Norway

Marc, I am the someone who suggested cropping the image, but if you read what I posted the suggested crop is not about improving

the image it is about how the figure relates to the image. That is very important when using the design element of scale or proportion,

it needs to mean something in context. The context here is we lack clear vision on the image. As it is currently presented the image is

generally a landscape, the figure is a distraction in the landscape, my suggestion is that with the image cropped, the figure developed

dominance of the scene, and demonstrates scale and proportion.

Beautiful shot...reminds me of Ansel Adams especially with the one lonely figure on top.

Just to give another view, realizing we all have our own way of seeing, I don't know that I can agree at all with Richard's analysis. I think that the small figure in the large landscape is very effective and cutting too much would hurt the image. But, I don't think a square crop, some off the top but leaving some of the water below, would hurt the image and what I see as its current effect--but I also don't think it improves it. As a matter of preference, had this been my image, I would have cut off some of the water and cliff at the bottom of this image (certainly keeping some of the open water at the bottom to intimate that it is a large body of water and not a stream). I am not keen on these really long images (in fact, I rarely find the 35mm vertical format that attractive, just too long for most subjects) and I don't really see that the extra water or cliff down at the bottom informs the image in any meaningful way, the point is made with less (probably not the square, however, but maybe near the lower notch and line in the cliff face) and would be more attractive IMO.

As to the water itself, I think it is nicely rendered and I think it is very indicative of a light wind. Not smooth and glassy--more like a luster surface--but not real rough. You can see the riffles in the water and I don't see it as being muddy in any sense of the word.

I also think that, given the nature of the light, the tonality overall has probably been handled as well as it could have been. I don't think it sings like it might in other light, but I certainly have had more than a few negatives of my own that were taken in similar light that ended up being very difficult to balance and get those wonderful tonal relationships we all covet. My guess is that some atmospheric conditions have been eliminated and thus the lack of b/w tones we might be used to in other types of images. That isn't an excuse, it is a weakness here as it is in any image that falls short in some way or other from a technical standpoint, but all images have their weaknesses and it is a matter of evaluating the overall result against the shortcomings--which can be totally irrelevant and even be enhancements to the overall image in some cases.

Actually, I can see three different photos depending on how you crop the image.  I agree that the way it is cropped, the person causes a distraction.

Without delving through the discussions, I just want to state my critique. I've seen several photos of Pulpit Rock, and this one is my favorite. I've never been there, but it seems like you have to get there early if you want to catch it without crowds of people. The composition is well split up into thirds, the sky, the far mountains and the water, and the cliff on the right. The black and white tones are amazing, and seem to give it an old-timey look. The person on the top is a nice addition. Although distant, and a complete silhouette you can still make out their pose. They seems to be calm and reflecting on the view. Considering how close they are to the edge, I think it's great. It is something I can relate to because, I have the same reaction near the edges of such places.
Best regards,
Charlie

I too believe that the tonal range is too compressed and that cropping, both top and bottom, adds strength to the image. I think that overall the image leaves me with the impression that it is too dark but that it could be improved by lightening up the center left portion where the headland comes out.

Good that they could stand on their legs to achieve this composition in such topography.

John, I agree. Indeed the water is not smooth and glassy as I indicated earlier.

I still however see the person on top of the rock as introducing a dimension in the story line, that I at least find somewhat out-dated and déjà-vu. It reminds me of a re-play of German 19th century romantic paintings of "man in nature". I see this photo, and the scene itself, as having visual material that could go beyond what already has been done numerous times before.

The discussion and debate is whether the human figure is real or manipulated. Some have felt that the human figure transforms the image, adds impact and highlights the grandeur of nature etc. Some have referred to the nondisclosure of possible manipulation as deception.
I have earlier shared the thought that this image aroused in my mind. I would believe that the photographer’s intention was to essay this thought, highlight nature’s grandeur or show how it trumps man. Critiquing the photographer gives three possibilities. a) The man was there. Credit the photographer for being lucky. b) He arranged for the man to be there or waited for such a situation. Credit him for his colossal effort to coordinate or his patience. c) The photographer manipulated the image. Credit him for his imaginativeness.
I googled for ‘Prekestolen’ and found this image. It does not seem unusual to find people at this site. I think the photographer has used his skill to compose and crop the image to create this impact. Whatever the case, his work is as magnificent as the site.

The discussion and debate is whether the human figure is real or manipulated. Some have felt that the human figure transforms the image, adds impact and highlights the grandeur of nature etc. Some have referred to the nondisclosure of possible manipulation as deception.
I have earlier shared the thought that this image provoked in my mind. I would believe that the photographer’s intention was to essay this thought, highlight nature’s grandeur or show how it trumps man. Critiquing the photographer gives three possibilities. a) The man was there. Credit the photographer for being lucky. b) He arranged for the man to be there or waited for such a situation. Credit him for his colossal effort to coordinate or his patience. c) The photographer manipulated the image. Credit him for his imaginativeness.
I googled for ‘Prekestolen’ and found this image. It does not seem unusual to find people at this site. I think the photographer has used his skill to compose and crop the image to create this impact. Whatever the case, his work is as magnificent as the site.

Stunning! Just stunning =)

Really breathtaking photo.The DOF is excellent and the polarizer did a great jop giving a dramatic, intense contrast.The angle helps to an impressive  perspective.Fine work Maciek.Regards 

There are many more possibilities. Here's 3 alternatives:

a) The man was there. The photographer might have waited for the man to leave so as not to create what many consider a cliché of a statement about the scale of man against nature. b) He arranged for the man to be there or waited for such a situation. Credit him for his effort and patience and criticize the photo which is the result of that effort and patience and happens to be what we're looking at. c) The photographer manipulated the image. Encourage the photographer to be more creative and more authentic in his manipulations.

Critique is usually unlimited and there would be much more that could be said about the man's presence, no matter how he got into the photo, and the photo as a whole.

The most interesting information we receive from this image, shot far away from the dwellings of most of the viewers on Photonet, is that there is no protection on the rock preventing people from falling down. Norwegians are very special people.

Living with nature and its dangers has been in man's experience since he came to being. Comfortable city life is comparatively recent. What is it that makes our indigenous people so fearless about walking on girders 80 srtories up on the whispy skeletons of new skyscrapers? What makes the mountain climber tackle shear rock faces, grasping to stone that he can only estimate the mechanical consistency of? Some individuals are fearless and the impact of this photo can relate to those who are less secure in such situations.

Last week, one of two alpinists who had tekked a day on foot (snowshoes) in unconnected territory and under winter conditions, up the Malbaie river in our high country to a place of precipitous gorges (800 metres, quite a bit higher than the Norway rock pictured) and who then spent the better part of the morning thereafter grappling upwards on an ice covered rockface, suddenly lost his hold and plunged to his death. It took his partner a day to rescue his suspended body, bring it down and then trek about ten hours south to the nearest sign of life for help.

The Iroquois nation and other indigenous people whio work high steel, and the alpinist who fell last week from a rockface in the mountains of south-central Quebec, are perhaps examples of very special people, operating with minimum or no safeguards. I would also say that those of us who drive on serpentine secondary roads, devoid of barriers against sheer drops, as in southern France, in British Columbia high logging forests, or many other similar places on earth may not be very special, but each time I have been in those situations I have certainly felt a certain dose of adrenalin. I am sure that some have a much lesser reaction than mine. My wife would have little qualms about being in the position of the person in the Norway photo, short of the presence of variable strong winds, but it is not something I personally would feel comfortable with. Apart from the Iroquois skyscraper bolters and welders, a certain lesser temerity is present in all men.

The second photo showing a large number of people does not compare to the original image by M. Duczynski. In the color photo the people and the rock face of the cliff are definitely the subject, while the distant valley is missing. For me, the three dimensional depth of the valley going off into the distance is more what draws me to the picture than the height of the cliff, anyway.

This is funny and completely inaccurate. Ask the residents of NY's Harlem and San Francisco's Bayview or most of Oakland just how comfortable and lacking in danger their neighborhoods are.

I like the photo that Jatinder brought to our attention better. The sky is less distracting, less heavy. I would have reduced the contrast in the sky of Maciek's image. The image seems top heavy. The focus should be the landscape.

Perhaps, to some. I would think of it in a less black-and-white perspective than you. A recent study and book by a noted Harvard scholar has given good substance to the fact that there is considerably less violence in our times compared to the pre 1950 period, to recent centuries, and certainly much less so than in Medieval times and earlier (with a few exceptions). My point was less related to specific examples of violence and social injustices that you quote and more to the evolution of the safety of man, on average, as he moved from the perils of fending for himself in nature and sought more collective safety in organised city life. This all started in the first cities of the Middle East, in about 4000 BC, and has its modern evolution in our cities, suburbs or (or, in some regions, unfortunately) gated communities.

Does that affect our ability to face dangers such as physical heights? Perhaps not. It probably varies from person to person as well. I do think that because many of us may not be living in close proximity to nature, or may not have the experience of an active engagement via the armed forces, we may be more concerned about safety things such as the presence of barriers on roads, cliffs or precipices as that shown in the photo.

If the photo creates a feeling of perspective and scale, which it effectively does, and creates for some viewers, a challenge to their perception of heights or personal safety, perhaps it has well succeeded. This is distinct from its effectiveness and detractions as a black and white photograph, which is another matter.

In that sense, I agree with John, not about the color image he likes (which for me is a little bland), but about his perception that the heavy sky detracts from the supposed main subject. It is a fine image visualisation by Maciek, but I hope that he might have another look at it and how the sky could be made less imposing (and the rest of the image made more main subject) and how the water could be made more natural in appearance, in other post treatments of the original image.

Funny, I was thinking that your perspective was black and white. It is you who suggested that the city is safer and more comfortable than areas such as are shown in the photo. That seemed a simple black and white dichotomy to me. Just goes to show how differently we can think.

I'm in grey territory ! Thanks Arthur for your reflections on contemporary people going for the dangers of nature. Beautifully written.
If I mentioned the railings that are not there, it was only an observation that in most cases, throughout the world, a tourist spot like the one pictured would in most cases "protect" tourists from falling down (insurance, nanny state and the like - no, Josh, I'm not trying to start a political discussion !). But no railings here !

Images like this weeks POW are always there for bringing us indices of local culture and human conditions. As mentioned, Norwegians are special.

Anders, I agree on both your points, notwithstanding my observations of other like situations in other places. My memories of a short visit to Finland in the 80s haven't in any way dulled with time, and I hope to have the chance to visit the equally interesting (and more mountainous) Norway and Sweden, also for the spirit of the Scandinavian peoples, the initial European inhabitants of my own continent.

Arthur, I'm having a hard time seeing your issue with the water. Can you give us some help? It looks natural to me. It looks like a gust is

occurring. In a channel such as this, that's normal.

John, I see the water as being a bit too middle grey and lifeless in its appearance, but I admit that this could be related in part to the reflection of a dark cloud cover. The slight waves or ripples are barely visible, but do indicate that the fairly uniform light reflection is not due to a slow shutter speed. Another thing that affected my appreciation is the halo one can see, upon close inspection, that is over the water area and follows the edge of the cliff. What causes that I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with PS manipulations. Whatever, I didn't think the water as being very natural looking. Because it covers a large area of the image I found the water effect important. I will say, though, that my admiration of some of other qualities of the image grow with viewing.