find more balance shifting luminosity around.

Excellent. Rich colour, compare to most work uses a dull colour to bring out an atmosphere...this is something really rare...

As the blue takes your eye out, this is what I would suggest to keep it in. As you get rid of it, the heavy darkness in the upper right disappears too.

technical competence only matters if you've applied it to something worthwhile. otherwise, the effort is, at best, misguided or naive; at worst, tasteless or vulgar.

 

sunsets are pretty to look at but should almost never be photographed [iMO].

Amazing shot! I love the composition and the vast difference across the frame. It's as though you shot from night to day on a single frame-- awesome!! At first I couldn't figure out how in the world you made such an even, well-tempered exposure... then I read about the Grad filter. Gotta get me one of those! :)

 

Vuk, I can't imagine in all your life you've never looked at a sunset and snapped (or at least wish you snapped) a photo of it. Sunrises and sunsets are God's daily masterpiece in the sky! Each one is different, completely unique, and in a constant state of change. They are photographed often because they never get old and you'll never see the same one twice.

The monitor you view this on will greatly affect your perception of it. On my CRT it is amazing. My LCD, on the other hand, is simply incapable of reproducing the central green tone that is so essential to this picture. I wonder how well it will print?

thought I'd uploaded an imgage? try again.

simple yet elegant!