dougityb 0 Posted March 31, 2003 Please tell me you intended to compress this scene so much. If so, you are a genius! What an abstraction! Very clever, and sure to be grossly underappreciated. You've taken what must be several miles of geography and converted it to a flat wall of peeling paint. Link to comment
mg 0 Posted March 31, 2003 This is just great, Phil. Brilliant photography, as original as it gets in the nadscape category. If there is any other shot from that series with a bit more by the sides, I'd be interested to see it... Anyway, congrats. 1st rate picture. Regards. Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted March 31, 2003 this is truly one of the most suberb photos in your gallery i have seen so far. the colours are so natural, brillant, amazing contrast. i am positive you have looked at paintings, showing sceneries as exposed in this photograph. changing to bronica looks like a steps ahead - for those who can handle it. anyway. so far- best of ... and probably another pow, rgs. klaus Link to comment
kai_compagner 0 Posted April 1, 2003 Wow. There's almost nothing that gives away the size of the drop except the river in the bottom. When you see that, you suddenly realize the scale of the scene. I would love to see this without the compression artifacts already remarked upon. Link to comment
andrzej_bargiela 0 Posted April 1, 2003 Excellent shot. The rough background seems much more appropriate in this scene than the blurred one. Good creative thinking. Link to comment
trevor_hopkins 0 Posted April 1, 2003 Yes, a splendid result here, Phil. I could have sworn you'd used a longer lens, but it's obviously just a matter of astute framing. The refined, delicate earth colours are a delight. It's perhaps a shame that some whose palates have been ruined by a constant diet of hot spicy dishes may not enjoy the savoury merits of this fine landscape. Good work. Link to comment
jean_schweitzer 0 Posted April 2, 2003 Stunning scene Phil, I can only regret part of the river is in the shade. I still cant undertsnad this can be real...Jean Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted April 2, 2003 read all the comments twice to try to understand this picture... I love it too, but can't see how it is NOT retouched. Am I mising something or is it alterated? (darkroom or photoshop...). Link to comment
philmorris 0 Posted April 2, 2003 I have to say thanks again for all your nice comments. To deal with a few of your questions, well yes Doug, what you see is what I intended compositionally through the viewfinder. Im intrigued by L-shape compositions and also the flat back. Ive attempted to create this kind of visual before but never on such a grand scale; usually with tree close ups and the like. There are no other shots of this view point, Marc. First because I tend to make one exposure only and say to myself youve got to get it right because therell be no going back. A bit harsh on myself and it has proved costly, but it makes you concentrate hard and thats part of the pleasure for me. If I can figure a valid reason for permitting myself to bracket then I might, but as I rule I dont bracket. Second reason is that if you can imagine this, Im stood on a rocky shelf. The sort of shelf you couldnt swing a cat around. To get to it I had to climb up and then descend down to the flat. Setting up the tripod was dodgy. Ive just got the one 80mm fixed focal length for my 6*6 at the moment (more planned) and considering moving around on this shelf was seriously restricted I couldnt compose another picture. I did however use 35mm gear and a tele to frame more abstracts from the valley bed, incorporating the swirl of the river in the lower half and the texture and colour above that. Ill have to wait and see how that turns out. It is a pity about the serious compression here. The picture is scanned at 1600dpi on an Epson Perfection 2450 producing a 106Mb TIFF file gradually reduced to a dpi producing a 800 pixel wide image. The picture you see here is a little over the max file size permitted, yet it was saved to JPEG using PS grade 2 (low quality). My own version at max quality contains rich detail. This picture contains no tricks. No use of the magic wand. Colour enhancement is not my bag. Its straight out of the camera into the scanner, cropped a little around the edges, levels checked and so on, some USM and essentially adjusted to match the trannie as best as I can. To show you what I mean, heres a little version I scanned a few moments ago with the film edge attached and with no adjustments of any kind whatsoever. Link to comment
briany 0 Posted April 3, 2003 okay, Marc, you've got me stumped. What are nadscapes? I've seen some nudes that looked like nadscapes... Link to comment
mitch_codner1 0 Posted April 3, 2003 I imagine liking this is like enjoying a fine glass of wine, but at the present time, the nuances escape me. I guess recognition of one's shortcomings is the first step to improvement. Are there other examples of this type or tutorials to gain this perspective? I've taken a copy to meditate on, ooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Link to comment
dougityb 0 Posted April 3, 2003 The trick in this image is not so much the compositin, but the lighting. The light on yonder hills is flat, probably axis lighting, yielding no shadows at all, just creating a wall of color. That's what amazes me so much. I would also like to add that I think you've got to be partly nuts for shooting just one frame. Labs ruin film, too, as well as handling mishaps, etc. And I would be sweating bullets if I had to send my one and only original transparency out for printing, or if it was required by a commercial printer for publication. I think of bracketing as not only a means to assure a good exposure, but also to assure a good original survives the many steps towards a final print, or presentation. Whew! That scares me more than the cliffhanging peril you were in to get this image. Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted April 4, 2003 Ok, so this is a 'real' picture! I still don't manage to understand the background, but that's my problem, not yours... Anybody has references to other pictures of this landscape to try to better understand what things look like there? Link to comment
philmorris 0 Posted April 4, 2003 I know the very person! And Doug, I know it makes sense. I'll have to loosen up some. Link to comment
root 0 Posted April 6, 2003 to have to upload as a level '2' jpeg is a crime. I think if you chose to replace this scan with one twice this size, most of us would thank you for it. Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted May 16, 2003 I discussed this image a bit in my critique on Riggindale #2. Rather than regurgitate what I said about it, suffice it to say for now I think its wonderful work. Link to comment
g1 0 Posted May 18, 2003 Phil this is a beauty!! The colours are so earthy rich and subtle, and with all the detail in the rock, unusual composition, and the distance of the ground below. I don't mind telling you I wouldn't hesitate to hang this one on my wall. Fabulous shot! Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted June 27, 2003 A jewel! it tooks me sometime to figure out the ravine and imagine the sky above. I finished my journey into your folder with that picture (which is the best IMO) but I could see some marvelous others and discover how Great Britain is Great. Thanks Phil PS: This one reminds me another picture, in a different style though, but a similar compression => no sky Link to comment
leighperry 0 Posted August 14, 2003 Phil, this has to be one of the very best landscapes on photo.net. Wonderful work, and just what I needed to inspire my visit to the UK next week. Superb. Link to comment
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now