Rainforest Canyon

Context is an important part of the appreciation of art but I think Fred hit it on the head, not every piece of information about an image is relevant to its success as a visual. Similar pieces of information might be important in one case and not in another, we have to differentiate between those circumstances. We also have to distinguish between interesting anecdotes or details that are important to us because of our specific interests and those that actually inform the image as a visual. And then, of course, the purpose in which the image is employed might make something otherwise irrelevant to the visual success of the image into the very reason it exists--as being the best "available" illustration of something specific, for instance.

Gordon sort of hit it on the head in a way for me when he suggested the Geek thing with regards to his orchid imagery. We are all geeks at something most likely and I don't think we can expect everyone else to join in our geekness nor can we expect an image that thrills us is actually anything of visual value otherwise--although it certainly could be. But as to Jeremy's point regarding connecting with the land I think there has to be a recognition, as Fred suggested in his comment, that people just relate differently to the same thing. Although I don't know if Fred's connection to the landscape is the same as mine and certainly not the same as Jeremy's apparently, it doesn't mean that any of us have a lesser connection to the land, just a different one.

(this comment was not in any way related to this image, but in response to the issues that have been raised here otherwise)

I agree Fred, drive is not the only factor. I agree that respecting effort and being moved are different. I underlined this in my original post when I listed multiple, different criteria for evaluating this image. IMO an image should be evaluated on numerous levels; being moved is one of them but it is highly subjective, idiosyncratic and often has little to do with how well something was done. This is why I don't consider it that big of a deal when evaluating GR style landscape photography. When evaluating other forms of art I give it more credibility I suppose.

The point was that to REALLY appreciate something, knowing more deeply about it is important. I think that is fair and somewhat obvious actually. Marc's work is obviously appealing but can be appreciated more deeply if the endeavor is fully understood. It is a matter of degree not absolutes. I played the slow movement of Mozart's clarinet concerto in a major to a very large audience when I was 7. When I listen to it now, I hear all sorts of things that others don't and I am moved in all sorts of ways (good and bad) others are not. I appreciate the music at a different level than others because of my knowledge of it and experience with it. But I must say that my own knowledge of wind instrument technique does influence my emotional response a great deal. I love Wynton Marsalis for his classical work even though one might say this is not his forte. His phrasing simply makes me weep at times. It is all at once technical and artistic. It is everything that is needed coming together to make a more elevated sound. And as someone that has done the painful work that is necessary, I think I hear what he is doing, respect it and react to it much differently than say a pianist would. This is what I see in Marc's work. Certainly there may be elements missing at times, but I think he does so many things so well and these things all come together to produce something that is much more than an effortful, pretty picture.

I was also talking specifically about landscape photography. I was not talking about other forms of photography, music or painting. That is because, IME, effort is typically respected in landscape photography. This is not a logical point. It just happens to be the case that landscape photographers that go to greater lengths to make images others will not tend to gain respect for this within the community.

Thank you Fred for bringing up the idea of pretty and it's relationship to superficiality. Let's ask whether the phrase "Oh, this is just another superficial landscape" is a reasonable statement to make about this image. I don't think so. My point #4 was to suggest that there is depth here in the sense that the image was made with the purpose of conveying to the viewer something deeper than what was captured on the sensor. Marc said he had something deeper in mind when he chose his method here and I believe that is true.

But is it VERY deep? I think we probably agree Fred. I would not say that depth is a significant feature in this form landscape photography. If there is anything about this style of work that detracts from it, I would agree that it is not the most expressive or artistic form of photography (or at least lets say it's massively difficult to be soulful, expressive, demonstrate purpose, create mystery, etc. when one is taking a sharp, colour image of a grand landscape). But it is what turns me on. I imagine that makes me an artistic troglodyte to some. But to quote emperor Joseph II from the movie Amadeus, "There it is". Best, JJ

As I read your entry here Jeremy, regarding the effort thing, I can't help but think back to one of the Adam's landscape workshops I was at back in the early 80's. Each instructor, on sequential nights, got up and made a presentation about their work and their own way of working. Towards the end of the week, it was Jay Dusard's turn and he opened up with a nod to two of the other instructors who had spoken before him. He ended his acknowledgement of their efforts with a quip I thought summed up this whole matter rather well and put it in perspective. He said how he admired Phillip Hyde's and Bruce Barnbaum's tenacity to hike miles and sleep in adverse conditions to get their shots but long ago he himself had adopted the philosophy that, "if I can't drive to it, screw it!"

Art is an interesting thing; it seems that people love it or hate it but few are in between. I think this photo is excellent and wish that my work was this good.

Congrats to Marc "again" for the POW!
This shot is definitely beautiful and unique in it's own way! Of course, Marc has many many more eye-popping pics as anybody can see from his gallery.
The "Elves" indeed picked a good pic as POW, as it has attracted lots of "different" comments and discussion....... They're mischievous indeed!

Hi Marc. I know that some people would consider this kind of work sort of passe, but I am not one of them as I love to shoot landscapes. I have always admired the effort you put into each shot, and it is obvious to me that you do spend the time at each place thinking about lighting, and composition. You are obviously very dedicated to your genre, and i am pleased that you make good money doing this kind of work. Your images are stunning to me, and they inspire me to become more dedicated in terms on analysis of light and composition. Keep up the great work, Marc! All the best.
Paul

I think that this image receives criticism due to a technical problem. The long exposure brings the 4th dimension into this image (and it is hard enough to try to map the 3-D to 2-D as it is). Certainly the treatment of the water falls and the stream bed is technically sound, but the rainfall and mist that are part of the live scene just can't be captured in a time exposure. In fact, they simply average out to a general dullness that one tries to eliminate in the post processing. At life-speed, mists move in the breezes and sometimes you get a crystal clear glimpse of distance and other times they coalesce and your vision is obscured. Even in a rain storm you will see much more detail of the distance with your own eyes than you can with a photographic long exposure. Just think of this effect in the extreme - a snowstorm - the time exposure will eventually look like a whiteout even in light snow.
That is why, in my opinion, this image requires the story in order to be fully appreciated. Of course with the story you can get the feeling of the moving moisture in the surroundings.
Of course that brings up the question - Just how much can the background story do to elevate the image?

Although this kind of photos are done zillion times, for me it is a kind of groundbreaking and innovative image in this field. Rendering of the light, water, moss and mist gives an extraordinary beautiful image that can invoke all kinds of feelings in a viewer.
Kind regards,
Kristina

>> "In fact, they simply average out to a general dullness that one tries to eliminate in the post processing."
No, not at all. I tried to enhance the mistiness and fog as much as possible in post processing because it's what adds the 3'rd visual dimension - depth.

>> "Certainly the treatment of the water falls and the stream bed is technically sound, but the rainfall and mist that are part of the live scene just can't be captured in a time exposure."
Yes, the rainfall could have been captured. But what you may be missing is the fact that if I had captured it, there would be no depth. It would be a flat image with no mist. It's the rain throughout a long exposure that makes mist.

>> "Even in a rain storm you will see much more detail of the distance with your own eyes than you can with a photographic long exposure."
Yes, which is why I wanted a long exposure. I didn't want to be able to see as far, as clearly. The creation of mist, or 'dullness', as you put it is the most important element in this scene IMO. Without it, it's just another picture with no sense of depth and distance. Just look at the works of a landscape painter, for example. The HRS comes to mind. Look at the way contrasts are subdued in the distance to give the sensation of a 3rd dimension and you'll see what I'm talking about.

>> "At life-speed, mists move in the breezes and sometimes you get a crystal clear glimpse of distance and other times they coalesce and your vision is obscured."
True, and if there really was mists here and they were moving, video would have been a better way to capture it.

Just how much can the background story do to elevate the image? Good question. We can talk about it ad nauseam or we could use a scientific method to address the question. Randomly assign subjects to 2 groups. 1 group gets the image alone; the other gets the image and a background story. Ask both groups to rate the image on a number of factors (artistry, appeal, aesthetics, etc) and compare the responses of the two groups. Any differences give a somewhat objective, numerical statement of the amount that the background story influences the assessment of the image. That's how a social scientist would attack this kind of question. Best, JJ

Jeremy, the key point is that it may elevate the assessment of the image, which it is often meant to do, but not elevate the image itself. In some cases, the context and story is wrapped up with the image, as Gordon pointed out, and there it would be hard to separate the two. But in many cases, I'd maintain that effort, titles (like the title of a recent flower POW: "A Sense of Wonder"), and background story are meant to inflate the significance of the image when the image on its own simply wouldn't hold up. By no means is that ALWAYS the case, but it's often quite transparent when it IS the case.

Just to add my 2p worth...

I think that this is a pretty fine shot. I think it's missing something from the foreground to make it complete, but is a still attractive to look at. It did immediately bring to mind Peter Dombrovskis' picture Rock Island Bend as someone above noted. It isn't quite that good (and that's no criticism really!), but I still like it a lot.

Cheers
Rob

Marc, I appreciate your effort to take this photograph.
It shows how life flourishes in difficult spaces. I am amazed at the amount of plant life given the obviously low light levels. Your photo also illustrates that powerful and destructive natural forces created these spaces and now they are occupied by watercourses, abundant life and waterfalls- beauty has taken over destruction. It also shows how we haven't messed up this space yet.
Maybe someone else has photographed this location before but YOU brought it here for us to enjoy, and YOU did so in such a way that it informs us about nature and pleases us artistically at the same time. It makes me want to know more about this place and the plants and creatures that inhabit it. Nature is magnificent and you have captured it magnificently.
Thank you very much for sharing it.
Regards, John

Bottom line. The gloppy water in the foreground kills the image. Cropping is not going to help. The scene has to be shot again with a fresh view. How? The photographer's problem.

It's your problem, Alex. You are the one who does not like it, not the photographer. No photographer can please everyone. I took many images with faster shutter speeds and did not like any of them as much. Sorry.

I agree with Alex -- that gloppy water kills the image. The fresh view should show serene and calm water, reflections of some trees, a few interesting boulders showing just under the water's surface, a mother duck leading her little ducklings across in an arc, and the sun glistening in their wake. No need to thank me Marc; I was given inspiration.

Maybe the issue is the same as with people. Some like them as they are. Others like them with gaudy piercings and tattoos. You can't resolve personal taste through discussion; yet, that never seems to inhibit it here in the POW.

I can take tattoos to a point and dislike body piercings. I don't like gloppy photographs. In this one the glop comes at you in the foreground and takes our attention away from the rest of the image, which is quite beautiful.

This is the sort of photograph that is naturally popular, imperfections notwithstanding.

Alex, I think as others have said here, it does seem to get down to personal preference--although leprechauns and ducks do seem like good ideas...;)) (yes, I am kidding!)

But early on the water here was discussed as being a lead into other things, some spoke of there being a specific subject and others no real subject and I guess I sort of come down on the fact that this image--and many in the genre (Marc's portfolio included)--don't really have distinct subjects but are about the whole as a whole--sort of a container of completeness. For instance, I don't see anything in and of itself that is distinguished in the photo here where my eye wants to rest or that suggests that "this is it". The waterfalls are not enough, the cliffs don't outweigh how the water is presented etc. So, I see this as a very descriptive image of the place at a certain time in certain conditions. As I said earlier, the water isn't an issue here for me.

People have mentioned this Peter Dombrovskis fellow a few times and I went and had a look. Certainly the genre here and the one Peter worked are similar but I also think they point out some differences from my way of thinking. Peter's work seems much more about describing things as they were found and in a sense are thus more open ended. I don't feel that the presentation or post has over ridden the reality or tried to push me any particular way. I look at them and I know I am being shown something that was as it was and the work I saw seems "objectively" artistic. This shot, and many of Marc's, is of a different sort altogether to me. I think that is maybe why I don't connect with them as well as I actually can with Peter's work (although we are talking degrees here--and even though I have spent much time in the location of this POW). In Peter's work, I feel invited to look around and discover. To look into the minutia and the insignificant and how everything relates. The sort of work that is embodied in this POW just seems to be about a more monocular interpretation, sort of closed ended as a visual in its totality as presented--maybe like a specific event. Certainly, when one connects, one might go off into another world, but if it isn't one's thing, it sort of dead ends. Even if one doesn't necessarily connect with the genre, Peter's visual itself allows for engagement in different ways, not just one. Even in Adams work, we not only see the power of the landscape, but we sense there is more and are generally left with the feeling of "what if we could see just a bit more or what is just over this or that rise or around that corner--I don't get that here, I think what we see is just what we are left with. That said, I do think if one connects with this sort of imagery, it is probably much more exciting for those who do than Peter's work but that connection and a certain type of relationship with the land is essential.

I am not trying to cause any more animosity or boorish (rude comments about others who don't agree that are persistent by some) behavior by any of this, just maybe trying to dig out the reason why there might be a divide between those who do and who don't connect with this sort of work. Myself, I always take these opportunities to try and understand why we see differently, not chastise or diminish those who don't see the same as I.

I've been on the receiving end of comments from one of the contributors to this discussion in the past, and I was told that my view of a particular subject was entirely wrong, that my approach to photographing the subject was entirely wrong, that I should throw out all of the photos I've ever taken of the subject and start over again (and this time do it in the fashion that the person writing the comment thought it should be done). When I see similar comments appearing on this POW, it just doesn't set well with me. I'll try to bury it.

I've greatly appreciated the discussion among Jeremy J., Fred G., John A., Gordon B., and others on the nature of landscape photography and why some folks tend to really go for it while others tend in the opposite direction. Much seems to center on the idea of "depth." This has come up in the past, and over time I've concluded that a lot of landscape photography doesn't have the amount or kind of "depth" that other primary photographic subjects more commonly have (I'm especially struck by some street and portrait photography in this regard). I think John A. said essentially the same thing, and I think Jeremy J. and Fred G. were in general agreement on this issue (I hope I haven't misrepresented anyone's opinion here). I think I understand this point, I understand the importance it has for many people, and while I can share an appreciation of this attribute when it does appear in a photograph, I also understand why I can thoroughly enjoy a landscape photograph that does not necessarily manifest "depth" and instead rests on strong natural aesthetics (yes, a pretty picture).

I also believe those who celebrate depth and those who celebrate beauty in a photograph have far more in common regarding photography than we initially imagine, but that commonality is a bit harder to define and describe. But it's there.

I'm particularly intrigued by John A.'s past involvement in landscape photography that has now transitioned to other subjects. That's why I always pay particular attention to what John writes in these posts, hoping to gain some insight into his view of landscape photography that might help me better understand and articulate my own assumptions, views, and understandings related to my own photography. Jeremy J. has done the same for me in the past, and it has been helpful and much appreciated. I've gained much from two people who have differing views on the same subject.

IMO, two of Marc's most striking characteristics that appear in his photography are 1) the lengths he will go and the hardships he will endure to get a landscape or environmental photograph, and 2) his almost unique processing techniques that control the distribution of light in a photograph. In my mind, this second point is not to be considered manipulation as much as it is Marc's personal form of HDR photography. My only hesitation is that this technique sometimes, IMO, produces an artistic signature, and one can identify Marc's photo from across the room simply because it "has the look." I honestly don't know if that's good, bad, or inconsequential, and I wonder if Marc thinks his photos have sometimes/often have an "Adamus signature."

As for the POW itself, from my first look I've thought this photo to be relatively rare, and I could not understand some of the impressions saying it's been done many times before. I just don't know that many landscape photographers who wade up a river being fed by snowmelt in a driving rain. I intuitively saw that in Marc's photograph, and yes, it did influence how I viewed it. No one had to explain to me how the photo was created and under what circumstances -- I could see it all in the photograph itself. From my point of view, that was a part of the photograph from the very beginning. The river is what it is because of its source and because of the rain. It's not the draw for me; that lies in the mist, rocks, moss, broken light and shade, and increasing light beyond. I had a very positive impression of the photograph before it was selected as the POW, and I still have that positive impression. I also like the discussion and differing points of view it has generated, which is what a good POW should do.

Hello Marc,
Fantastic picture, and as i have said before, I will come back many times to your portfolio to learn from the best.
Just a quick comment from personal experience, on the fact that you got some negative critiques on this picture. The best art has always people pro and contra, consider it a confirmation that you are at the top.
We have a saying in Belgium, high trees catch a lot of wind ....
Ben

[Again, not talking about Marc, his work, or this photograph.]

Ben's and Rashed's sayings suggest that anything someone critiques negatively must be better than their own work. That makes critiquing impossible. I prefer a discerning viewer and a dialogue with different opinions and tastes to the homogeneity they are both suggesting.

Ben says, "The best art has always people pro and contra, consider it a confirmation that you are at the top." Of course, it's also true that the worst crap has always people pro and contra. The fact that opinions vary about something means only that we're human and tastes and vision differs. It doesn't mean something is good, or art, or good art.

Hi folks,

Just a heads up.

Wasting POTW conversation with either generic "nice shot" compliments or personal attacks will get you booted from the discussion going forward.

There is nothing wrong with giving a "nice shot" type comment, plenty of people love getting those comments about their images, but that isn't what the POTW is for. If you want to compliment the photographer, send him/her a personal message or just leave a compliment on their portfolio. The POTW discussion is supposed to be an in depth discussion of the image itself, not just a place for praise.

As for personal attacks, while it should be obvious that we don't allow that sort of thing on PN at all, the fact goes double when we are discussing something that is likely to have wildly differing opinions. In the POTW, there has to be space for someone to say "the long shutter speed look of this water kills the image for me" as well as "the long shutter speed look of the water evokes a sense of calm and wonder that brings me back to childhood" or some such thing. Nobody is stupid for thinking one thing or another, nobody is jealous just because they don't connect with an image, and nobody is a suck-up just because they love an image.

You guys are all great at discussing images and photographic concepts and the POTW can be the best example of that on the site (along with perhaps the philosophy forum). I'm not lying when I say that. But we need to keep both extremes (praise and personal scorn) stomped down for that to happen.

Looks like it was not the best time to take a picture in this delightful natural environment. Just the way the light falls does not allow dark and bright areas to mutually balance each other to bring the eye to embrace the scene at once. There are some spots, according to your exposure and the rendition of your recording, that would have been more interesting to look at and study and thus could have given way to better controlled compositions, probably on texture and forms. Curious effect also the different rythms of the water elements.

But sure looks like a place to be. Cheers.

Overwhelming. What should be an informative, easy read of the strengths and weakness in a selected photo of the week as found by the Photo.net community has evolved into a very long-winded and often off-topic discussion that too often pits members against each other.
That said, about this photo - not any other in this PN member's portfolio - not how he had to wade through trecherous waters in inclement weather to get it - just this photo
It made me immediately want to download it and apply a PhotoShop Auto Tone filter and crop out the bottom part of the river. And I liked the result much better.
Marc, you took your shot and at the time I'm sure you were very pleased with it. But I'm almost certain that sometime since that shooting you've looked at it and wondered if a bit more contrast and a crop wouldn't improve it.
Or not.
Cheers ~
(beauty is in the eye of the beholder) Alberta