Mesa Arch

Can we not have critics critique others' critiques please? I thought this was the rule for POW?

The picture is excellent technically but the content is just that, a nice landscape. What's the problem?

It's a beautiful shot, and I wish I was there to have taken it, but, I have seen hundreds of nearly identical shots.

 

So much of what we do is about access. I recently went to an exhibit of portraits by Linda McCartney. Nice portraits. Well done, but nothing that any of 250 photo.net photographers couldn't have accomplished though. Why were hers in a national tour of museums? Name and Access. They were all portraits of famous rock stars who had agreed to sit for Pauls wife. It was about access.

 

This is a very good shot. It is an excellent shot. But it was about access. You were there, planted your tripod in the impressions left by thousands of others before you, and tripped the shutter. You don't need to defend its originality. It is an excellent shot no matter how many times it has been done before.

Couldn't agree more about the Linda McCartney comment.

 

Part of the challenge with scenery shots that have been done a billion times before is performing them in a way that is truly unique. Case in point: I have a filter for anything with the words 'antelope+canyon' in them simply because I'm sick of seeing it.

 

This shot: High contrast scene with a mix of very subtle tones on the left and a exellent transitional horizontal composition. Just because the billion or other photographers taking this same shot screwed up shouldn't take away from this one shot that does it superbly.

Morey,

 

Excellent image. Great light, and great depth of field. For those who don't know, this color is only available at sunrise, so one has to be somewhat motivated to just be there at dark thirty to set up and be ready.

 

I believe I saw a similar image of this icon location in last month's Shutterbug, so yes, it's been done and done. So what? It was good enough to be selected for POW. Congratulations.

 

Even I have this image and it currently appears in The Grand Circle of the southwest. And as trite as it is, earned for me a nice piece of change. You can sell that one.

Good point, Scott. Maybe the POW could host a shoot-off around a famous landmark, posting 20 images from 20 photographers. Or, not the POW, but some other vehicle of comparison. Anyway, nice shot. I like the layered effect.

 

And speaking of vehicles, I'm looking all over to find the Nissan Pathfinder, or the Ford Explorer, some other make of SUV. Too much televison?

 

What are people's thoughts about the catchlight in the upper left corner? If it were cropped out the image would not be easily readable as an arch, but is it a little distracting to include it? What's the subject here? The arch, or the view beneath the arch? Would it have been a good idea to crop this tighter?

>>> Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is no less beautiful because it was >>> performed thousands of times by other conductors and orchestras in the >>> last century. The audience does not remark how unoriginal Von Karajan was for choosing to perform the Ninth.

 

 

Yes, but you're not operating in the performing arts, yet in the creative arts. If Karajan would have issued an 'original' score, of his hand, which resembled Beethoven's 9th, he would have been in deep trouble. That said, many would argue that performing Beethoven's 9th is always a case of unoriginal, unimaginative and crowd-pleasing programming, although of course not a case of plagiarism, which is a term thankfully reserved for creative arts such as, oh... photography.

 

 

On the bright side, POWs rarely shine with originality, but usually the commentators are largely unaware of photographic history, and are therefore generous with undeserved praise. Your case if different only in that you have chosen to mimic something so famous that everyone knows of it.

When I hear Beethoven's 9th I think first and foremost of Beethoven, not the person who arranged the particular version I'm listening to. The originality for the 9th symphony goes to Beethoven, and if possible I would give old Ludwig a 7/7. The person who creates his own arrangement of that symphony would have to be judged on a different scale because they are working with preexisting genius.

 

The same could be said of Mesa Arch, a flower, or a nude woman for that matter because the aesthetics are preexisting to a certain extent and it's up to the photographer to offer their personal interpretation. An example could be a beautiful woman photographed in the manner of a high school yearbook and that same woman photographed by Emil Schildt. Same woman, same built in aesthetics, very different results. Are they both worthy of a 7 for originality?

 

Aesthetically this is a very nice image, but we can't escape the fact that a large part of the work on this shot was done by the person who decided to build that parking lot. And for originality how would it compare to a photographer who packed his equipment onto his back and left that parking lot to find his own unique view of this scene?

 

These issues take nothing away from the aesthetics presented in this image because it is lovely! But if this is Morey's arrangement of a preexisting symphony that has been attempted by countless other photographers the results do not strike me as especially original. However this should not be taken as an insult! There are many unoriginal approaches in photography that are still completely valid. People have been doing black and white portraits by window light for decades, and hopefully there will always be photographers who do them in the future because as "unoriginal" as they may be they can still be beautiful.

This shot uses the panorama to good effect, and I like the way the cool shade in the corner contrasts with the warm light above. It's a nice picture of a beautiful location at a nice moment. I think it's true that Beethoven's Ninth will remain beautiful no matter how many times it is performed. And that's true of this place in this photo. The problem with the music analogy is that one must consider how much new music is not getting heard because the orchestras choose to take the safe route by programming known "hits". How many times must we be in effect told, now THIS is beautiful, before we forget how to hear, or see, the uncommon beauty. I only have an oblique criticism, and it is that there are people out there taking risks, creating sounds and images that challenge us, and who are summarily ignored, while we explore the nuances of the well travelled path. The photographer in this case is not one to push the envelope, judging from this photo. I do realize we do our photography for our own reasons, owe no explainations to anyone else, and not everyone cares to explore the obscure angle. Nevertheless, I'd rather support photographers who make the effort and take the risks necessary to discover, if not original, at least unusual or personal avenues of expression. Here, what's not to like? I wish there was something not to like.

I really like this shot. True, its of an oft photographed scene but the

perspective is different from most so it gains creativity points in my eyes.

Complaints about lack of originality miss the point, a cliche exists because of

the inherent appeal of the statement (or photo); this shot takes the appealing

view and shows it from a different perspective than most other photographers

have chosen.

 

I like it a lot.

 

Steve B

I stated it lacked originality and it does [to me]. Nice photograph that might look good in a utah calendar. Bet a print from that big trannie is spectacular. I've made these points.

Granted its a difficult subject since its been photographed so many times. Its like all the pictures of the golden gate bridge I've seen. Its virtually impossible to come up with something original but it can and has been done but it isnt easy.

As to the classical music paralells I would state that if you want to be known as "technician" instead of "photographer" then more power to ya.

Setting up a tripod, composing, metering and loading up your color saturated film is not that complex compared to what the modern masters have studied a lifetime to accomplish.

Technically fine. Aesthetically I would rather see the framing moved rightward, so we would have less dark space on the left and actually see the whole area framed by the arch. But I suppose the framing is, in this case, the photographer's only way of injecting a tiny bit of originality into a landscape feature that has been photographed to death. The Canyonlands NP visitor's centers and the Moab gift shops are chock full of nice pictures of Mesa Arch.

Congratulation Morey for this POW.

 

For me, it's not the best landscape picture you have done. But, as they say to

the Oscars, it's a POW for your all work.

 

About Originality "0" I would say that Paul Cezanne did 44 oils et 43

watercolors of the "Montagne Sainte Victoire", always the same mountain

always a different interpretation and Morey does't claim to be an original but

he is a good landscape Photographer.

 

Best regards

Thank goodness for all these posts on originality! The next time I see anything that's been photographed before I won't bother taking one myself no matter how good a photograph it might be.

 

Congrats on POW Morey, I think the photo is very nice indeed no matter how many times I've seen the subject before.

Some of the comments on this thread regarding the originality of

this image betray a sort of photographic ennui. The demand for

original landscapes is something like demanding that

landscape photographers ignore the well-known landmarks, or

at least continually seek out a vantage point to photograph from

that no potential reviewer has ever seen represented before. It is

silly.

 

There are good reasons that this view of Mesa Arch is familiar

besides the fact that it is easy to get to. It is a stunning,

absolutely marvelous, wonderous scene of natural beauty. While

I appreciate the desire to see something new in every

photograph, there is nothing inherently wrong with making a

photograph from a 'familiar' location. Each photograph should

stand on its own merits. Exact reproduction of a famous

landscape photograph will prove to be very difficult if not

impossible. Overemphasis on this fuzzy, ill-defined notion of

'originality' detracts from a wonderful display of the photographic

art.

 

As someone who has recently been seriously chasing the light

in 'familiar' landscape locations, I can attest to the difficulty of

producing great photographs of 'familiar' and 'unoriginal'

locations. Despite maybe 20 different trips to the Golden Gate

Bridge, I have yet to produce a photograph that leaves me

satisfied: the light was wrong, the sky boring, the shadows to

dark, I chose a weak composition, sshould have chosen another

time of day, another time of year, etc.

 

I have never made an image of Yosemite valley from the tunnel

view that even comes close to the beauty of Ansel Adam's

'copies' of the work of still earlier photographers. That will not

stop me from photographing from the tunnel view from

time-to-time. Making a great image there requires a lot more

than pre-existing tripod holes. It takes luck, weather, planning,

knowledge, and skill. Most photographs of the tunnel view are

boring not because the location is familiar, but because most

are simply poor photographs. The quality of the photograph is

not pre-determined by the location.

 

I try to find new perspectives from which to photograph, but often

the traditional spots seem to have the best aesthetic potential.

But it is POTENTIAL only. Making a great photograph at a

'familiar' location is a lot harder that it seems. Morey's views of

Mesa Arch are familiar, but still unique. No one else has made a

photograph identical in every respect to any of Morey's Mesa Arch

photos.

 

This charge of unoriginality of this photograph, or many other

landscape photographs of familiar locations, is wrong. I think

Doug Burgess' suggestion is a good one. Ask twenty

photographers to photograph the same famous scene from the

same location and we will end up with twenty unique

photographs. Landscapes are always unique and taking great

ones requires lots of hard work, dedication, knowledge, and

vision. Morey displays all those characteristics with all the

photos in his folders. Thanks for sharing Morey!

"The demand for original landscapes is something like demanding that landscape photographers ignore the well-known landmarks"

 

"The next time I see anything that's been photographed before I won't bother taking one myself no matter how good a photograph it might be."

 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think that anybody said that this particular photograph shouldn't have been taken. Simply that trying to apply a score for "originality" on this image (as is the case on many other photo.net images as well) would be fruitless.

Thanks Morey, yes it is a beautiful image. As for the above 'Original Question' about the POW, yes it compares favorably with Morey's other posted works. But POW? Therein lays my confusion. The aesthetics rating will be an integral component with each and every POW entry...then what of the originality rating? Timing, lighting conditions aspect etc. are components of BOTH ratings, however the originality rating must contain that little extra 'something' to attain a POW status, I would think. Swept by emotion is not reason enough to choose a photo as POW. Without a camera and lens, we see beauty daily, many people will carry that image of Utah in their minds eye for a lifetime. The photographer that makes it original will have a bigger task here than with a more un-typical subject. Perhaps what is needed is a JUST BEAUTIFUL weekly winner, but I believe in Both Rating Elements being present in a POW winner...Truth be known, I saw the image and fell in love with it...beauty is what I chase with photography, beauty is my 'satisfaction element'. Congrats for that Morey, it is a gorgeous capture.

Moderator note: Ratings have nothing to do with POW choices. A theme is picked - In this case - PANORAMIC LANDSCAPES - and an image is voted as POW based on discussion value - Not Ratings...

I would like to comment that this is a great shot of a great subject. I personally think that the term "originality" is highly overrated and is often used by photographers with little skill or true creativity to insult or belittle the accomplishments of a fine artist. I have never had the opportunity to take this shot, but you can bet your last Canon lens that if I do, I'll probably shoot three rolls in this same area, originality be cursed.

 

Congrats on POW!

John,

 

My point wasn't that being published in Shutterbug was the ultimate photographic accomplishment but that these kinds of photos make money, as redundant as they are. In this months issue is Mt. Moran.

 

I'm sure many of us want and try to be original in our photography but many times you take stuff just to pay the rent.

 

cheers

What does a novice see when he looks at this image? Well for one thing he sees a beautiful image that he would envy. Then he would read on down the comments and find that this place does not require a 7 day hike.

 

What would a novice do next? Well, in my case it's look up Mesa Arch and find out how hard it is to get there, and where to stay. It would seam to be a no brainer to shoot at different times of day, get the film processed and try for a few more days.

 

So why is this shot so great.? It's because fools like me can try to imitate it. It's because we can study the light and try to do as well. It's because we can change the angle and try different lighting.

 

I see a great shot of a Tahitian sunset and say "So what, I could do as well. Just point an automatic camera at a great view and what could go wrong?" I look at this and I see a challange. I look at this and it makes me want to try. And no matter what the pitiful results of my attempts might be, I am sure to grow a little in the process.

If one person looks at this POW and because of it, takes a course of action that leads to becoming a better photographer, and a better person, Then this is an incredable POW.

The orange light under the left side of the arch may be all natural, but it just doesn't look natural- like there's a bonfire burning out of sight down there. Too much Velvia or too much manipulation? I think I prefer the shot that's in his folder, with less cropping at top and bottom. The snow looks much more natural on it.

It is very difficult to look at a photograph of a familiar, iconic landscape, and not compare it to the other images that helped make the place famous in the first place. I won't suggest that we should expect to forget what else we've seen when viewing an image; it just doesn't work that way, though it can help us appreciate the beauty of an individual image. Then again, comments like "Very very weak. No vision whatsoever" probably are more of a reaction to seeing a beautiful shot of a familiar place chosen as POW than a true comment on the image or the image-maker. At least one hopes so.

 

It's a little unfortunate that this issue is firmly in mind for some POW devotees thanks to the recent POW of Ceiling House. I don't think the elves lack for a sense of originality. Sometimes people are going to disagree with the POW choice, and that's the way it is. It shouldn't need to be repeated that the POW isn't the "best" image. Maybe, just for the helluvit, I'll start a thread in the Nature forum for "original nature images" so people can offer up links to images within the photo.net archives for what they feel are truly original nature images.

 

Enjoy.

The point of this selection was not only to recognize a good photo and a good portfolio, but, as always, to stimulate discussion, in this case about the merits of this particular shot versus similar ones of the same landmark. A perusal of the various shots of the arch reveals some of the enormous differences caused by the lighting, the time of day, the seasons (including changing shadows), and, above all, weather. No two shots of the same place are ever the same in the mountains, and this fact combined with the unique crop and panorama do make this shot better than the others here, in my opinion. I am tired of lectures to those of us who haven't shot here: we have all seen about ten thousand pictures of the place, and this one is different not only from all others in this portfolio but all others in existence. Is it better? I think that it is far better than most, and far more original than most. The photographer went to a familiar landmark and came back with something other than the cliché. I hiked and climbed in North and South America long before I became at all serious about photography, and one thing that always struck me was that it was never possible to see the same place again the same way--not ever. The mountains, with their sense of eternal endurance (an illusion, of course), are always changing with the subtleties of the day and the seasons, and it takes a discerning eye to appreciate these subtleties. Those who see no originality in this photograph might want to walk about the mountains a bit more, preferably for several days or more at a time. Come back to this place and then tell us what you see. I find the composition and lighting to be very striking, and, combined with a bit of luck and good timing, they and other variables make for an exquisite and unique photo of a familiar place.

It's easy to forget that many people have never seen a photograph of

Mesa Arch. For those people, this image records those aspects of the

scene that make it famous - the deep red color on the underside of the

arch, the forground texture, and the distance spires. For those of us

that have seen many images of this place, good and bad, we can make

note of the composition that Morey has chosen and see how it compares

with our recollection of other versions. I think what Morey was

trying to do was to give priority to the placement of the spires,

horizon line, and cloud line relative to the underside of the arch.

I've never seen the spires placed better than they are here. Usually

the emphasis is on the arch itself, using it as a frame within a

frame. Although I confess I have not been there, it seems you can't

have both. I agree that the upper left blue triangle pulls the eye

away from the center of interest and the lower right blue snow does

the same. Perhaps there are too many interesting elements in the

picture space. Start from the center and there's a different picture

radiating out from that point in every direction.

 

I'm sure Morey knows this. He balanced all these elements as best he

could without sacrificing his goal for this shot - the emphasis and

placement of the spires . . . . at least that's how I read it. . . .

I find the extreme contrast between the left and right disturbing. The excessive brightness on the right of the frame is a hot spot that draws the eye right out of the frame. A great location, but not an award winning shot in my opinion.