Norway

wonderful shoot, congratulations

One word: Superb!

Dramatic...Breath Taking.....Hmmm......

Excellent!! Should be POW.

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.

Love it. The lone figure adds such a grand sense of scale, the shot would be much more mundane without him. Great sky, whether natural or inserted. A nice sutter speed for the flowing river. The immense sheer wall beneath the figure adds to the grandeur of the scene

More than a little Ansel Adams-like, in my opinion. I consider that a good thing, by the way.

I also have to wonder if the lone figure is real...and by real, I mean there in the original shot. I think it's a legitimate question, since if it is real, it would require either a setup involving a good bit of time or either a great stroke of luck and/or timing for the photographer to be in place at the same time as the lone figure.

It doesn't really matter to me if it's real or not. It works and achieves the desired effect either way.

 

Excellent b&W, well exposed and well processed. But not only, I like the contrast between the huge cliff and the small, very small, person on the top. This contrast makes me giddy. Very powerful image. Congratulation!

Maciek -
The Elves certainly made a good call in selecting this image as the P.O.W. It is about as breathtaking as any landscape photograph I've viewed. There's no need to reperat the strong elements that colleagues already haved identified. To me, the icing on the cake is the person standing at the top of the cliff. I was able immediately to put myself into that person's place, experiencing the grandeur that only standing alone in a natural setting can provide.
My best,
michael

I think this image really emphasizes how a relatively small element can completely transform an image. Overlook type shots are dramatic and can certainly grab our attention--but they can also become a bit cliche and easy to overlook. But the addition of this one figure--whether organically added or not--completely changes the reading and impact of this photo.

I particularly like how the massive vertical rise of the cliff face contrasts with the vertical of the human form. Oddly, they are both the exact same ratio of height to width--something that I felt but confirmed with measurement. The sense is immediately one of contrasts of form but also of the ying/yang of vulnerability and possibility.

I like how the vertical cliff establishes that sense while the horizontal spread of the more distant mountains establish a sense of expanse.

Personally, I probably could appreciate the image without the figure--for the landscape form--but may not really have stopped to look. The figure made me stop. (I think this figure is far more integrated and functional to this image as opposed to last week's, which seemed more gratuitous.)

I'd say less of Ansel Adams and more of William Henry Jackson
e.g., http://www.jeremiahariaz.com/ariaz/R_Landscape_statement_files/WHJackson20188020photographing20Yosemite.jpg
Sometimes emulation and homage are a good idea.

I don't see the presence of the little man transforming this photo. It becomes a solid landscape photo with the inclusion of a person on top of the cliff. There's a blatancy and obviousness here to the matter of scale. The drama is there but, for me, rather one-dimensional. I perceive it and don't care to stay. What else is here for me?

I would love to go to the place and see it for myself sometime. The photo doesn't make me want to do that. The photo memorializes it in a sort of sterile fashion, much the way Adams memorialized Yosemite. I've been to Yosemite many times and Adams's photos don't capture what I feel when I'm there and don't show me something, other than technique, moving about the place.

In time, I suspect if I had this hanging on my wall, the person, which is a novelty at first, would become annoying.

I saw this image in a magazine (UK publication) a few years back. Pulpit rock I think it was entitled. Brilliant shot.

Fred has said it for me, in regard to the effect of the solitary figure and the fact that it (him) eventually becomes disconcerting upon repeated viewing. I don't really know why, other than his precarious position (but that is too simple a reason I think), it just does that. The lighting of the scene and the near to far perspective is quite impressive and the timing well chosen, but I think the B&W could have been more convincing, especially the muddy looking water expanse in the forgreound below. I sense the small presence of light reflecting waves or ripples in the water, but am seeing only minimum detail, mainly a midtone grey expanse. Maybe this is how it was, but it sort of looks like an airbrushed effect. The photographer no doubt worked hard to get to this location and his view is very well taken and timed (for the differential lighting), which I respect, but ultimately the image does not hold me.

I like the image. The powerful sense of scale is enhanced by both the figure and the palatable sense of depth in the scene. The obvious mastery of the B&W tonal scale adds additional appeal as the weather and textural components gain a wonderful clarity.
The figure does add to the drama of scale, however, I think if the persons legs or arms could be seen better it would improve the effect and be even more eye-catching. Nice work, Maciek!

Very difficult lighting situation and one can see the photographer struggling to maintain contrast. For me the darker mountains to the left seem to be just a tad underexposed for my taste. However, what makes this a success is the tiny figure of the man on top of the cliff.

About time. Absolutely one of a handful of truly stunning images I have ever seen. I can's really see anything to complain about here at all.

The figure made me stop too. So I Googled this wonderful photographer and found that it's his signature. It doesn't matter to me if this figure is real or not. Maciek has found a way to get you to stop and really look. The photo has many merits on its own. But the figure is the show-stopper. Hats off to Maciek for creating his niche. Well done.

He does amazing work, very nice with one person in many picture which gives you a real feeling for the size of things. Do you think he has this one person who always climbs and walks for him into position? posted on an August 2008 photography blog - pixalo.com

I don't buy the notion that it doesn't matter whether or not it's real (and I refer to pictures in general, here, not Maciek's). You can still like it, if it's not real, but for different reasons and in a different way.

Why is there such a dustup when a famous historical photograph is alleged to have been altered after the fact or staged during the fact? Because if that's been done, it no longer represents the way things really happened (i.e., history), and that's important.

I have no idea whether the figure in this photograph was added after the fact or not. But I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that it does matter (sometimes).

Alas, martin h, you're off topic. In this forum we're asked to critique THE photo of the week pointing out what we feel are it's strengths and/or weaknesses. We're not to critique the photographer in general, we're not to offer opinion on whether or not digital manipulation adds or detracts from the art of photography, etc. etc.

Sadly, there is no place on Photo.net to have digital vs unaltered, full disclosure about digital alternation and other such conversations.

I really like this image. I feel that it's not the type of image that should be shot in b&w though. I'm left wondering what the actual colours were like at the time. Do you have a colour image too?

OK, so if the figure is real, it's a strength; if it's not real, it's a weakness. Now I'm on topic.

My sense is that the figure is added, in fact, looking closely at it, it reminds me of a deco style illustration--I like the posture but it doesn't really seem natural to me--I could be wrong, but I do think it has been created.

But regardless of whether the image lasts or not, that it ends up living for us, I don't think I have heard that it doesn't have impact due primarily to the figure being in it. It gives an emotional grab, one that could be a bit contrived or considered cliche even, but it gets our attention. Holding it matters in some cases and not in others. A good photo often needs to be evaluated based on its purpose, some are so in the absolute, but it doesn't have to be that way.

If I am right about the figure, I don't know that this image would have the same impact larger, I think much of an enlargement over this size would reveal the artificial nature of the figure. That is only important if the image has a purpose beyond this posting--but it does not feel 100% right either, but is effective on initial look.

Martin, you were very much on topic. Neither Alberta nor anyone else, except the moderators, run the show here. I'll followup on what you said by way of agreement. Of course it matters (to me) whether the figure was there or was cloned in later on. I'm certainly not against photo manipulation, collage, double exposures, and all kinds of stuff. But I am against the kind of deception that would for me ensue were I to find out this was a composite without full disclosure by the photographer. ManRay is a favorite photographer of mine and, Lord knows, he put together many a photo and his stuff is not always representative of what is "real." But, with ManRay I get creative authenticity and genuineness, not the attempt to fool people into thinking something happened that didn't.

Some composites work really well at creating a sort of unreal but plastic kind of moment, intentionally. I can really appreciate those. But some composites fail miserably for a variety of reasons (for instance, last week's POW, which was trying to seem like an organic scene but was anything but). To the credit of last week's photographer, he was very upfront about this.

I don't care that much whether this photo is a composite or not because I'm not invested in it emotionally. But, if I were, it would make a heck of a lot of difference. Again, not because I think compositing is bad or evil, but just because it makes a difference.

Alberta, I'm curious as to how the imaginary rules about what can and can't be the subject of discussion regarding the POW have arisen.
If someone feels that the matter of compositing (adding the person at the top of the cliff) is relevant, they should air their view. I'd like to see a flock of puffins up there.
This is a magnificent image of a beautiful fjord. The clouds add a bit too much complexity for my liking. They are a distraction.