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

I don't think it's such a fantastic picture. The composition is (as others said) way too static, even for a mountain, and the foreground is disturbing - being so underexposed. About the photo being taken with a P&S, well, it doesn't add to its value.

 

 

I agree with Antonio Carrus...

I would like to see a higher resolution scan just to study this most excellent photogaph more. I have the Epic, so I know it can do it - come on -- give us a high resolution scan!

This photo bites....my ego.

 

Really a gorgeous shot. Lucky? Who cares?

 

Guess I will take my P&S with me more often.

I think this is a terrific shot. I think the points of how the composition could be improved are worth a listen, as are the points about whether this thing can be enlarged and retain its impressiveness, 'cause this is a wonderful image for above a fireplace or on a lodge wall. That being said, the composition suits me just fine as I think it challenges the viewer to just look at the mountain and appreciate it for what an amazing visual image it creates. If I were actually there, I would be looking at the mountain and probably little else. The mountain is the thing, it may look odd and probably not as powerful were it off to the side or occupying less of the frame.

 

The exposure also seems fine to me, though I would like to compare to other exposures just out of curiosity.

 

Wow

Skip this if you like Velvia, dont like controversy, common sense, long posts, or Samuel Dilworth, or any combination or all of the above.

Youre going to have to do better than that to prove to me that equipment doesnt matter.

It looks to me like this photo was taken simply because the light was beautiful and spectacular. Taking pictures of light per se is a phenomenon that seems to be unique amongst those who consider themselves to be veteran photographers (it separates them from the ignorant masses, I suppose), but it often flops, and in this case, I think the subject itself was overlooked in the desire to record something beautiful. This photograph would have needed something powerful in the foreground. Something that works well even if subdued in comparison to the mountain. As it is, to my eye the peaked spire in the centre foreground is very distracting. (Hold your thumb over it and see how much the photo improves.) So is the lack of symmetry in the foreground buildings, clashing harshly with the stunning symmetry of the centred mountain. I really love the way that shadow on the mountain rises in the centre to accompany the mountain itself. And that sky... remarkable; I wish I could see it without the criminal JPEG compression which wreaks havoc with the greys. Given the film in use and the contrasty conditions, exposure couldnt have been better to keep detail in both areas, but it was clearly a hit-and-miss affair, in which the photographer needlessly inflicted upon himself the woes of automatic exposure.

Theres a prevailing notion amongst amateur photographers that any subject is photogenic, given enough talent and lighting. Wrong. Dead wrong. It was probably started by professional photographers who didnt want to attribute any of their success to the fact that they can get whatever subject they want, so they instilled in amateurs the idea that your backyard is a photographic paradise (hey, I dont live in "northwest Montana") to preclude the excuses amateurs make about not having anything to photograph. Part of photography, maybe the biggest part, is knowing what to photograph.

Its so unfortunate that people who claim equipment doesnt matter inevitably bring up the topic. I view anyone who uses an Epic on a tripod as a hypocrite. In fact, anyone who says equipment doesnt matter, and then actively searches for the most inappropriate camera for the job, to bizarrely try to prove (in some perverse reversal of linear thought) that equipment doesnt matter, is a hypocrite. These people enjoy overcoming the limitations of their gear so much, and by implication, the gear itself, that they try to do serious photography with toys, just to feel the satisfaction of getting a decent image once in a blue moon so they can justify (to their unconvinced selves, I suspect) their senselessness. Whatever happened to "the best tool for the job"?

And if you say equipment doesnt matter but exclusively use Leicas, you are also a hypocrite. So no matter how you look at it, you cant win if you insist that appropriate gear isnt important.

"We also chose it to show all those obsessing over which lens is sharpest and most contrasty that a skilled photographer with modest equipment can capture beauty." Anonymous [particularly blind] elf.

No way!! [sarcastic sneer] Who in their right mind ever said that a skilled photographer couldnt capture a good (even brilliant) image on limited equipment? Not I. The point is that serious equipment will produce better results in serious applications, and in photography, as in all machine-assisted disciplines, the easiest way to improve is to deck yourself out with good gear.

"It's 90 percent photographer and 10 percent equipment..." Anonymous [particularly confused and self-contradicting] elf.

Proves my point. If 10 percent of your result is influenced by the gear you use, why in the name of pushed Velvia do you not use the best you can get your hands on? It is also ridiculously naive to give a percentage weighting to equipment, even in jest, because in some types of photography it is clearly a lot higher (this POW -- could be improved by better film, sharper detail (whether by larger format or better lens), lens with less vignetting, better compression algorithm and/or application, to name a few gear-based improvements) and in some cases it is far less (intensely abstract art for instance).

Photography is the only subject that I have come across in which the participants deny the need for good gear and refuse to acknowledge deficiencies in the tools of their trade (or hobby). Mountain biking, tennis, [insert name of any sport], music, painting, [insert name of any art form], welding, carpentry, [insert name of any profession], you name it, they demand the best. The only explanation I can think of is the historic doubt about photography as an art form, and the associated insecurity and desire to prove oneself (conclusively, without gear to help along) that that entails.

To each his own, of course. This should up the sales of the Epic and further reduce the standards of photography. The Epic is not a Canon product, and my works merit is relative to other photography, so I shouldnt be upset on either count, I suppose.

Okay, you can stop looking at me. Lecture over. [Waiting drearily for the wave of "how dare you!"/"notice how he doesn't have any images uploaded"/"this is clearly beyond his limited capacity for understanding" responses. Will you make my day by offering an internally consistent argument against my reasoning?]

To be honest, I couldn't figure out what the picture was from looking at it. I think it looks like an overexposed crumpled paper bag superimposed on a hapless waaaay underexposed village. The smoke just looks like bad printing or muddy negative. I'm sure the actual print is much nicer, but I'm not impressed by what I see.

 

Samuel is accurate with his comments about technology, though I do think the key word should be "appropriate," not necessarily "better."

I have to applaud Bill on being able to capture this photo. Although I agree with the previous comments concerning how the photo is static and incorrectly exposed, I have to say that it was a good thing that Bill was in the right place at the right time with some form of photographic equipment. I find that too often I don't have a camera with me when I see something spectacular. Fortunately for us, there are beautiful pictures to be made everyday. I wonder if Bill took the picture with the Epic because he wanted to prove he could take a pretty picture with a P&S or a better camera wasn't available... I think it's a great shot for taken in a hurry with a P&S, but so much more could have been done with it.

Bill, your shot is fantastic! Don't appologize for the equipment, it's the "moment" that inspired you to take the shot. I'll admit that I fuss over owning "fine" equipement, and don't always concentrate on just getting out to take photos. Now, I'm inspired to get out more thanks to you, Bill. Keep it up and I look forward to seeing more of your work. Jack

Man! That's some pretty intense commentary a few posts up!

 

Truth is, I have no pretensions of being a great photographer - not even a serious hobbyist - and I certainly wasn't out to prove some point by using the Stylus Epic. My "serious" camera is an Olympus OM-1, purchased 25 years ago, and I take both with me these days when I travel. (The Stylus Epic is usually in my shirt pocket for quick shots while hiking in the boonies or walking around a city.)

 

When I woke up that morning, the sunrise was already near its prime, I think. I hadn't really planned on taking photos at dawn (as I sometimes do on trips), but the supernatural light was pouring in the window, so I grabbed both cameras after pulling on my clothes. The Stylus had 100 ASA film in it (practically the end of the roll), while the OM-1 had 800 ASA film that I was using for interior shots of the old hotel (foreground of the pic) the previous day. I decided to finish off the roll in the Stylus Epic before "getting serious". It was the first time I had ever put it on a tripod, but have done it a few times since. (Yes; it looks pretty silly perched on even a compact backpacking tripod!) I finished the roll in a minute or two. I got the mountain without the buildings in one of the shots, but 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.

 

Unfortunately, by the time I had changed the film in the OM-1 and put it on the tripod, the sunrise was starting to fade. I have another dozen shots, none as good as this one. And, yeah; it looks GREAT as an 11 x 14 print, box-mounted on the wall of my office just behind my computer monitor.

 

Per a request made above, I rescanned it for a larger image. The new scan is in the same folder. I still haven't really gotten the hang of scanning... very new thing for me, with rather low-end equipment. I guess I ought to get the negative scanned someplace.

 

- Bill

This is a wonderfull shot,that shows the importance of beeing at the right place,in the right time.Who says this picture is not good,or have nothing special,it's either jealous,cause didn't take this picture or frustrated,cause haul with an equipment 10 times more costly and heavy and even with that,dont have a picture like this in to hang on the wall.

 

Sure,this picture would look better in a 8x10 format,but so do ANY picture!Photography is not about the larger negative and this wonderfull picture shows that.Congratulations for a wonderfull picture and go hang it on your wall(if you didnt do this already,of course).Perfect catch,I gave you 9/9.

One of those shots that just misses. Light is beautiful, but looks just a little too hot on the mountain for me.

Also, my eye keeps being drawn to the houses in the foreground which don't really add much to the shot.

Nice pic Bill.

Sam said a lot, as usual (Hi Sam!). Unusually mild I thought this week. So I'd take that as a compliment Bill.

 

Lots of people think its a great picture and I'm sure it is on Bill's wall.

 

Its too late down here in Oz to make a serious comment BUT...

 

this rather goes to show how exceedingly beneficial a tripod is.

 

Who gives a stuff about the camera. Stick almost anything on a tripod and you'll beat a hand held Pen-can-nik-lei-con-blad any day!

 

Lots of Love

 

John

Jealous? Frustrated? C'mon Mr. Pimenta...

I admit some of the pictures here really have my admiration (not only POW's), but I'm not loosing sleep on this one, believe it or not...

Nice photo. As a fellow Stylus Epic user, I'm impressed. Nevermind what the critics say here. Maybe they're jealous of not capturing such an image with their fancy Nikons, Leicas and Hasselblads. Sometimes being in the right place at the right time makes all the difference.

Was your photo a winner of the Ritz photo contest a while back?

Sure, this is shot captures a rare and beutiful moment. We can call that luck, and even lament the sad fact that we don't get lucky often enough. But the fact is if we hauled our tails out of bed every morning we'll all get lucky eventually. Equipment? It's only part of the equation. Light is what we record, and when it's good we have to grab it with whatever is available. Now, to get really "lucky," the thing to do is take out a lease on the lodge and set up the 4x5 every day at 0400. Patience, grasshoppah!

Very nice photo. I love the Stylus Epic (35mm lens version). I always carry it...even if I'm lugging the F4 around. My wife dropped our first Stylus in a mud puddle (took us about 10 minutes to find it) so we had to buy another one. Well worth the $90 (twice). I keep neagtive film (for the wider exposure latitude) in the Stylus and usually have slide film in my SLR. Keep shootin!

Great work Bill. I like your picture just the way it is. For my tastes, if you bring out more of the foreground, the overall picture loses something. I try not to get too critical with other people's photos, after all, what we like-dislike about photography is a matter of taste. So to me, its a yes or no question, do I like it or not. The answer is a resounding yes! BTW, I also like your choice of equipment (the Epic and the OM-1). Thanks for sharing with us...

Carlos, you're entitled to your opinion, but if I'm saying I don't like it out of jealousy maybe you'd like to explain why I've posted positive comments about quite a few photos here as well.

 

Believe it or not, your opinion is not fact. Neither is mine. If I thought it were, I'd post that this photo reduces to not much more than an uninteresting white triangle surrounded by not much of anything and represents a very lackluster image of what must have been a very impressive sight in person. I'd say that anyone who likes it is fundamentally hopeless when it comes to thinking visually.

 

But it's just my opinion.

 

First off, I apologize for using this POW to further flame the equipment debate. Don't read on if you're not interested.

 

I am not a professional photographer but I live for photography. I also live and die by (pushed) Velvia. Even though I usually don't agree with Mr. Dilworth, he brought up some very good points which contradicts the elves.

 

Anyone who says equipment doesn't matter, dont know enough to be a good photographer. Do people carry F5, Gitzo tripods, and expenses lenses just to over compensate for small penises? No! These equipment are chosen because they work damn well. Would any serious photographer choose a point-and-shoot over an SLR? Or a cheap tripod over a Gitzo? Or a Wisner over a 4x5 kit? No! Does that mean new equipment should be purchased every time a new model is introduced. No! But 25-year-old equipment cannot produce the same results as modern equipment, and point-and-shoots will not give you the same image as a LF camera. "It's 90 percent photographer and 10 percent equipment..." I don't think so!

 

As for luck, I find that luck has very little to do with a good photograph. My "good photographs" came from [painful] trial and error, and patience. If I want a sunrise shot, I come to the spot 1 day early to choose the composition, come back at least 2 hours before sunrise to setup, pray for good sky, then take the shot. If it's not good, come back another time. There are spots where I've photographed hundreds of times and have yet to get a good picture. But I'm sure it exists, so I will continue to photograph them. This proves Sam's point of "...knowing what to photograph".

 

In short, buy the best equipment you can afford, and get there early and often. I guarantee you will have better results. If you're not a serious photographer, buy the best equipment you can afford and get there early and often. You will be glad you did when your serious photographer friends compliment you on your great shots.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Bill, An exquisite picture is an exquisite picture no matter the equipment. You have nothing to apologize for. Thanks for sharing your vision.

Roger Salls

As much as I hate to disagree with Mark C., I have to say that anyone who cannot see the difference between gold and white is fundamentally hopeless when it comes to thinking visually. Or perhaps he needs a new monitor.

 

I too wish this had been taken with better equipment. I'd love to see a 24x30 print if it had. But with such modest equipment I guess the image is not going to hang together past 11x14.

 

Still a great shot, though.

Fine, it's a gold triangle that does nothing for me rather than a white one that does nothing for me ;-). Not sure it makes a lot of difference.

 

My comment was sort of deliberately extreme. Though it really doesn't move me, apparently a lot of people do like it, one or two of whom I have enough experience with to value their opinion. Though I don't think artistic value can be determined by popularity (or else J Lo would have to be simultaneously the best musician and actress alive) I'm willing to believe there's value here I just don't get. It certainly wouldn't be the first time, and even I might think differently about it if I saw a big print.

 

 

 

 

Dramatic shot. Very very nice. I'll always think of this shot when I debate over bring a camera, any camera, with me at all times.

Folks,

 

Let us all remember that many photographers here are simply amateurs who aren't trying to impress the masses with their flawless photography skills. I think Bill's photo is great. In fact, I'm impressed with most of the shots I see here. I understand the benefit that honest critiquing brings, but some of the comments here seem just plain catty and snobbish.

Or maybe I'm just easily impressed and a "pro" will soon teach me the errors of my way. Until then, I think it's a great shot.