Rainforest Canyon

I agree, it is all very pretty but not something that would keep me awake.
It opens however the question on how to shoot moving water.
After the first "Oh!" reaction, when I was almost a child, to what happens with water when using long exposures, I have stopped being enchanted. It is the same amazement as seeing a film being shown backwards: surprise, fun, but there it stops !

Since then, always find the blur of running water unesthetic, not that much because it is not like reality (who cares!) but because reality is so much more exciting to the eye. Real moving water is a festival of almost black shades and shining white, of dark blue, green and all shades of grey. Blurring it by long shutter speeds and all ends up in a grey porridge of bore. Marc has here, as Drew remarks, found somewhat of a compromise, but in my eyes still too artificial and unesthetic.
If I'm not alone with such a critic, why are there not more photographers to make the effort of compensating by bracketing the shutter speed, creating double exposures to show water in all its beauty and the still solve the problem of shadows and highlights.

Anders, I appreciate the comment and have seen numerous great examples of what you're talking about with bracketing exposures. Usually, when a photographer chooses a very smooth effect it's because it's being used as an element of simplification. The water here on the canyon floor was merely a complimentary element to lead the eye. The canyon itself and side falls were my primary objective. By introducing a lot of texture into the water below (which I tried extensively) I felt it was too busy and not as effective artistically. Just IMO of course.

Marc,

Leprechauns would have been nice!

I probably made a mistake in making my post above as I had originally promised myself that I wouldn't. Having been a landscape based photographer for over 30 years, I probably am much harder on the genre than most but I also know this sort of imagery is very popular on these sites and with the public in general.

I even went through a phase early on where I thought these were the types of images (as well as nature and wildlife) I might want to create and poured through the books of your predecessors in this niche of landscape photography--and have several friends and acquaintances that still do this type of work who also make a great living from it. It is just a type of photography that I didn't find a connection with--after an initial infatuation with it--except that it is, in fact, pretty. They just seems to blend with the others and fade for me once I have seen them while I can still feel the wonderful experiences I have had in the landscape that weren't photographed.

As I read what you wrote above in response to Alex and me, I basically don't disagree with anything you say here, in fact I think it describes your niche of the genre very well. But I know that one can find ways to make their work in the landscape more personal and original as I see it all the time, but agree it is more rare in this particular niche of the genre--and generally it wont get the same sort of response from the masses.

But seriously, more power to you--and to my friends--that do this sort of work and love doing it, we should all be doing what we love.

Water is a series of crystal sparkling events not a pudding.  Time passing can be sensed when one looks at water. Here time is not captured and nothing is to remember so this picture lacks depth.

Dear Mark, having seen many of your land scapes images here and with my full respect that you make them and not capturing them, you alsl well laid down your person thoughts and ideas of your work and specially where this amazing POW is conerned.
I am very attached to this well constracted photograph for both its remarkable lighting and its well engineered composition.

Marc, thanks for your explanation on why you choose the blurred water. You see it as a necessary way into the scene that should not disturb the vision of what is meant to be the real interest of the scene. We had a similar argumentation in an earlier POW, that of Defying Time of Marianna Safronova (Colosseum) where a fairly uninteresting pathway seemly played the same role.
I understand fully the compositional function of such elements in photos, but in my eyes if that element is rendered into an uninteresting surface of uniformed colors and contrast the whole scene suffers. I would personally rather see the real thing and deal, as viewer, with the visual noise (as you describe it) of the forefront.
In this picture, as far as I see it, there is no danger of missing the points and not seeing the green and the high rocks. The viewer is immediately confronted to the main elements and do not need much leading by strong forefront perspectives. The scene could be totally flat and we were still be admiring the scene, without drifting down the stream.

Hi Mark...This is absolutely beautiful. Your work is truly phenomenal. IMHO...I've seen a lot of landscape photographers' work and you're the best. Those that claim it's just a "pretty picture" have no clue what it takes to produce an image such as this. Not only does one need to the study the area, the light, weather patterns, etc., but also have the determination to get out there time and time again for the perfect shot. When I see your work, I just want to push myself harder. Thanks for the inspiration!

"How to shoot moving water."

Before the web and photo sharing sites, I think people certainly paid attention to their technique for shooting water but I do think we are much more sensitive now that we see so many images, especially those using the soft, silky water effect that is so prevalent--dare I say over used--these days.

Before digital and the ability to crank up an iso to 3200 at will, sometimes the decision would be made for you--especially with larger format cameras and slow films when in dark places like Oneonta Gorge here. Shooting with LF in such places, many times you were left with choices between 1 minute or a 3 minute exposure to get the depth of field you might need for any given shot. The choice wasn't going to yield a lot of difference in the water moving so quickly and so you evaluated the image you created to see if it worked or not when it was developed. Then you either filed it away or printed it, end of story.

And maybe bottom line that is how I evaluate any water in a scene. Here, I didn't see the gratuitous treatment of the water or even a sense of the artificial. I think there is still a lot of detail in the water--variations in tone and distinct patterns. One might even find the washboard effect of the water distracting, but knowing this gorge and how shallow and rocky the water is in many places (can run nearly dry at times), I think it is certainly in the ballpark of what the eye would see. Our eyes don't see water frozen when it is moving fast and so I think there is a "natural" range--not that that is even a criteria. If it works with the image, then that is the bottom line.

I think there is a lot to talk about here. But I agree entirely with you Marc that you have to be serious about landscape photography to see it. This is what I see:
1) Location: We are not shown a new place here, but you do show us a place in conditions that we have not seen before. These conditions are not enormously special but it did take foresight to identify this combination of conditions and place.
2) Composition: I feel like the image could really use something to draw the attention. To me, that's what the image lacks. My eye does not really know where to look here. I suppose we are pointed into the center of the frame but the wet logs we find there just don't stand out enough for me.
3) Decisive moment: The key is that the moment matches the overall emotional/expressive objective.
4) Artistry: Because the point of the image was to give us the feeling we get in these sorts of places under these conditions, it is an artistic success. But only to those that CAN or DO feel for these kinds of places. Some people are not capable of connecting to a landscape in this kind of way. That may be why these sorts of images leave them flat. What is just a pretty picture to someone with limited connection to the place is deeply moving and meaningul to someone else. Just because it's pretty does not mean it isn't art.
5) Effort: Not great here because the place is easily accessible. The effort is in the waiting for the right moment.
6) Technique: As always, exceptional. But a bigger sensor/film surface would add here.
Overall, this image is one in a portfolio that is amongst the greatest in the world in this style. The entire portfolio is modern, contains new developments in photogrpahic style and has represented for many something to aspire to.
To say this is just another pretty picture is to deeply misunderstand what it takes to do this. This is nothing like a postcard picture and the portfolio has not been done before. This work is objectively superior and special. JJ

No other words but,.....Absolutely STUNNING!!!!

I am thoroughly enjoying looking at your beautiful portfolio. As an amateur, I can only hope to achieve anything remotely similar to your work. Thanks for sharing so I can live vicariously thru your images. I am convinced by your work that I must plan a trip to Oregon soon. Your patience and dedication  to your craft definitely shows thru these images and your narrative regarding the images is very informative. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

very nice shoot, well done

Jeremy, when you write, referring to the portfolio of Marc, that:

I'm not sure I totally can agree.
Personally I find that "it is a nice photo for what it is--just not something I can get excited about" in line with John A's first appreciation above.
But the POW is not just another photo among the many of Marc. It is far less colorful than others in his portfolio where most photos are much more over-saturated (in my eyes) - like for example the Oregon Autumn.

Mostly these landscape pictures are not "my cup of tea", although they surely might sell well, but some stand out as more exceptional. Go and look at photos of Marc like Life in the trees or Last Words or Life among Death and you will see scenes of more depth than the POW we discuss here - as far as I see it.

The gloppy blurred water makes this perfect for a condolence card. There is something eternal in feeling about blurred water than nice clear ripples. Wallace Stevens wrote in "Sunday Morning" :

Is there no change of death in paradise?
Does ripe fruit never fall? Or do the boughs
Hang always heavy in that perfect sky,
Unchanging, yet so like our perishing earth,
With rivers like our own that seek for seas
They never find, the same receding shores
That never touch with inarticulate pang?

But that aside, I find the gloppy--blurred--water a distraction. The cliffs and the waterfall are the things you focus on. They are beautiful. The gloppy water coming at you like soap suds is too much.

But on a condolence card it might work.

if I understand Jeremy's comment correctly I would have to disagree with him as regards the need to be serious about landscape photography to see the merits of this image or of Marc's work. I rarely shoot landscapes and even more rarely browse them. Generally I find viewing landscape photos unfulfillling. In many instances even the best of them seem to rise to a certain level of technical proficiency along with a standard landscape composition approach and there they remain. Despite my lack of study in this genre I have no difficulty in identifying Marc's body of work as a cut above. I find that many of Marc's landscapes do possess soul and it is this soul that helps to set them apart, to raise them above the standard of " just another pretty picture of a pretty place "

The vantage point in the stream along with the choice to use a shutter speed which closely replicates the sensation of water rushing closely past, puts me in the scene. A lot of the techniques which Marc has studied, perfected and in many instances advanced, all seem to serve the same end and that is to put me into the landscape, to have me leave viewing the image with a sense of having interacted with the scene. I think that a lot of what leaves me cold with landscape photography is a pervasive sense of distance and detachment. That 'outside looking in' aspect keeps me at arms length. The wonderful thing which Marc's photos achieve for me is that many of them bring me in and engage me. When I view these landscapes I see something beyond simply being presented with a beautiful image of some piece of the planet. I sense a purpose behind the presentation, a motivation to communicate. Something more personal is being conveyed by the photographer than the standard, I was here and took a photo of this. Postcards are generally lifeless captures of a spot on the map, the images in Marc's folders speak of a man and his vision. Congrats Marc on your second potw selection.

Wonderful composition, colors. Your landscape is beautiful and very mystical

Hi Anders, I was talking about Marc's portfolio when I said his work is objectively superior. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I agree, this image lacks in some areas. I mentioned a few in my post and I appreciate your points as well.

Gordon, IMO true understanding can not be gained from looking at the image itself. It takes an understanding of what goes into making an image to really appreciate it. I think this is what Marc is saying and it is with this that I agree. If you have been developing and conceiving an image for years, identified a place where you think the image can be made, selected the right time to make the image, tried to predict the conditions under which the image will convey the mood you have envisioned, travelled 5,000 miles by car to the location you have chosen, hiked for 14 hours through brutal brush in -20 temperatures, waited in the snow, cold and sleet for days and then had your camera fail at the perfect moment, you then understand at a different level what it takes to make just one image in a portfolio of hundreds. When I look at a landscape portfolio, I see these sorts of things. I know where the places are, I know how rare the conditions are, I know about the arthritic pain in the back, neck and shoulders, I know about the blown-out knees, the bug-infested meadows, the cost, the frustration, the vagaries of weather and on and on it goes. These things represent a sacrifice. Only some people are willing to make this kind of sacrifice and Marc is one of them. I deeply respect him as a landscape photographer for that. So while I agree that on some level Marc's work is obviously superior, there are other more subtle issues that only an experienced landscape photographer can fully appreciate. What may be just another pretty, over-saturated lake not worth a second look to the inexperienced, could be Talus Lake in the Tombstone mountains to someone who knows. And a picture of Talus Lake is not just another pretty picture. Best, JJ

Respecting someone's drive and sacrifices is a very different matter from being moved by their photographs themselves.

Ever see Amadeus or read the story of Mozart? Salieri, Mozart's contemporary, worked a lot harder and dedicated himself in a way that Mozart did not. Salieri sacrificed. Mozart had more privilege. Mozart was, in many respects, a precocious and immature kid. But he had a gift for writing music. Salieri did not. No amount of hard work could have brought Salieri to the musical reaches of Mozart. Did Mozart work hard? Yes. Did that help his art? Yes. I can appreciate Salieri's harder work and dedication. There's a very human story there, and Salieri is to be admired for his grit and for trying so hard. But it affects not one bit whether or not his music is any good or moves me. The story of Salieri is what moves me. Not his music. Mozart's music moves me, story or no story. Does Mozart's story enhance my understanding of his music? Yes. But it doesn't make it great and it doesn't make it art. And I don't need to know the story in order to appreciate the music. I don't need to know how this photo was made, how many bones may have been broken in the process, or how many hours were spent on it to appreciate it.

I can spend countless hours setting up a shoot and endless days working on a photo in post processing. And I can snap my shutter, spontaneously, in an instant and come up with something equally as significant.

As for landscape photography. Jeremy's #4 stood out to me. It is, in great part, because these kinds of places are so special and move me so much that I usually don't like or appreciate photos of them. To assume that people who don't like landscape photos haven't bonded with these kinds of places is simply ridiculous. Such photos rarely seem to capture the "spirit" of the place. They usually capture a very superficial kind of beauty. That's what all this talk of "pretty" is to me. It's superficiality. Remember the old adage: Beauty is only skin deep. As Alex so poignantly points out by quoting Stevens, essences of such places are rarely so perfect as they are made to appear in what are often too-easy-to-digest representations. Idealization doesn't move me that often. Find some of the imperfections and incorporate some flesh into the spirit and you might show me something I care about.

[This is a response to claims made in this thread which I think miss the mark of what's significant in photography or art. It's not a comment on Marc's work as a whole or this photo in particular.]

Fred I very much agree with you and has as you liked the story about Salieri and Mozart. It is a good piece of learning for those that believe that art, or more modestly quality photography, is ensured by climbing higher mountains than other photographers, carrying heavier bags, or having access to newly discovered places.
However, that "prettiness" or beauty is equal to superficiality, is just as superficial as to say : "Beauty is only skin deep". The same could be said for ugliness and repulsiveness - and would be an equally superficial statement.

Anders, mere prettiness is superficial, as found in Abercrombie and Fitch catalogs and on many postcards. The "beauty" I was referring to that is skin deep is that kind of prettiness. Maybe I did not make that clear and I am happy to rephrase it. Real "beauty," for instance in the Platonic sense, is another matter. It is about more than superficial looks . . . involves harmony and purpose. I am much more interested in that kind of beauty that what I have called superficial prettiness. I agree with you that the counterpart of prettiness (which is simple grit and grime without substance) is also superficial. Many photographers think that by shooting either a pretty girl or a dirty street they have automatically accomplished something. Each needs some depth to matter.

While I agree with the distinction, I do believe that an understanding of the former can impact appreciation of the latter. While it would be foolish to award the merit of an image based entirely on the difficulty under which it was taken, the circumstances under which the photo was made do have a bearing on the appreciation of the photo for many people in many instances. Some part of the impact of images made in a war zone come from the knowledge that the photo was taken under extreme circumstances, our viewing is informed by a knowledge of that circumstance.

If a landscape photographer expects his images to move people based on how hard he worked to get those images rather than based on the images themselves he will be disappointed. However I do not think it is an either/or situation. When I present one of my native orchid photos I do not expect a positive reaction based on the number of insect bites I suffered clambering through a spring swamp or how early I had to get out of bed to get to the site at dawn when the air was still and the light perfect. I do strive to have some of that drive and dedication come through in the quality of the final image, where it counts. The hope being that what moved me as a photographer is something which I have managed to convey to the viewer thus moving the viewer, otherwise the drive and sacrifice were pointless. That being said, there are fellow orchid geeks whom I do know have a special level of understanding for how rare a particular species may be along with the knowledge of how far the travel etc. involved in obtaining the photo. I think this is what Jeremy is getting at with appreciation of landscape photography by landscape photographers. The blanket application of his assertion notwithstanding, I do think the circumstances of the image capture can and do effect the viewers evaluation of the resulting image.

Yes! The effect of circumstances and/or the story behind a photo are not black and white issues. A discussion of these matters needs to be nuanced. Context is important and many factors are at play, depending on the type of photo and the situation of the viewing and the actual photo we're talking about and the particular circumstances around that photo that are being talked about. That's why these discussions can be so helpful. None of us should be complacent enough to think that these things are simply one way or the other. They are worth considering from a variety of angles and perspectives, just like most subjects of photos.

I love this photo with a couple minor reservations:

* It's too small to be really appreciated online (only 600 px high); even Facebook allows for 720 px. I still fail to see the reason to post this tiny.
* Too bad the EXIF is stripped (but it is a 10 sec. exposure)
* it's borderless, so the impact is way too simple; it needs "setting off"

Regardless, being a dweeb I have to mention this. I cannot tell this is taken in a rain downpour. I love the greens and the composition and the perfect exposure. Printed large this would be a beautiful, tight landscape to hang on the wall.

Bravo Marc!

We agree on this Fred. Sorry to have misread you.