A Final Look Before I Slip Over the Horizon

I feel that lately we are getting more a picture of an interior landscape rather than an objective view of something outside of and separate from yourself. This is one of the most effective of your recent photos; it evokes a sense of longing for a land that perhaps exists only in our psyche, one that is both unknown and hauntingly familiar. It's a great shot and will go right into my favorites.

Hi Jeff! Very good job.

Excellent shot.It composed well and has excellent tone and contrast .Well done

 

Best Regards HSP

Wonderful treatment and post-processing. What a mood ! It gives me the impression of watching an old Hollywood movie. I love those old movies. Writers and directors knew how to tell fascinating stories then. I think there is that same gift for story-telling and atmosphere in your photographs, and the same visual beauty in that B&W classic.

excellence

Simply outstanding. Rgds.

A beautifully dark and moody portrait of the sea, well done!

Jeff, a fine photo, with an intriguing effect.

With kind regards.

The spot light on the water's surface is distinct enough to leave me wondering about photoshop and whether it is natural or not.

 

The overall processing is beautiful, leaving the sunset with a somber feel. The B&W in this is reminiscent of your stray dog photo from the reserve, another of my favourites of your work.

I'm not usually keen on b&w landscapes, but this is an exception. The hard foreground focus combined with the ominous-looking sky complement each other, and the over-sharpened water unites them. I tried cropping the bottom row of rocks, but that detracted from the effect.

...from a (when in the mood) great landscape photographer.

Back to ratings? 7/7 is the least I can give to such a well thought image.

Bob: Glad to see you back. The sun was setting and seemed to nudge the drama along. Thanks.

 

 

Sally: So glad you like it!

 

 

Jack: Although this is probably one of the prettiest of my recent photos, I'm trying to figure out what makes this effective. Perhaps I've been experimenting too much recently and lost my way in the forest. Thanks.

 

 

Claudio: Where've you been?

 

 

Hamed: Thanks so much for your thoughts.

 

 

Laurent: This does have the same type of dramatic lighting one might use in making a starlet look stunning on camera. I hope I didn't overdo it.

 

 

Frank: Grateful.

 

 

Kaushik: Thanks. Your stuff always has that emotional pull, and I hope this approaches what you routinely do.

 

 

Tim: Having grown up in the Midwest, I never realized the longing that the ocean incites until I moved to the coast. It's an amazing pull.

 

 

Joke: Intriguing is a great word. Thanks.

 

 

Gordon: I burned the edges a bit and discovered that it heightened an already existing path of light on the water. Is it live or is it Memorex? I hope the PS didn't get in the way. I've been more light-handed with retouching lately than I was a year ago.

 

 

Roger: I saw this more about the rocks than the horizon. But I agree that they seem to depend on each other.

 

 

Photis: Ha! Ha! When in the mood! I think you have me figured out.

The light and the darkness well balanced! You are back to the classic again, aren't you?

Jeff;

 

No I would not characterize it as getting in the way at all. I think that, for me, the smoothness of the edges of the sun spot on the water seem more distinct than I usually see, sort of like a giant spot light from above. I've stood on the shore at sunset often enough to know that the variations are many. This one is imbued with with more drama than most.

Nadya: Hey, what can I say? Thanks.

 

 

Gordon: Here's my dilemma. It's an old, tired one, so bear with me. When I look over the top-rated photos, I'm struck with how artificial they appear. Making a musical comparison, most of the photos seem to be like pop songs: sugary sweet, exaggerated, overly tweaked, catchy, and easily discarded. It's been a very long time since I found anything on the pop charts to be interesting, although occasionally I have to admit that a song is catchy. I prefer off-beat music, freak folk, alternative and experimental stuff. My friends used to say, "Now that's a 'Jeff' song" whenever something weird came on the radio. Pardon the wandering down Synesthesia Lane, but I wonder what I'm missing with these pop song photos. And if I'm honest, I wonder whether it's just a sour grapes reaction in that don't like what I don't have the skill to create. Or maybe I just don't like it period. Anyhow, I think that Photoshop is both the best and worst thing that has happened to photography. When I look back on my film shots, I'm struck with how much I had to think and be aware. Now, I can take a shot of any old thing and with some selective masking and artful deception, I can create a masterpiece (well, maybe I'm overstating a bit). I'm veering back to in-camera approaches these days and using PS more for clean-up work, if only to perpetuate the myth that I am a reasonably good photographer, rather than digital artist.

I think what's important is how you feel about it . . . and how you feel about it now.

 

Overall, it was the mood and feeling of this photo that reached me to begin with. I didn't see it as a series of individual decisions so much as a final product with your own expression of an emotional relationship to the scene rising to the surface.

 

I noticed the spotlight effect when I first looked, as Gordon has. I'm in a mode lately with this supposed art of "critiquing" where I will mention that sort of detail less and less to photographers like you who are expressing a vision rather than putting up snaps, who are experienced and seem to do what they do with intention rather than simply not noticing or, at worst, indifference. At the same time, just recently someone mentioned to me that there was a spotlight effect on one of my subjects created by lighting and some photoshop work I had done. The minute it was pointed out, I realized it wasn't as subtle as I thought it had been, and I blended it in more and am happier with the final outcome. So I give Gordon kudos for mentioning it, because it could turn out to be a helpful observation. It's obviously an honest and well-meaning one.

 

There are some styles I look at, particularly some Japanese stuff, where lighting is extremely telegraphed in a seemingly artificial way, yet it feels right and is often done very organically with the style. As if you could believe it was being created by something in the scene, though I haven't seen it as much with landscapes as with other subject matter. Often, when post processing, I use what "could be" as a guideline if I'm not compelled enough by "what was." Very often, the lighting when I'm snapping the shutter translates immediately in my head to a more dramatic final photo than the scene itself actually presents. If I were asked which one I "saw" at the time, I'd be hard-pressed to make a choice and, therefore, I wouldn't. Seeing, for me, is not monotone. It doesn't take place on only one plane at a time.

 

Your reaction to photos that get good ratings on PN is not sour grapes. It's a honed esthetic sensibility and it's plain old good taste.

 

You used a phrase that I think is a good guiding line, at least for you at this stage. "Artful deception." If it feels like deception rather than vision, that might tell you something for yourself. For someone else, it could simply feel like enhancement and, if done with skill and vision, it could be a success.

 

Personally, I don't mind deception here and there. The word has negative connotations, so maybe it's even the irony in that that I like. It often gets us back to whether photography is an act of creation or representation. Once creation gets put in the mix, deception is not far behind (especially if there is some baggage about representation being "pure" or "truthful"). Creation sort of assumes that something is now there that wasn't there before. At the same time, one can determine for themselves the kinds of creations they want to make. If pushing a photoshop global filter button or upping to cartoon-like status the saturation doesn't feel artful, which it generally doesn't to me, then I'll stay away from that. Esthetic creation, though there's an anything-goes attitude, does not mean that *everything* goes.

 

From what you've said, I don't have a good sense about how you actually feel about what Gordon has pointed out. Now that it's been discussed, are you still seeing the photo the way you want it to be or would some mellowing of the spotlight effect feel better to you? I think you could make a good case for going either way and you'd have a good photo either way.

As a foot note ,after having read Fred's reply. I tend to have the habit, which may well be a poor habit, of blathering out whatever surfaces when I look at someones photos. I have started to rein in that tendency and reduce the number of comments I make because frankly I seem to tread on too many toes.

In this case, I hope it was clear that I meant your observation wasn't a blather at all. It could be a helpful reaction. It was a point worth raising. And, at least in my mind, it was well communicated as an observation of yours without your needing to tell Jeff what you would do about it, if anything. An honest reaction, in this case, was not turned into an imposition of your own vision. I don't sense you stepped on any toes and, at least with regard to my own photos, I hope you will maintain that level of honesty and keen observation. Your comment is proof that we can react and respond to photos and that, in many instances, is a good stopping point . . . stopping just shy of the suggestions.

Gordon, your reactions and responses are always welcome. You have both good taste and a good eye, and I'd be stupid not to listen, even when I disagree and perhaps especially when I disagree. Photography is about communicating visually, and if something gets in the way of the message, it deserves attention and possibly correction. I thought your comments here were correct and they didn't register as criticism at all--more an intelligent observation.

 

 

Bouncing off Fred's comments, I suspect that like any other hobby or human activity, there are stages of development. First, there's the thrill of the new, of learning a new skill, and being enamored of all the gadgets and equipment that is available. Then, once those basic skills are acquired, there's the fun of experimenting and doing things (like oversaturating one's sunsets) merely because you can. It's thrilling to play around and see where the digital tricks will get you. After that, there's the task of finding your vision. Of deciding what you want to communicate and how you intend to do it. In looking at the top photos, I recognize the skill that produced them, but I don't always find them to communicate much beyond the immediate impact of beauty. I don't intend to criticize those who regularly rank, and I believe there's room at the table for all sorts of photos and visions. The struggle is in finding my own place in this avocation, rather than to criticize or define others' choices.

 

 

Jack McRitchie recently wrote about why he prefers to photograph puddles instead of sunsets. It was quite interesting and put into words why many of us eventually gravitate away from photographing beauty and begin to photograph idiosyncratically.

 

 

I'm always appreciative of encouragement. And I'd never thumb my nose at a "nice photo" comment because often that's all there is to say. However, for those of us who regularly follow each others' work, I appreciate those comments that spark questions about whether a photo works in communicating in a larger sense what you or I or whoever is trying to say.

Only because I work in photoshop did I stop for a second and wonder if the light was achieved in processing - it did not get in the way for long before I was drawn into the image. Unlike Gordon, I have not stood on a shoreline and watched so many sunsets. So, I can't say whether this effect is likely or not but if I was not aware of dark room techniques with film dodging and burning or photoshop editing, I would not have stopped for a second; this is certainly plausible.

The dark and light draw me into the water, to the far bank and around the point of land to who knows where but it does draw me.

You make things beautiful in your own way using photoshop, you expertly accentuate and communicate your intentions along with your titles as good as the best photographers and certainly better than most highly rated images.

When you mention your film days, did you have your own dark room in which to develop and make your own prints? I would think that if you did, you would do then what you do today in your living room on your computer in the photoshop dark room and that is to write your own music.

Jeff, you know, there is something interesting about many of the TRPs - they have few comments - often fewer comments than ratings.

Kirk

I picked up a camera at the tail end of the film age and the beginning of the digital age (around 2001). I have scads of negatives that I had developed at this drugstore and that grocery store, mostly to abysmal results. The wife bought me one of the earliest Canon Rebels, which was accompanied by Elements 2.0. And life changed. I became a digital junkie, tinkering around more on the computer than out in the field. And all my photos from that era now look overdone and downright yucky, although I thought they were fantastic then.

 

 

I bought plug-ins and actions out the wazoo. I have to say that actively posting on PN changed my tune. I stumbled across a bunch of great photographers who were shooting and posting real life, not cartoons. And I quit spending time producing cartoons.

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm kind of in a reevaluating, shoe-gazing sort of space. It's all good.

Jeff,

 

Man, those first digital images that allowed tweeking - almost all of mine are over saturated or over sharpened or both!

You know, what Fred said about thinking his image was okay until someone pointed out it being more prominent than he wanted. Reminds me of writing, you write, proof read, re-write, proof read until you are so familiar with it, that you're reading your thoughts and not your own words. I've done that with photos too and to make it worse, even though I've had my lap top calibrated, my images still look differently on other monitors and depending on how I position/angle my own laptop it could be different there too.

 

Kirk

The BW shades are simply amazing. Love the composition. Congrats.

Just Excellent!!! 10/10

 

Regards.

 

Alberto

I like the dark, craggy dangerous looking foreground and how it crumbles out into the shadowy water. Nice find Jeff. Good choice using B&W.