m. albany and east bay waterfront Wild Albany #2 Redo

From the wilderness of Albany, California :)

Jim

A great image excellent done in black & white .

Really nice image. Congratulations. Must have been tough trekking. If this is in Albany, no telling what might lurk in Berkeley? Cheers

Great.7/7anon.

Yeah, that was my thought, "Albany?" - Sure don't look like Solano Ave to me.

 

:)

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 the B&W treatment, the light and texture of the background sky, but other than that I don't find the image to be particularly compelling. It has no real subject. It shows us a place, but there's nothing terribly interesting about the place and nothing happening there.

Two things gave me a bit of trouble as I opened this image. First, I had a sense of looking at two photographs cut laterally across the middle. Partially, I think it was a feeling that the sky just didn't seem to work with the land here and maybe it was due to my second issue. The second issue is similar to Craig's comment about not having a subject. I think I was searching for something that gave this image meaning.

The infrared will generally give us some interesting textures and tonal juxtapositions, however, I don't think that is enough. While the path takes us off back into the photograph, it doesn't take us anywhere meaningful, it just sort of ends in a nebulous mass of vegetation. Sometimes shots of paths can be strong on their own, but generally it is because they suggest possibility or the unknown or something of that sort. Here, it is the only thing that comes close to subject, but just peters out. Certainly, we can assume it rolls around the corner, but we aren't being led there--or anywhere. There just isn't any pay off.

The sky has some interest, however, it generates a counter movement to the path--which could be a good thing. The problem I see with it is that it doesn't connect with the rest of the image in any meaningful way. Like the path, it leads us nowhere nor does it connect with anything.

There are nice elements in this shot but it just ends up being empty and more of a puzzle as to what we are supposed to be looking at rather than something to look at.

It does seem to have been handled nicely from a technical standpoint.

Lovely image, reminds of or infra red B@W is it?

Lovely image, reminds of or infra red B@W is it.

It as some nice tones in it. There's no real subject in it, though. My eyes keep wandering around looking for a place to stop.

the wind and clouds come from the place where bridge begins. The road leads probably there. There is no need for eye to rest here but this  picture is rather suggestion where to fly

I have to go with John A on this one. There isn't anything particularly interesting in the shot.
I would have levelled the horizon as well.

Add another one to the 'not very impressed' category. Ho hum!

For the first time in six weeks we have something other than a rug-rat or a critter but even that is not enough to make me like this photo. I do not mind that there is no specific subject however there is nothing compelling in place of a subject. Compared to much of the infra-red photography I've seen, this image has very muddy tones. While there is some nice separation in the mid-tones the image suffers from an overall drabness.

I'm with Gordon on this.... I generally don't mind if there seems to be no central subject. I find that often the entire landscape scene can be the subject, with all of the elements contributing to the scene. However, I don't find this to be a "compelling" scene or "aesthetically appealing" (two criteria that I personally often use in my own photography; both of these are very subjective), although it's close: good clouds, and a stream that meanders diagonally across the photo in an appealing way (IMO, at least). In other words, it's not a photo I would likely take, and I'm not sure why the photo was taken. Was it simply because Jim was experimenting with IR and thought this mix of materials would be a good test subject? Was this simply the best representation of the surrounding area? Or perhaps this particular place has special personal meaning for Jim. Each of those possibilities, especially the third, would be good rationale for Jim but still leave most viewers in the dark.

I look at the photo and I want to be drawn to... well either the sky or the road. I have no problem with the photo as a sky & clouds shot where I can get lost in shapes looking for symbolism. But... not enough sky for that. I have no problem with a dirt road, but I want something peculiar either in the road itself, or on the road, nearby, whatever, that tells a story. I think I would like the photo better if the horizon was moved down to the lower third (or fifth, would be even better), or with a panoramic crop leaving less of the road and a little bit more sky. Or 'shop in something interesting on the road.

I'd rather wait for it to appear, enjoy the scenery, savour the experience of being there, than "'shop" something interesting in the road. I think that being at the right place at the right moment is closer to the true nature of the art and experience of photography than conjuring up landscapes that exist only in someone's mind via a computer. I'd rather have a true photograph than a digital alteration, even though both may be wonderful to look at. For me personally, the process is an important element, and it's not just the end result that matters. All IMO, of course.

I like the aimlessness of the content here. It's a passive, contemplative scene. As a matter of taste, I don't like HDR in general so that's my own bias to begin with. More important than my own opinion about HDR, though, in this instance, the HDR is really working against the content. Because the content is so unfocused, the treatment seems to betray the whole feeling of the scene, making drama where there is no drama and there is no need for drama. I'm reminded of the Westerns of John Ford. He chose his dramatic moments well, often using the landscapes as backdrops to the human goings on. He didn't overly dramatize the landscapes so much as he allowed drams to unfold within them.

I think the potential in this photo is the lack of drama, the possible visual subtleties inherent in the scene, from light to texture to perspective. To me, it demands being processed well and with great nuance and care and, in my opinion, the current approach takes us away from what the photograph is, so the technique seems at odds with the content. It's a case, I think, where the photo itself could be the subject. Some photos are not about their subjects or the places where they were shot. They are about the photograph. Rendered more harmoniously, I think this could be such a photo. But, as it stands, it seems to be fighting to be something it's not.

If you look at his photo from the perspective of someone who does not know what technique was used (IR), you may ask "is that snow?" Then, on closer inspection, you may be perplexed by the detail that is not masked by snow and the structures not covered in snow. So, the majority of viewers (non-photographers)may have quite a different take on this photo. I noticed the depth of field and the sharpness and contrast through that depth of field.

There have been a lot of suggestions on how this image could have been more compelling. I don't discount those, but I don't personally think that an image has to be perfect in every aspect to be appreciated. Further, I firmly believe that both interest and impact are in the eye of the beholder. Although this image doesn't grab me by the collar and shake me, I find the tonality and general aesthetics pleasing and the setting relaxing. To steal a previous comment, it's "contemplative." The empty path doesn't bore me, but rather speaks to me of possibility, an unexplored place, a new experience. So, it may not necessarily be a top contender for a photographic competition, but I can certainly say that I enjoyed viewing it. Respectfully, Jerry.

Fred, I don't think its a HDR photo , just a IR (inferred) . I may be wrong.

Michael, thanks. IR or HDR. My thoughts remain the same.

It looks like something from the Wizard of Oz, I can almost see Dorothy and the Cowardly Lion and the Tin Man, black and white version from my youth. It has a magical quality and it works in a surrealist kind of way..more abstract than landscape, I think.

Amazing... I love the textures in the shot... simply a "wow! look at that!" shot. 7/7