Crystal Mill Color

Photo OK but your Iowa State Cyclones really tanked it at the NCAA's. What is wrong??? You go from Cael Sanderson & the greatest wrestling career in college history, three national champs & a second place finish last year to a nothing finish this year! What was it..20th? And NO champs at all.

Put down the camera Bobby & get back matside so the cyclones do a lot better this next year.

Nice pic, have been there myself and the road was really bad for sure. Almost as bad as a road to one of my favorite places here in KY, Hensley Settlement. One of my best photo trips ever was going up there on a 4 wheeler with about a foot of snow and clear blue skies. Keep up the great work.

Kenny

I too have see many versions of this by some of the better or best know photographers. This rates as the best I've seen. Wonderful light (and someone who wants an large print at the price you mentioned would be getting a bargain. My walls are full of my own "slop", or I'd get one).

"We Need A "Landscape" Catagory here at photo.net" - Tom Meyer.

Well, yes. That's absolutely agreed. And in fact we need everything in categories. Why so ? Simply because we need to compare what's comparable. Portraits, sunsets, landscape, wild life, texture shots and commercial works are the first victims of this absence of categories - on the originality rating generally What is the originality of such an image ? Yes, it has been done a thousand times, but very rarely so well adjusted. It just isn't another shot of the same thing, because a lot more care has been taken of angle, light and colors. The result is a perfect approach to a common subject, and it speaks for itself. Now of course, if we compare this with a wild creation of an artist's mind, we might find this picture less original - but that's comparing a tree with a synthetizer. It is about time that we start comparing images with other images in the same category. Here, I believe it's a landscape. :-)

If we now compare this image with the picture Fabian pointed us to, I still prefer this one. In the other one, details are indeed magnifiscent, but I feel it's a tad too much a picture of a foreground. Here the eye follows the stream and penetrates the depth of this place: that's the winning decision. If we crop anything on the left, the stream will be almost at the edge, and will no longer work as a guide for the eye. There is simply no improvement on this image aesthetically - at least, as far as I can tell. As for the 1/3 f-stop, let's just bear in mind that the way each of our monitor is adjusted can easily make a full f-stop difference, and that a third of an f-stop is already bearely visible when comparing two transparencies.

Both are truely great in their own respect!

This is an absolutely perfectly photographed calendar/postcard shot. I'm sure that will upset a lot of people, but there it is.

While I concede the excellence of this photograph both technically and aesthetically, it seems that the description needs to be cited.

 

See: http://www.marblecolorado.org/

Bobby, the place is gorgeous and the colors in this rendition are amazing (but almost a little too much saturated...). However, I was puzzled by the lens you used: my impression was that you used a telephoto and that's why the landscape seem flat... but no, you actually used a 65 mm... (and f4.5!) It is a great image and a well deserved POW anyway, congrats Bobby!

It is about time that we start comparing images with other images in the same category. Here, I believe it's a landscape. :-) and a landscape photograph at that! (Hi Marc! I'm behaving badly aren't I?)

One thing that seems to bother "photographers" (as a particular genus of homo sapien) is when a photograph actually appeals to humans who are not photographers (gasp!). Imagine someone who doesn't know what depth of field is actually having the temerity to deem a photograph worthy of their hard earned dollars and appreciation when they buy something so crass and mundane as a calendar or postcard.

Real photographers know the way to truly evaluate a photograph like this one is on their 17" monitor while viewing a 490x623 pixel reproduction of a 4x5 transparency. Then it's obvious that it deserves a 5 (aesthetic!) because the clouds look too white and to give it a 4 (originality) because they've seen a picture of a shack before. As cynical as I am, I still can recognize a unique time precisely selected, and a place beautifully rendered on one of the most difficult mediums in art by a high level of skill, enabled by personal strength and dedication.

If you want to see real cliche's, take a look in the "Fine Art" catagory... If there were a "Glamour" catagory (and, man do we need one) I would be petitioning to re-name it the "Cliche'" catagory, since "glamour" photography, by definition, is cliche'd... t

Outstanding, except for having to ATV through Colorado backcountry to get there instead of backpacking in, which earns bigtime negative marks in my book.

This is completely insane! I saw the thumbnail, and thought it

was a painting. You know, one of those completely idealised

sofa sized paintings of a mill? My grandmother has one. You

were in the perfect place at the perfect time for this shot. Granted,

some people don't go for the perfect postcard look, but you could

make a fortune selling this one. I've yet to nail a shot like this,

and I'll be damn lucky if I ever. Congrats!

The insane part is that I have not been able to market sell or in any

way make any money off my landscape photography, In the past I always

said well maybe I need more photo's and better photo's but it does not

sound like this is the problem can any one tell me just how I can use

this image like some of you have suggested. Calendar, Post card I

think some one said hotel.

Try a stock agency, and then wait.

The sad truth about this image is that in spite of its excellence, its clarity, sharpness, brilliant color, scenic value, etc, in spite of all that makes this photo an appealing winner, it's still common. It's what's known as a standard excellent photo (SEP).

Able photographers all over the world (and photonet) are producing images of this standard of excellence every day, day in, day out: Flowers, babies, dogs, puppies, kittens, of course sunsets, fall foliage, you name it. They are found on phone books, church bulletins, magazines, calendars, postcards, screensavers, etc. In terms of economics you may have a high demand for this kind of excellent image, but you also have a high supply.

Doug is right, that this "sort" of shots is common, of course. To sell such images, he's right as well that stock libraries are generally a good way to sell them, and right also to say that the demand AND the supply are high. But in this case, the average supply would not be a serious competitor to this shot. Bobby shot this in 4 x 5 ", and libraries wouldn't not have the same image so well taken AND shot with large format. The fact that this is a large format - allowing larger reproduction sizes or better detail at medium size - will be a key factor in favor of his picture. For example, this could become a poster or even a wall size wallpaper, and remain very sharp. It is not likely that there would be that much competition on this particular subject, in fact.

When Doug says that there are many able photographers around the world ABLE to shoot this, he's right, but not that many of them would have the time to go and get such a great 4 x 5" trans of this particular subject. Basically, my advice to all photographers who want to get into stock landscape photography is to shoot very common subjects, but shoot them perfectly and in 4 x 5". Doing so, you put yourself ahead of most competitors. Shooting "unusual scenaries" in 35mm format will actually not be as profitable, as there will be less demand, and you just wouldn't be technically ahead of other unusual images, therefore relying on an individual buyer's individual taste - which is probably not the wisest thing to do...:-) Also, bear in mind that a small size publication at a small number of copies does not earn you as much money as a large size publication or a large number of copies... Only when a shot is truly excellent, an editor would consider publishing 100,000 posters of it to be sold in a few countries... And if the shot would be unusual, he would never print so many copies in the first place. Common subjects are common simply because they are commonly appreciated, which is the only thing a poster publisher for example would care about...

I sincerely hope that common subjects captured creatively and that good calendar art continues to be enjoyed by the buying public in my neck of the woods for a few more years anyway. My chosen style of image capturing has been evaluated by some other photographers as common. The last time by a photographer whos own choice of style consisted of images of mud caked nubile nude women rolling around on a bare floor

 

Please dont read any holier than thou tone in that description. That photographers images were technically good if not excellent photographs and Ive never had a problem with mud caked nubile nude women rolling around on my studio floor or rather I wouldnt have if they ever would. The gentleman photographer did express surprise when he found out that I was marketing "common" (read: selling for real dollars) images of loons, frogs, dragon flies, sunsets etc etc Not Ansel Adams level of ability or income but it does keep me interested and out of serious trouble. I get the impression that radical, innovative, way-out-there-creative just doesnt necessarily provide any financial assistance to the calling. Certainly it can, but probably not often.

Bobby, youve got the ability, talent, equipment, portfolio and desire. Now just get the marketing nut cracked and you will never look back.

You're right on, Mike. Yes, the image is great, but the description is plagerism. I knew when I was reading that, that it was taken from Marble's site. I would think us artists could be a little more creative in these things. In addition, the "mill" was never used for hydroelectric power, but I digress. I don't mean to be a bad seed though.

 

I do love the old FJ's and the Crystal Mill is one of my favorite areas. The road to the mill is relatively easy and could probably be driven by some cars, though I would not suggest it. Since Bobby obviously has not driven the shelf road above the Devil's Punchbowl, let me add that it is hardly difficult. Death was the price for those not having the experience or knowledge of what they were getting in to. Take your time, and you'll be fine providing you like that kind of stuff as I do.

 

I have some pictures of the trail and a similar one of the mill in the spring (the scans pale in comparison to the slides though as they usually do) for what it's worth. Again, I like the picture and I like one of the Sneffels Range on your site, Bobby. That is my favorite place. Nice job.

 

http://mycolorado.org/

Excellent. Large format at its best. Good use of camera movements -sharpness from "here to infinity.

As someone struggling with the rudiments of 4x5 work, this image seems absolutely awesome. There does seem to be an air of unreality, almost like one of those vivid dreams you wake up from, not sure whether it really happened or not. Sharpness and perspective to die for.

The sharpness is impressive. I can only imagine the original...

And we have to mention the work behind an image like this :

every shot in large format is the result of a deep concentration behind the ground glass. The feelings of the photographer, observing the upside down image under the dark cloth during the long preparing phase before the shot, is something that a "foto-amateur" has to try in a life. (and that you never can feel with Photoshop....)

Bravo.

Excellent work, Bobby. I noticed early on that someone asked about how this image was scanned, but I didn't see a response. Could you please share that information with us?

Screen 1015AI drum Scanner (from the third or fourth comment on the page)

As a photographer that has had the experience of searching for that "Quintessential Landscape" image during my 10 years in Vermont, I have a great appreciation for this POW. The lighting, the color saturation, the s curves in the stream and falls, the various textures and the composition all come together to form a "picture perfect" scenic. I say perfect because I see absolutely no flaws here. A combination of nature's cooperation and the eye of the photographer knowing just where and how to capture this.

As to selling a shot like this....All it would take is a little gutsy salesmanship. Problem with good stock agencies is they want to see a large body of work and don't even talk to you until you can provide them with 100-200 excellent images. However, there are other ways to go. There is nothing wrong with going to smaller publications such as the ones produced by Chambers of Commerce or by the State. The exposure will get your name out there. Bringing published work and some samples to hotels, ad agencies, graphic designers, colleges etc...can be very lucrative. Obviously you make more money selling an image to a national publication -- but -- a sprinkling of tourist mags, brochures, web sites etc... can also result in some of these places actually hiring you to shoot specific shots for them. All it takes is being hungry enough and gutsy enough to approach these people. Trust me it is easier than you'd think. I've done it. Later, I had about 3 years experience working for a Graphics Design and Pre-press company. Our clients were graphic designers, hotels, colleges and ad agencies and I feel very comfortable saying that this shot is extremely print worthy for your state's tourism needs.

Another route: There is an excellent printing company called MWM Dexter, Inc. (e-mail me if you want more info) where you can produce 10,000 postcards for around $625 -- or 1,000 for $205 and then you bring them to local tourist shops to sell on consignment. Good Luck and congrats on this excellent shot.

Is that the thing you see on the northern route into Estes Park? I think I've seen it before if it is, though I'll admit you caught it at the perfect time.

There had been a lot of criticism regarding Komar and Melamid's experiment of 1994, with pundits like Arthur C. Danto saying, "Can it be the Most Wanted Painting even if nobody wants it?" Yet this week's POW proves that those critiques had little ground beneath them.

America's Most Wanted or the mill