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

Very dynamic photo, but the dynamic range itself is a bit wonked. You might have done with a split-density filter so that the peak of the mountain isn't quite so burned out. Of course, it could simply be your film scanner that makes it look that way.

Bill--

 

I've been looking at this picture all week trying to figure out how to precisely state what makes this a strong picture, and how we can learn from your picture how to be a better photographer.

 

You've got a great subject, a well-composed photo, and the kind of rich details that comes with long exposures.

 

Nice shot!

I have to disagree with the favorable comment over this picture. It looks fake to me. Now I am not saying that it is fake, but it appears to me to have the kind of unreality that is easy to produce with a computer and not interesting to see. If the scene was real, then it is too bad for the photographer that modern aesthetics (mine, at least) have devalued this kind of effect. So, it looks ugly to me. Being there might have been awe-inspiring, but we are talking about a picture.

I mean, true, the other scan is technically better and more 'correct', but much duller. The mountain glows here, beautiful colors & perfect contrast, to my taste.

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

Gee, Samuel, I'd hate to see you get discouraged, so on behalf of pretty much the entire readership, I'd like suggest you take a photo.net vacation. Perhaps a permanent one. Please.

The "perfect picture" is out there, but Ive never seen it yet. Thats what we attain to.

The more I see semiliterates who apparently don't know the meaning of the word "attain" correct other people's spelling, the more discouraged I become about British education, and obnoxious Brits in general.

I just love the way the British stir things up with high intellect, sharp wit and a good sense of humour. Don't go on vacation - you are one of the few good reasons to log on to photo.net. A pox on all those who think otherwise.

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

 

OK. Youve got photographic knowledge. Youve got artistic ability. Youve got a tool to do the job. Improving any of those three improves your results. You are what you produce. If you produce better results you are a better photographer. A few bucks (or Pounds Sterling) therefore makes you a better photographer. By a small amount, granted. I rest my case.

 

"I'd like suggest [sic] you take a photo.net vacation. Perhaps a permanent one. Please." Mark Ciccarello

 

Chill out dude! Just think how boring it would be if everyone agreed with you, or if nobody corrected spelling errors for a joke... (Or wrote sic in brackets when quoting people.)

 

"The more I see semiliterates who apparently don't know the meaning of the word "attain" correct other people's spelling, the more discouraged I become about British education, and obnoxious Brits in general."

 

I think youll find that Ive used the word "attain" correctly, even if youre from some heathen land that doesnt have the benefits of the Queens education.

 

Maybe Im obnoxious. Maybe Ive got a warped sense of humour. Maybe youre jealous (!!!!). Whatever, have a ball.

Samuel,

 

As a professional writer and editor I must insist that you are wrong on your use of the word "attain." The correct word is "aspire" in the context in which you used "attain." And don't give me any crap about dictionaries. Dictionaries merely report how people use and abuse the language, they are not arbitors of correct usage. Style guides fulfill that role. Maybe you should buy one and read it.

It is a glorious study of light.

 

What a pack of wallies. Instead of hacking away at each other, why not enjoy the fact that this picture exhists.

 

Sure, a film crew, a guy and his assistant, a solitary shooter with days of planning could have done it better in some details, or differently.

 

Heck, if I was there, I may have seen it differently. We all would have.

 

So?

 

Enjoy.

 

It's dramatic, it's momentus, it's a peek at the magic of the universe.

 

Isn't that why we do this?

 

:)

 

 

ps..Thank you Darron

 

Why does a professional writer need to use a vulgar abusive terms like 'crap'? (Should you have edited that bit out!)

 

Even if Sam did use 'attain' in a clumsy manner, he did communicate his thoughts rather well even if a litte verbose. AND after all this is a photo critique web site NOT one about Engish usage.

 

Attack his ideas not the way he says them for goodness sake!

 

Lots of Love

 

John

 

PS Without the likes of Sam to stir things this forum would be boring but he and a few like him start to make people think. Others looking in on the debates that ensue LEARN.

This is getting out of hand!

Mr. Spohn: "aspire" is of course correct, and probably the better word. I dont read style guides (or dictionaries either, for that matter), but Ive heard "attain" being used as I employed it, many times in professional circles and authoritative texts. I do think though, that dictionaries customarily differentiate between the technically correct usage of a word and commonly observed but erroneous practice. Im sure "crap", for instance, is clearly defined as the cheap slang that it is.

In your post, you started a sentence with the conjunction "and", which is acceptable form on a photography forum (and I use it regularly), but is not proper usage, as you well know.

Furthermore, you have two spelling mistakes in your post (that I can spot -- Mr. Ciccarello can no doubt find about a dozen). "Arbitors" is correctly spelt "arbiters", and "fulfill" is correctly spelt "fulfil". Not that it matters in the least.

My usage of language may not always be correct. I pointed out the misspelling of "equipment" for a laugh, because I thought it was funny that the writer "couldnt care less" about equipment, to the extent of not knowing how to spell the word (actually, he probably does know, and simply made a typo). I did not do it in spite as some have been doing with "attain to".

"He didn't use the word awkwardly. He used it completely incorrectly, the [sic] refused to admit his error, as is typical for him." Mark Ciccarello

That last phrase is a bit unfair. I have often been wrong on this forum, and I dont apologize for that. I do admit Im wrong when someone proves exactly that to me. So far with "attain to", its a case of your word (and Mr. Spohns) against mine, all the people Ive heard using it, all the books Ive seen it written in, and possibly dictionaries (anyone got an Oxford dictionary handy?).

"To attain is to achieve."

I agree. To attain to is something altogether different.

I dont want to argue about this further, and apologize to those that Ive offended or irritated in this thread, in particular Mr. Ciccarello. Humour is difficult on an international forum where peoples definitions of "funny" range from why-did-the-chicken-cross-the-road to sophisticated satire, depending on your personality, country of origin, and preferred breakfast cereal. Therefore, excuse my tactlessness.

I hereby diffidently supplicate thy absolution, oh grandiose Photonet.

Lots of Love, (Hi John! Sorry for the verbosity... again!)

Samuel

I've been trying to come to terms with why some people like this photo so much, and I don't. I've come to the belated conclusion that some of you are seeing things that are not there. When I see this type of photo I mentally compare it to others like it I have seen, and this one falls way short. For an example, look at http://www.webshots.com/photos/016844.html for a photo from the Super Stock collection. That is how a sunset/sunrise-illuminated mountain should look. It has well-defined peaks (not blended into similarly-colored clouds), nice foreground, lower dynamic range (at least in the interesting parts of the photo, some of the rocks in the lower-left corner are in deep shadow), and a good color contrast bewteen orange peaks and blue skies.

 

In short, I'd like the Super Stock picture on my wall, but not this one. Sorry.

Once again, Samuel refuses to admit his mistake. Attain to means to achieve. Period. No dictionary or "authoritative text" has ever said otherwise, and you can't cite a single one. Anyone you've heard using it that way is simply wrong.

 

So correcting his spelling was a joke? A word of advice: don't quite your day job for a career as a comedian.

 

 

There seems to be an unstated assumption in this thread that the Epic is a seriously deficient camera. While one is victim to its choice of exposure, one isn't so much so with negative film, and the sharpness and color of the thing rival those of my Nikons or my Pentax 67 with a nice, new lens.

 

I have no doubt that this photo looks more impressive in a high-quality print than it does scanned and posted to photo.net. Probably it holds up better detail in the foreground and probably the mountain jumps out more from the background.

 

 

-- Mark

Well, it seems I joined the party late. My comments, in order of least to most relevant:

 

Grammar: Sorry, Samuel, but the others are correct w/r/t your use of "attain." It's the wrong word in the context you used it in. I was an English major in college and have done editing work professionally. (I mention this only because I'm sure you'd question whether I was qualified to make such a judgement.)

 

Equipment: The Epic is one of the best cheap point & shoots one could use in this situation. The spot mode allows more precise focus and exposure than most point & shoots, and the lens is a gem. However, you need not make a jump to medium or large format to get results better than the Epic can provide; any 35/2.0 lens available for an SLR could produce better results in the right hands. The Epic is a great point & shoot, IMO, but it's not a replacement for an SLR.

 

The photo: I like it. I respect the opinions of those who don't like it, but I think it's composed and exposed nicely. The foreground is not lost on my monitor; it looks dark, but it's supposed to as it's in shadow. You've done a wonderful job of capturing what must have been a very 'magical' moment. Well done.

Speaking as one who has been to Glacier . . . there is no such thing as luck in getting a great picture there. Skill maybe but not luck. Unfortunately when I was there I was not into photography but I had a point and shoot, although I admit that I didn't get anything quite as good as this, but that was mainly because I was in the back country and ran out of film. Plus I was using the panoramic mode, which I didn't realize made everything look like crap. But I assure you if you want to go somewhere and get great photos go to Glacier; it has it all. Wildlife, wildflowers and eye-popping scenery, but go into the backcountry. You won't believe your viewfinder.

Alas, the discussion goes nowhere. The poor man didn't want to use 800speed film and chose his tripod instead, out comes the Epic and thereafter lie the ruins of "the photo.net community."

1. Bless his heart for using a tripod.

2. ditto for a slowish speed film

3. ditto for NOT using the 800iso (even if an slr was attached)

4. For withstanding this mess of text above, a waste of verbosititousnessity, the childishness of which is incredible.

 

And now for what I would consider "constructive

criticism:

1. Film is cheap, and though many have rattled off their rule "centered compositions, never", you never know which comp. will serve you best, try many of them and shoot them, throw out the "bad" ones later. A sort of compositional bracketing, if you will.

2. Though i doubt chrome would have handled it any better (if not worse), the look, the feel...of cotton, i mean chromes *may* have nailed it even better. Good on you for using Reala though:)

3. The epic is a sweetie, for sure (and as you may know many of us equipmenteradoes carry them, p&s's, that is) but if you yearn for a p&s that nobody can say jack about, (and from what I've seen, results that are no joke) try the Yashica T4 ($150ish throo B&H), a likewise fixed lens baby, but it's Zeiss, so you know you can't do any better.

 

That is all.

Dear All:

 

My first post, here or elsewhere. For starters, as a neophyte photographer, I learn more here than anywhere else, primarily from reading the dialogue regarding the POWs. Technical matters are relatively easy to understand (if not instantiate), but matters of art and interpretation are not. Lots to chew on. Second, this site is a hoot. It is always fun to observe exchanges between passionate--and for the most part, informed--folks. Finally, to Mark: I wouldn't 'quite' my day job for a new career in editing, though you are correct on the usage of 'attain.' Also, while I agree that the centered mountain makes for a static composition, in my experience with mountains, they have always been static (in less than geological time frames), which is how I prefer it. It was a nice shot, IMHO.

 

jon

... it ain't the arrows - it's the Indian!

I got a new dictionary recently, and just for kicks thought Id look the word "attain" up. Well, lo and behold, look what I found, in Collins English Dictionary, Millennium Edition, p.96:

3. (intr; often foll. by to) to arrive (at) with effort or exertion: to attain to glory.

This dictionary also specifies usage when words are not used in their true meanings, but does not specify this for the word attain. It is also not a specifically British meaning, so is presumably used by Americans too (indeed, I've seen it in American books).

Its a good job you guys are photographers. One thousand grammatical errors per idea wouldnt be pretty.

(Please write to the Bank of English if you have reason to believe you are indeed right and they are wrong.)

As they've said in the comments all the great words, but one they missed, JEALOUS JEALOUS JEALOUS, ok three then, but hey whos counting, great shot my friend and congrats on being one of the shots of the week, Marc

Yes, Samuel, that's what we've been telling you all along. It means TO ARRIVE AT. Not to strive for or try to achieve without actually succeeding. Therefore, you used it incorrectly. Why are you having a hard time admitting this when your own dictionary agrees with us?

 

 

If all this hullabaloo is what getting POW is all about, hope one of my pics never get choosen...

By the way, wonderful shot! Sometimes it is just being there. I always carry a camera, even if it is just a disposable, one never knows what wonders God will show us today.

You are so correct. "As with all art forms, it is 95% feeling and passion, and 5% mechanical and technique" Don't get caught up in all the lens test data and crap. It is meaningless.

 

Thanks for the nice snap!

Q.L.P.

To quote Kiet Vuong, from an earlier post,. "But 25-year-old equipment cannot produce the same results as modern equipment," I have to disagree with that statement. I have many, many slides shot with an old FM and older Vivitar Series 1 and Kiron lenses, that are inseparable in quality from my newer ones taken with the current Nikkor lenses, under the loupe, or in a large print. Yes, fine equipment is great, but not as important as knowing how to use what you have on hand.