mount desert island, maine Storm on the Coastline

Anthony, this is like from a fairy tale book. Wonderful drama! I wish I knew how You have achieved to capture/create the exquisite light. cheers Jana

Woow !! Amazing photo !! Congrats.

You nailed this one Tony! Great, great shot by any measure. Regards, Bill

Fantastic composition leads the viewer from the base of the rocks to the top of the spire and back down to the figure. Great control of light and treatment. Regards

Magic light work! Congrats!

very nice

thank you

imho, if the emphasis of the photo is the coming storm, i think i would like to see more of the menancing sky & less of the foreground rock formation.  excellent tones & lighting.

kat

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

I like this picture. This dramatic scene has great mood and atmosphere. The traditional subject and approach are well suited to the B&W rending. A well balanced composition is enhanced by the foreground leading you on a rocky path to the center of interest. Judicious use of burning and dodging help lead the eye around and into the scene. I can't tell if it's really raining or an added effect but it does not detract.

I am not a fan of digital frames or edges but this one, though thicker than I like, doesn't bother me too much. Nice work, Anthony!

I too like this photograph. Good use and implementation of B&W. I like how the bright areas have been distributed within the frame to guide the viewer's eye. There is only one aspect that bothers me a bit, and that is the fact that I get the feeling the "storm" has been produced by darkening the image considerable and addiding digital ran when, in reality, there are scattered clouds set against a blue sky in the original. I could be completely wrong here, because I've often seen scattered cumulus clouds drop bucket loads of rain in very restricted areas, while other nearby areas are under broken clouds with patches of blue sky. But there is something about those clouds that doesn't really look "stormy" to my eye. I hope I'm wrong, but it's often very difficult to imitate Mother Nature.

If the rain drop falls down at 7m/s this photo was taken at 1/10s. Tree branches cannot be sharp in these circumstances. I feel that storm is artificial.

I agree with Stephen about the darkening of the image and the lightening of other parts. It is certainly moody as Louis says. But for me it goes noticeably too far. It would be nice to see the original colour image with the same man in the window, as the tonality of the original may be preferable in a straight conversion to B&W.

However, we are in a "pictorialism on steroids" phase of photography that keeps reappearing in the POWS. I guess that I don't enjoy it as much as some. It has its adherents (no doubt), but the criticism I often am compelled to make based upon my own aesthetic is that the heavy treatment can rob the subject matter of its naturalness and possibly increased communication to a viewer. All "storm und drag", rather than an Enlightenment movement form of more subtle (and I think powerful) visual communication.

It's OK for me, but we do seem to have had rather a long run of "painterly" and "pictorialist" POTWs lately.
I'm not sure whether Arthur meant "Sturm und Drang" --otherwise, he's a little out of line.

It's an ideal scene handled in an ideal and sort of perfectionist manner. I could see the description being either sturm und drang or pictorialist on steroids. I kind of like both of them, each with its tinge of taste. I probably lean a little more toward Arthur's description.

It seems to be the photographic "beautification" of an already "beautiful" scene. "Beautiful" is in quotes for a reason, since there are so many other concepts and depictions of "beauty" that don't involve what we all already know to be dramatic and attractive.

If the rain looks odd or distracting (which it does to me) and I found out it was captured that way in the camera (which I'd be surprised to learn), I might think it was a matter of shutter speed and f-stop or some odd meteorological circumstance that caused it to look like that. It would give me information but wouldn't much change the way it looks photographically and the way I'd feel about it in relation to the entire picture. Sometimes, real life looks odd in pictures and just because it's real life (to whatever extent that phrase has meaning) doesn't mean it works in a picture. IMO, of course.

Apologies to German friends for spelling atrocities

If it is a real storm and real rain, then I like it. Otherwise I don't.

Now blast me, Fred.

--Lannie

I like the way the rocks form a sort of path leading the eye to the lighthouse. Nicely done.
The rain is a bit puzzling as the rocks don't seem to have a wet sheen to them. The border is a bit heavy for my taste. But, that's personal preference. All in all, a very pleasing photo

In my mind, it takes more than being "real" for me to like a photograph or an element in a photograph. Most of the photos I see in the landscape forum are real, many entirely real, yet I don't necessarily like them. Most of my own photos are real or nearly so, yet many people don't like them, or they point out weaknesses and suggest ways they could be improved. In my mind, it's composition, light, and subject that matter more than being real. I definitely and strongly prefer photographs that have not been extensively altered, and my opinion is usually adversely affected if I know a photo has been extensively altered, especially (and this is important) if the photograph is assumed to be or offered as being unmanipulated. But for me that's not the ultimate deciding factor. A photograph has to resonate with me, and much of that comes from the photograph itself (light and composition) and much of that also comes from within me (my own conscious and subconscious preferences based largely on the experiences I've had in life), especially regarding subject matter (there's a big overlap between composition and subject matter, and I don't yet quite know how to define and discuss this). A photograph will usually resonate more strongly with me if it is largely unaltered, and it will usually resonate less strongly with me if it has been extensively altered, but there is much more to it than just altered versus unaltered.

It would stop my if I walked by it in a gallery. I don't like to nit pick rather I react to my viscera when I see a picture. I like what I see.

The image stands well on its own, the addition of the digital rain was unnecessary. People who know nothing about photoshop will likely accept the alteration as reality. I like the textures and tones. Its pleasing overall. I can imagine a possible dangerous climb to get the shot too.
It seems the elves were on a digital alteration course the last few weeks, someone get hold of the wheel and steer the ship a bit for next week? ;) winks.

I'm not crazy about digital rain although I would use it modestly to enhance a mood...whether it is done heavy handed or judiciously the image is of course a creative expression of the artist...how one looks at a piece of art can be skewed by a person's interest in art theory...it can become stratified with emphasis prioritized towards intellectualization at the expense of experience...but that's an old argument that takes into account how artists such as Marcel Duchamp considered the retinal...

<<<it can become stratified with emphasis prioritized towards intellectualization at the expense of experience>>>

Sure. On the other hand, calls for "artistic" experience can come at the expense of other things, like taste, thought, quality, craft, and skill. "Experience" can be used as an excuse not to be critical, though it certainly doesn't have to. Remember, this is a critique forum, not a gallery. When I go to the symphony or a museum, I am in a very different mind set than when I am asked to give a critique.

Intellectualization IS an experience and intellectualization doesn't have to come at the expense of anything, just like more immediate artistic appreciation doesn't have to come at the expense of anything. Ways of seeing and experiencing can co-exist. In other words, we can pat our heads and rub our tummies at the same time or even at different times and in different places or spaces.

Fred, I'm into surf and turf too...

It's a storm on the coastline but the sea is missing! Please paint in ( pardon: photoshop in) some breaking waves on the bottom.

-- Remember, this is a critique forum, not a gallery --When I go to the symphony or a museum, I am in a very different mind set than when I am asked to give a critique.--

I see your point, the POW Forum asks that you address its "strengths and weaknesses" which conveys more of an academic approach. So are you saying that if people have an emotional experience of a POW, they should leave that for the general discussions?