"Picnic Over Waikiki"

well worth to see the large version of this upscale postcard !!!

Very clear the contrast between country side and cityscape. The couple enjoys the beautiful day watching towards the buildings and maybe wondering if "tomorrow" this open air that they visiting would be intact.
Is this part of the country side viable for the future...who knows, so enjoy it today if you can! This photo is going to be appreciated in the longrun, I think. An honest effort with no whistles and bells. Cheers!

It is what it is, and it is certainly way above the usual touristy shot:

[LINK]

I do love the reflections of the clouds in that glassy tropical ocean--and is that the University of Hawaii in the foreground below? It is a new perspective on an old and familiar landmark. I do not think that it makes any claim to being "art," but a certain technical proficiency is manifested here.

I rather like it for what it is.

--Lannie

 

All those who are offering the critique ought to do so having seen the larger version. It is so definitely worth it. I would assume that the Hobbits chose this as the Photo of the week having seen the larger version.
There is something reminiscent of many a 19th century paintings about the expanse. I am a particular fan of ladies in fields or beaches and when I looked at this, I felt a similar sense of serenity. The viewer feels submerged in what the couple are seeing. This human context to the view makes the image far stronger than the view itself.

Thanks Lannie for the link of the bigger photo. I like the camera point that creates a good barrier of the cityscape and what looks a countryside. The division of the two is with a diagonal line of trees and weeds that is very appropriate for the composition as if 'marking"the differences.

The cityscape is impressive looking at the big version The couple in the composition adds the human point.
It is a nice technical landscape/composition without too much pretension, to be an art work.

Mark is a photographer who goes to great (and I think he says in his bio, almost crazy) lengths to capture what nature or man's creations offer him. He says "No matter what I know or what I possess, none of my precious images could ever materialize if not for being there". That is a humbling thought that seems evident, yet underlies the considerable challenge and effort he expends in being there at the right moment. The present image is not typical of his portfolio, but it does witness his apparent desire to seek out an original moment and viewpoint, often at considerable effort.

I think it's lovely. The colors are soft and easy, and make me feel warm, as a photo of Hawaii should. The composition is simple, but there are many interesting points for the eye to explore. It's like going on a mini vacation! A good, classic shot. Congrats!

I wanted to add that the seascape water behind the city are looking so clear that if not the cloud reflection it is nearly a part of the sky! I looked at Mark's other works and enjoyed his landscapes work.

Overall, I, basically, do like the open feeling of this image. The people do help what could otherwise have been a more predictable view and as Mark said in comments above, adds some human interest to the shot. I do like the dynamics of the line of brush that separates the people from the cityscape. This moves our eye across the image to the people and the inferred line of their stare sends us back over the city view-a nice device.

I honestly had to check myself when I first saw the image though, thinking we were again getting a glimpse of some HDR--but certainly not to an extreme. In particular, I think the contrast of the light buildings against their darker surrounding gave that sense of exaggerated local contrast, but I quickly dismissed that as more organic. The other things that hit me in this way was just how "thick" the sky felt over on the left side of the image, like a cap sitting on the city in that area. Reading Mark's comment on his technique explains what I am seeing and I think the procedure just ended up being a bit too heavy and eliminate to much of the "atmospheric" depth that I think would better serve the image overall. There are other techniques that can bring things down( and provide containment) a bit, that don't end up thickening the atmosphere as much, that could be explored.

Overall, it is a nicely executed image with a bit more interest due to the inclusion of the people.

Lannie, your remark cracked me up! No HDR! Praise the Lord! I personally am not into that process to any degree, but that's just me.
Anyway, I like this image alot. And kudos to you, Mark, for taking this. There's something so peaceful, so tranquil, about it. It has a touch of 2012 Andrew Wyeth with a camera to it. The lighting is beautiful and the "staging" is just right; this couple is witnessing a perfect setting before they have to run home and tend to their kids. I feel like I'm involved in this "painting."
One very nit-picky thing... I wish the horizon (water-line) was a bit higher so it didn't touch the mountain peak towards the left side and there was a bit more water exposed. I imagine that would have required shooting from a slighter higher angle. Otherwise, great shot!

I like this picture. The landscape is impressive in the low light and the figures add a nice scale and forced perspective to the scene. Even with the inclusion of the so-done Kodak red sweater does not feel out of place. There is nothing really new here but there is a nice tranquil feeling to the image that is technically carried off quite well and has a thoughtful, balanced construction. Nice work, Mark!

"There is nothing really new here..."

Precisely.

"There is nothing really new here..."

Precisely.

It's unfair to critique this image in the light of last week's PotW - for a large part because this image deserves to stand on its own, rather than being 'benchmarked' against the more controversial choice of last week. For a smaller part, because the two images have such a different approach that there is no comparison.
The thing is, though.... it made me immediately think "a bit a safe choice after the heated debate last week". And seeing the large version (thanks Lannie for linking to it), I realise just how wrong that thought was. Even if at a first glance this is relatively conventional photo, using techniques and a style that might seem a bit middle of the road, there is quite a bit more to it.

It is solidly well-done, craftsmanship at work. There is, for me, no point discussing the technique here - all just really, really fine. What impresses me more is the seeming ease with which this photo shows a a contrast between the people out in nature, and the city, without rubbing it in. It is clashing in a way, and showing a distance between the two - but in a calm, almost silent way. It's not in your face, without being bland; it's a relaxing photo, without being soft in what it is telling me. It's a photo that gives me a better feeling as I watch it longer. That's a good sign in my book.

Mark!! Great to see your work on the POW. While we are constantly reminded that this is not an award, I can't think of any photographer's work that deserves to be discussed more than yours. I remember this image from it's posting and was surprised to find that I didn't offer a comment. All of the comments above are very appropriate and I have nothing more to add technically. I would note that this image is so very typical of your work where the viewer is made a participant in the scene, the very essence of being there. IMO the hallmark of a perfect landscape... Mike

Personally, I may have waited a couple of hours to let the sun fall a bit in order to get better colors. I know that is just a personal preference, but other than that, great photo and great detail. I really like the light bouncing off of the mountain as well.

And Landrum, easy on the HDR photographs! Just because you don't like that style of processing does not mean they are bad photos, or as you say, not "actual PHOTOGRAPHS" altogether. Sheesh. I'm glad I missed the discussion last week if that is what people's opinions are.

Actually, Ryan, I do like HDR in many circumstances, and my remarks were in fact a reaction to last week's thread as much as to the overuse of HDR.

Even Gerry Gentry, the winner of last week's PoW, had some fine photos posted using HDR, but here is another take on last week's subject without HDR:

[GERRY'S MOM WITHOUT HDR]

--Lannie

Thanks everyone for the responses and feedback! While I don't consider this to be a fine art photo (more a documentary landscape), I do feel there is an art to finding these scenes at the right time, composing them (people LR, Diamond Head UL), capturing them with accurate exposure, dof and sharpness, and rendering them for viewing. I've seen guitarists playing what looks like a simple jig (because they make it look simple) and thinking I can do that. But I soon realize even a simple jig is going to require a substantial amount of practice, especially if I want it to look just as effortless. Even photography that is not considered "art", yet manages to communicate successfully, requires a lot of practice.
I'm stoked to be selected for PofW, especially since I have been posting here for years without ever having been honored. I've been absent from PNet for awhile, but after allowing my paid membership to lapse, I decided I miss this place, so I renewed just in time to be honored in this way. Glad I'm still here! Thanks Mike Mancil for getting my attention! I appreciate it.
Back to the pic: responding to one observation, we had to leave before last light because this is a park that closes at 7pm, and the sunset was just after 7, otherwise I would have stayed till the bitter end.
Here is another from that same day, I think better. The photo was not staged, so the fact that two different people showed up with red shirts was just dumb luck. Here's the link:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16635258&size=lg
Thanks again to everyone who has taken the time to express their thoughts and offer their candid observations!!

COMPELLING

 

 

That is very eloquently stated, Mark, since that is what a lot of us aspire to do, even if we do not seem to find such compellingly beautiful scenes as often as you do--or present them as dramatically. The other version that you just posted is very dramatic and compellingly beautiful as well. In fact, I am not sure which I like better.

Both shots are (pardon the allusion) analogous to happening upon a naked woman: one cannot help but look. That is obviously the case on the part of the couples who are viewing the scene in each photograph as well--they cannot help but look. There is thus something rather compelling in the view, and in many other views that you capture.

Capturing and rendering a photo that is impossible not to look at is truly an art in itself. Congratulations on some fine work.

--Lannie

Hi Mark, I'm not a wordsmith like some of the others so I can only say what I feel in simple terms. I love this landscape, it makes me feel warm inside. I had a holiday here in about 1985, it was the best holiday I've ever had, and your photograph brings back happy memories of that time. I've looked throught your stunning portfolio and you deserve to get the POTW. I don't spend hours analyzing a picture, if I like it, I just like it.

Mark,
Your link to the other photograph is an interesting one to me. Personally, I think it is less interesting and less sophisticated than the one here as the POW. It is a bit more expected and maybe moves more towards a commercial stock photograph and away from what I see as the more elegant POW.

That said, there are some nice technical aspects that jump out of the linked image, a nice crispness and clarity, that might be a bit lacking in the POW image, but that is a minor adjustment that could be handled easily. (the upper left corner in each seems a bit over cooked to me, but so far doesn't seem to bother others!)

I am still trying to figure out if this is an HDR image. If so, it's terrible. Otherwise, it's great.

(Just kidding, Mark. I like this photo, as well as much of the stunning work in your portfolio.)

Mark, I like your photograph -- it's one that I would attempt to capture. It's a very pleasing landscape view of the city, Diamond Head, the sky and ocean, and two people on a hillside taking all of this in. As is almost always the case, the presence of the two people adds an extra and important dimension to this view. I can enjoy looking at the photo just as much as the two people here, although I have only the sense of sight and can't experience the other aspects that come with physically being at the spot. But you've captured all that you can at this location at this time, and you've chosen a time with great sky, good light, and you've framed an excellent composition.

I agree with your statement that you don't consider this to be a fine art photo but rather more a documentary landscape. Personally, I place a lot of value in these photographs as representing parts of our world that are exceptionally beautiful and that have a strong attraction for many people. While the description as a "postcard" or "pretty picture" is sometimes meant to place the photograph is a category at a lower level than a photograph that might be described as "compelling," "thought provoking," "highlighting an important aspect of life," "dramatic," "unique," or some other aspect that is often used to identify "fine art" (or simply "art") (an opinion, BTW, with which I somewhat agree), I also agree with you that there is an art and/or skill to finding these scenes at the right time, composing them in the best possible way, capturing them with accurate exposure and depth of field, and processing them for viewing (especially in the sense of overcoming the limitations of a camera to record a range of light in a single exposure). I think the description of "pretty picture" often shortchanges these aesthetic and technical aspects of making an excellent landscape photograph.

I've long thought that landscape photographs are especially open to being described as "documentary" or "pretty picture" relative to portraits or photographs that involve people. Thought-provoking photographs of the human condition just come more naturally with humans rather than the landscape in which we live, IMO. That only seems natural. While I greatly admire photographs that tell a more compelling story, that doesn't diminish my appreciation for landscapes that are simply beautiful aspects of our world, a world that we inhabit for a very short time.

I hope that my personal thoughts will strike either a positive or negative accord in some people who will respond with a comment, because this is an aspect of posting of photographs on photo.net that has intrigued me for many years, and I think your POW is a great example.

 

Mark, I like your photograph -- it's one that I would attempt to capture. It's a very pleasing landscape view of the city, Diamond Head, the sky and ocean, and two people on a hillside taking all of this in. As is almost always the case, the presence of the two people adds an extra and important dimension to this view. I can enjoy looking at the photo just as much as the two people here, although I have only the sense of sight and can't experience the other aspects that come with physically being at the spot. But you've captured all that you can at this location at this time, and you've chosen a time with great sky, good light, and you've framed an excellent composition.

I agree with your statement that you don't consider this to be a fine art photo but rather more a documentary landscape. Personally, I place a lot of value in these photographs as representing parts of our world that are exceptionally beautiful and that have a strong attraction for many people. While the description as a "postcard" or "pretty picture" is sometimes meant to place the photograph is a category at a lower level than a photograph that might be described as "compelling," "thought provoking," "highlighting an important aspect of life," "dramatic," "unique," or some other aspect that is often used to identify "fine art" (or simply "art") (an opinion, BTW, with which I somewhat agree), I also agree with you that there is an art and/or skill to finding these scenes at the right time, composing them in the best possible way, capturing them with accurate exposure and depth of field, and processing them for viewing (especially in the sense of overcoming the limitations of a camera to record a range of light in a single exposure). I think the description of "pretty picture" often shortchanges these aesthetic and technical aspects of making an excellent landscape photograph.

I've long thought that landscape photographs are especially open to being described as "documentary" or "pretty picture" relative to portraits or photographs that involve people. Thought-provoking photographs of the human condition just come more naturally with humans rather than the landscape in which we live, IMO. That only seems natural. While I greatly admire photographs that tell a more compelling story, that doesn't diminish my appreciation for landscapes that are simply beautiful aspects of our world, a world that we inhabit for a very short time.

I hope that my personal thoughts will strike either a positive or negative accord in some people who will respond with a comment, because this is an aspect of posting of photographs on photo.net that has intrigued me for many years, and I think your POW is a great example.

 

The human touch in the photo and the far expanse of sky and sea are quite attractive. Subjectively, I dislike most photos of multiple city skyscrapers and dense neighbourhoods, although I find quite appealing specific details of them that either express human engineering, architectural or photographic composition imaginations, or have been done in a graphic and /or chiaroscuro and enigmtic manner (often highly suitable in reduced colour range or monochrome photography), centering on specific forms that make us imagine what they do not appear to be.

I just find cities too much similar and "déjà vu." It is interesting to perceive that the photo, because of the high point and angle that Mark has photographed from, shows a couple that are very likely viewing only a few small sections or far off limits of the city, but especially the sea, sky and interesting cliff in the background. In that sense, I feel they are somewhat disconnected from what we see. If not disconcerting (nothing really is, when we are enamored of the visual), then it works against my complete appreciation of the image (although I have mentioned what I think are some very positive other aspects in a previous post). I have a feeling that what John sees in the sky and sea in the upper parts of the image may be right, but this may be caused by a lack of definition that may be equipment related (shutter speed, tripod use?) rather than post exposure. Just a guess.