Glacier Park at Dawn. (A larger scan is in the folder.)

"...I don't think artistic value can be determined by popularity..."

 

Very true. We could (and have) cited examples of popular artists with little talent compared with unknowns with vast talent. Madonna vs Kate Wolf anyone?

 

Still, I like this photo, and sincerely wish I'd been there with my Hasselblad. I would have tried to find a bit higher angle to separate the buildings' roof peaks from the bottom of the mountain. As someone mentioned above, scouting a location in advance helps tremendously. Showing a bit of water between the buildings and the mountain would have improved the composition.

 

All in all, this discussion should serve as a good learning tool in the archives.

Thank you Carlos for being the one this time to think that anyone who states a criticism or does not oooh or aaah the POW as being jealous. I was beginning to think we wouldn't have one! Yeah, I don't like it too much. I am soooooooo jealous.

Do you guys always go at it like this?

 

Some of the comments are real eyebrow-raisers. ("Fundamentally hopeless" if you like it? Jeez!)

 

Actually, I was already prepared for that. My wife never thought it was anything special either!

yes Bill they do. its half the fun of reading the POW comments. great shot btw, and don't let anyone here tell you otherwise. its funny how a guy with a P+S can get everyones panties in such a bunch huh? until next week...

 

Josh

It's a fine shot for what you had to work with. No doubt that view cameras, split-neurtral density filters, etc...could have been used to improve the shot.

But for a cheap point and shoot you did the right thing. You put it on your tripod and got the shot before you lost the light. At least you didn't just whip the camera out of your pocket and fire away, flash and all.

Much travel and vacation photography is unfortunately done in a hurry....usually other folks are waiting, or a schedule has to be kept. Speaking as a travel photographer, there's never enough time.

It's a good effort and a good enough shot, IMO.

Photo Gallery: www.jimtardio.com

Bill, again my comments were deliberately a bit extreme, trying to mock Carlos' attitude. Sorry if you didn't get that. I'm not crazy about the photo, but that's just me.

This Glacier photo made me think automatically about sharks teeth. Very nice!

This IMO is a textbook application for a gradual neutral filter. In an attempt to see how it would've looked I increased the contrast in PS for the lower part of the shot. I belive it looks much better.

I also love bright colors and I find myself forgetting about composition and just trying to get the colors in the frame. Most of the time I'm dissaponted when I look at the slide.

If I were you, I'd sent the film for a drum scan, reduce the contrast in PS and print it digitally.

It seems some people have a problem with the fact that this image was taken with a P&S camera. It doesn't matter in this instance (and for the photographer) that it was "only" a plastic 35mm camera. Perhaps the image would have been sharper and capable of greater enlargement if taken on a larger format.

 

So what? That is not the point. Surely it is whether or not you like the image. I do, and I'm impressed. I would be very pleased to create an image like that, whatever the hardware. Sorry folks, but it's true that creating good photographs is 90% photographer and 10% equipment. Good cameras are useful tools, but without the photographer's ability to see a good photograph they are useless.

 

If you don't like it as an image that's fair enough. To criticise it for the calibre of camera that was used is truly pathetic. Photography is about creating images. Often we spend too much time thinking about the equipment and not enough about the images themselves. Ever heard someone criticise a painter for not using Brand X brushes, or painting on too small a canvas? I certainly haven't.

Well this mountain certainly does have its moment! Its not all the time and not a long time that mountains get this yellow splendour. I think the image wonderfully shows how the mountain is so bold in its environment. I like the darkness which can be percieved as 'in the shadow' of the mountain. The composition, the mountain, is central and dominant in this territory. Great stuff, I hope to get to this level some day. Thanks for the pleasure.

My goodness! It's amazing how many people are upset at the fact a great image was not taken with a fancy Hasselblad or, one mentioned, a 4x5 view camera( who walks around making snapshots with a 4x5 anyway, much less a Hasselblad?). Or even it should be fixed by photoshop. One can have the best equipment money can buy and still come up with junk. The 'armchair pro' photogs here were shown up by a Stylus Epic. Just admit it's the person behind the camera making the difference.

It´s really hard to take the ratingsystem on this sight seriusly after this big diskussion. Please, look at the pictures. Only the pictures! I think this one is good, but not very good it really doesent give me that gutfeeling like Galen Rowells mountin pictures. Why?

May I ask you what is so incredible about not considering it a great shot?

 

I clearly stated I didn't care about the camera it was taken with. I just pointed out WHY I don't like it so much. Should we really make ahhhh and ohhhh all the time???

 

If you can understand what I said it's ok, otherwise it's ok the same (at least to me).

 

PS: I didn't rate it.

Sorry for jumping in late and fanning the flames a bit, but I've got to take exception to the statement: "But 25-year-old equipment cannot produce the same results as modern equipment," made by Kiet Vuong further up the page. This statement is total and utter bullshit. Having owned a 25 year old Nikkormat FT2 with the original Nikkor 50mm on the front of it I can quite honestly say it produces photos just as good as any modern camera. Why? Cause the optics kick arse, that's why. It's not the equipoment that you've got it's how you use it that counts.

 

That's why this photo hasn't quite made it 'cause the mountain is way too overexposed in my opinion. But what do you expect from a point & shoot camera? It's probably the best shot this camera could take. Yes, he'd have got a better shot with a "proper" camera, but it wouldn't have mattered if it was a 25 year old Nikkormat or a 1 month old F5.

Nice central composition, but the middle right side of the mountain is bleeding into the colour of the sky behind it. The foreground details are pretty dim as well, but generally, the photo is beautiful and unlike anything I've seen.

Bill, I wish to speck directly to you, but I want others to consider what I say. You have captured a powerful moment in time, which will never be replicated. You had with you what you had. As a photographer who has seen natural light "award winning shots" wane with the movement of the sun or moon, I salute you for being there for the shot. Never miss the shot to change equipment.

 

I have looked at both images, re: your scanner, I agree with Phil G., if you are not going to get a good scanner, farm the job out. You will be much happier.

 

As to the composition, it is powerful (good scale with the foreground, and the spire sans thumb move the eye from the dark ground straight through to the peak breaking the heavens. For those who favored cropping, it is always better to have the opportunity to crop.

 

A word about equipment. I think that it was Stieglitz who was asked what his favorite camera was? His reply "the one in my hand".

 

I wish to echo the comment of Roger Salls, " thank you for sharing your vision"

 

 

Wow number one is on the photo. It is just beautiful. I love the few moments it took me to realize just what I was seeing. I thought pyramid no, what is this -- aaahh mountain in sunlight -- beautiful. Wow number two. Sam!! Whoa, what a maniac. This is my first visit to this site and though I admit I am not a photographer, I am a painter, I still have to say jeez get a grip sammy boy. Artistic value vs. "gear". That seems a no brainer to me. But hey I guess I'm just partial to beauty over technology.

Is digital enhancement really photography or are we all searching for the perfect picture that really isn't out there ?

Yes, I think Bill took a good picture and should be congratulated for being there at the right time and place to take advantage of the unique light. But I am not sure why the ratings are so very high. To give this photo a 8 to10 seems to be ill-considered. To introduce equipment consciousness is also wrong of the elves. But more important, after nearly a week of looking at it, I cannot get more enthusiastic than my first sentence. I finally decided to post because I think there are a lot of photo.netters out there who are not thinking straight, get upset by Sam et al. and weigh in with a big number. After rating photos for a while I have decided not to any more. Lots of people have rated some of mine (40 or so on one picture), but not more than one written comment to help me understand what they are thinking past those average numbers. At least Bill knows what we all think and I hope his sensitivities are not too bruised! Keep toting those cameras and keep aiming for the best there is.

Your photo took my breath away. I would love to see it in a LARGE size.

Randy Focht-Hawaii

I only have one problem with this image...

even the largest image in your folder isn't big enough :)

 

Seriously, a gorgeous photo. I can't think of a single thing that would improve it, except a nice 16x20 frame that I could hang on my wall with it.

 

Great job Bill, congratulations.

Well, I couldnt really expect any coherent opposition, of course, and feel stupid for even hoping. But to give you something to cry about...

"...I really like the muted building in the foreground, and the way the little spire mimics the mountain. I think they help give scale to the mountain." The photographer.

I agree that the way the spire "mimics the mountain" could have been a nice touch, but as is, I think it creates additional dissymmetry by splitting the space between the buildings unevenly. Thats why I dont like it. This shot is all about symmetry, so the inequality has a powerful destructive effect.

"Sure,this picture would look better in a 8x10 format,but so do ANY picture!" Carlos Pimenta

Not every picture would look better if it were photographed with large format equipment, but thats not the point. The point is that in this case the subject is perfectly still, and the other conditions are such that large format would have been eminently possible (and this photograph would have looked better on LF). In all likelihood Bill Somerville doesnt even possess a LF camera though, so this reasoning is not germane.

"That an Olympus P&S captured this shot is proof of the need for anyone describing themselves as a photographer to have a camera close to hand AT ALL TIMES wherever they are." Trevor Hare

Good point, and I agree.

Carlos Pimenta and Steven Worthy: If I say negative things about a photograph, its not because Im jealous, believe you me. Statements like yours betray your own thought processes though, so Im inclined to believe you have overreacted towards positive criticism (like Paul Ashton mentioned) because of mine and others negative comments. My thoughts are not altered by what people on this site say.

"Madonna vs Kate Wolf anyone?" Darron Spohn

Sure. Most of Madonnas [current] stuff is a reasonable voice crucified by a cacophonic din of half-baked computer-generated sound effects which would mortify any self-respecting garage DJ. Once in a while she comes up with something brilliant, a stroke of genius (yes, genius). "Music" speaks for itself. Its when she attempts to make powerful sentimental songs that she fails abysmally.

"its funny how a guy with a P+S can get everyones panties in such a bunch huh?" Joshua Calvi

I do this for a laugh. You guys are easily worked up. If I had to engage my brain to defend myself it would be more fun, but it's still a pleasant enough way to pass twenty minutes... Its you who are getting your knickers in a twist.

"Wow number two. Sam!! Whoa, what a maniac. This is my first visit to this site and though I admit I am not a photographer, I am a painter, I still have to say jeez get a grip sammy boy. Artistic value vs. "gear". That seems a no brainer to me." Jenny Horney

Huh??? Jenny girl, this is a photography forum, and you clearly dont have a clue what youre talking about. Who or what gave you the quaint notion that there was some battle going on between artistic value and gear? OF COURSE a photographers artistic sensibilities are of FAR greater importance than his or her gear!!! But gear plays a small part in getting a photograph. And when you can walk into a camera shop, plonk a bit of cash on the counter for an excellent, 25 year-old, prime lens, and effectively walk out a better photographer, I simply dont understand the reasoning behind not doing everything in your power to increase the strength of your photography. I wont stay "stick to painting, girl", but please realize your status as a painter means *squat* in photography.

"Is digital enhancement really photography or are we all searching for the perfect picture that really isn't out there ?" Karen Housley

Digital enhancement is a last-resort treatment that losers give to their photographs when its too late to do anything about it. The "perfect picture" is out there, but Ive never seen it yet. Thats what we attain to. Note that it can not, and never will be, attained by applying digital enhancements.

"I wish the banter on this site was not so.............child like. Equiptment? Who cares." Jonathan Bundick

Gee, Im overwhelmed by your maturity Jonathan. PS: "Equiptment" is spelt "equipment".

The more I see of Photonet, the more discouraged I become about photography in general and photographers in particular.

Samuel, you are *so* jealous.

 

I think deep inside you wish you were more shallow and more prone to ignorant positive rantings instead of being damned forever to see things like they are and comment intelligently.

 

I, for one, cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could say: "Aesthetics 10, Originality 10" for this shot. It's nice, VERY nice, but PUH-lease! It's a good shot, a very good shot, but does someone here actually think that it deserves the HIGHEST rating that can be given? That being 10 out of 10 it is as good as any other photo this person has EVER seen? That there is no room for any improvement? That this shot could not possibly be any better? After all, 10 is the highest it can get, no? Or maybe they're handicapping the guy for this shot and they think he deserves a 10 for who he is, but of course if Galen Rowell took this shot then it's not a 10? If so, I do not think they're doing anyone, especially this person, any favors. Next thing you know we'll be seeing a few "11" ratings!

 

With irresponsible rah-rah cheerleading like this the currency of people's comments and ratings here is being devalued fast. Would some of you please get some backbone and guts and lend some *helpful* comments and criticism (criticism is not necessarily bad or jealous comments by the way) so we can all learn, share thoughts, ideas and critique and not just hollow, vacuous, candy-coated nonsense? If all you want is a mutual admiration society there are plenty of other photo-sharing sites that oblige that in all their nauseous glory. Please go there!

 

Well, now someone will take the time and effort to tell me I'm bitter and jealous! So...who's it gonna be?

It's a very striking image, but I just wonder how the light can be on the _front_ of the mountain when the sunrise seems to be _behind_ the mountain?

"But gear plays a small part in getting a photograph. And when you can walk into a camera shop, plonk a bit of cash on the counter for an excellent, 25 year-old, prime lens, and effectively walk out a better photographer..."

 

Sam, maybe you could tell me which photo gear shop you go to, I could do with one of those lenses myself!