Mesa Arch

awesome! areally good pictures.

How can be a person visiting Canyonland to not take a picture of Mesa Arch just because some people said it isn't original?It's typical shot by everybody, but at least you have one.

Indeed an exquisite range of colours and tones. I think the image would benefit from a slight crop at the top and left side to remove the distracting bit of sky. Nevertheless, a stunner!

 

Barry Needle.

Morey has some wonderful photographs in his portfolio, several of which would have been more approriate for photo of the week! I have seen better photos of this arch on this website!

 

Keep up the great work Morey!

Nicely framed, however although a lovely photograph I believe this image

could benefit from real abstract colours, ie more hue blue and saturated

oranges. Give it a fettle in photoshop and who knows what wonders can be

made.

My first comment has to be on the accuracy of the caption. Mesa Arch is located in the "Island of the Sky" district of Canyonlands National Park, not nearby Arches National Park. It is not a wholly typical composition for the subject, but close enough to the usual composition to be considered average. I agree that it is difficult to be unique in these well-traveled places, and often fall victim to cliches myself. I do like the light and colors, but perhaps a more unique composition, like a vertical, could have captured those qualities while being more original.

Morey, I think the panoramic composition works well for this subject and the 617 is a great choice of camera for the work. The outcrop of rock on the right is the only distraction I see in the image; it doesn't seem supported by anything. I presume you were either trying to include the texture of the rocks on the left or that this was taken after some other shots and the sun was causing flare if you panned right more. In either case, this is still a GREAT execution of a classic image and well deserving of POW.

This picture reveals to me the footprints of God. Simply great to view at the magnificient panoroma. Great colours, details, and depth of field.

Amal Sircar,

Pondicherry

A lot of remarks/complain about originality here. Interesting... IMO this is not less or more original than any other representation of the reality: a sunset in Hawaii, a shadowed pair of wet breast, a row of trees in a wood, an egg on a piano, the Eiffel tower from under, a rusty detail of a car, the eye of a dragonfly, a portrait of hilltribe woman or a tuscany landscape. I have seen a lot more hilltribe women portraits than Mesa arch pictures, a question of personal interests, filters and location may be. Probably a question of knowledge, education and curiosity also.

When I look at the Originality rating of Photonet top pictures: I see many perfectly un-original pictures in that sense... IMO, Originality is a very personal judgement which depend also on our mass culture background and the possible filter we might set inside us to correct the abuse of the mass...

then what to do to get original landscape, when angle, lenses, are sufficient enought to make THE difference,.... a good (I mean rewarded) recipe is to make it more dramatic, adding clouds, changing colors, composing with other elements, ... question is then is PS or technical, the only tools to bring originality (or creativity). Is real life just boring... or is Originality criteria not just anymore relevant in Photography?!

After skimming through the comments, I feel pretty good about myself. I actually

have a reason for not liking this photo other than the fact that it is unoriginal.

 

This photo really doesn't have a point of interest, a good strong focal point. Yeah,

everything is in focus, but what is really interesting enough for me, the viewer, to

focus on? The most potential lies in the hazy rocks in the distance, but they are

overpowered, minimized, and seemingly being stepped on by the foreground. The

warm light underneath the arch surely looked magical at exposure time, but it fails to

deliver when presented in 2D, as the shape being lit is dull, and its placement in the

frame is awkward. cheers

The issue of originality has been discussed over and over in previous POWs and so comments about originality seem ironically, unoriginal.

My intent in submitting the image was to compare to another panoramic version. This is what the elves suggested be the starting point for a discussion. I like the POW for how it catches the light, that is what attracts me to the image. It is really not about the arch, but about the light is layered on the rocks on the left, the light on the cliff faces, the light on the underbelly of the distant cloud and the the light in the layering of the mist. In my vision of photography it is about feeling the light. That is what I respond to the most because light I believe light is the essence of all good. This location is not about the shape of rocks or geology, it is about how it comes alive with light for a few minutes at sunrise (to me). As for other versions of Mesa Arch, compare how they capture the light and you will find vast differences. Those that have been here know what I am talking about. The wonder of photography is that it allows us to capture that essence and convey to others. I quite argee with Armaj "the footprint of God", beautifully said.

...light the essence of all good...the light coming alive...God's footprint(?)...

 

This is all fine and dandy, but in order for your light to work, it has to play upon a

SUBJECT. If the subject is lacking, the light can only take it so far. In photos like this,

you can compromise neither. This photo doesn't work for me because I feel like the

composition is awkward and lacking an anchor of any kind. cheers

Morey...my last comment was sent before finishing typing by error ... as I wanted to comment on your picture...You know now what I think about the concept of originality...;-)...

about this picture... let me point out some elements I dont feel comfortable with: the upper left part revealing sky which makes the rock framing imperfect (sky part should be either enlarged or erased IMO), the foreground is missing sharpness and the white snow part on the lower-right which is too big (distracting)

Actually as you could see I much preferred (a 7/7 and I am a stingy guy!) your other version

I think I know what the problem is. The problem here is not that the photograph is bad; it isnt either that the photo lacks originality; nor that the framing, the format, film choice, angle, familiarity of subject and spot, have been bottle-fed to us in magazines, calendars, and posters. The problem has nothing to do with originality or aesthetic value of any kind, but rather with preference and the boredom that comes with having being there and done that. As far as this POW is concerned: gone are those comments where the critics extract a universe of ideas, tell tall tales of, and impose their philosophical interjections about life and the human experience on the rest of the viewers. Ironically all these feelings and inspirations are present when one visits a spot like this and one cant help but to be awed by the beauty of nature of this magnitude. How is it possible that a simple set of stone steps (a previous POW) can drive critics to assess the whole universe and the human psyche, yet a wonder like this natural scene can only drive people to gripe about whether this has been done once before?

 

Im beginning to think that the problem here is that this is not a nude photograph. Had that been the case, nobody would have a problem giving 7s for originality. Had that been the case, nobody would lack inspiration to post a positive comment, and the picture would have earned its rightful place in the POW gallery. Funny how the originality issue kills a scenic but not a nude photograph. Nobody (ok hardly anybody) has paid any attention to the AESTHETIC quality of the photo, why, because it is not original! As if originality is the only driving force in photography (I cant believe I just said that). To tell a truth, originality is exactly half of the photograph while aesthetics is the other. In this, PN has got it right to not depart from keeping these main contributorswhich make photography an art formthe main factor for deciding if a photograph is worth its weight in silver halide. If a photograph is incredibly original yet lacks aesthetic value, it can be regarded as being average or so-so. The same is true of the opposite. So then, how does one rate a photograph that is beautiful yet not original without relegating it? The answer is that one doesnt have to. There is always room for approval or disapproval of any photograph without having to cater to the massesor feel that you are assimilating with those whom you admire simply because of their sentiment about the photo in questionand still retain your individual opinion or taste.

 

Its like everything else in life, take pizza or rap music for example: some people like it, some cant stand it, and some could care less one way or the other. Some grow tired of it easily, some can take it for a while, and some can handle it just about every day of the week. So where am I going with all this? Nowhere really! All Im saying is that people become polarized or jaded by their experiences but this should have no bearing on anyone elses opinion or taste. This is why children are a blessing to societyeverything is new and exiting for them, where as, the old man is sick and tired of just about everything in life and contemplates death as a blessing in disguise. So is the case with photography, except not to death, but to a disillusionment with photography altogether! If you like the photo, by all means you are right, because the factor is not whether others agree with you, but rather, if your eye agrees with your heart (taste). Putting down those who have become weary of seeing this type of photo is in no way going to make that stance more right then the one who is sick and tired of seeing this or any other highly published photographic spot.

 

That being said, I move on to the photo: I like it very much for what it is, not for how many times it has been (done, seen, etc). I like the layered effect of the pinnacles being in the middle of the image but feel that the photo is somewhat out of balance by having included too much of the rock to the left. Ironically, this is the part of the photo that gives it a hint of originality. The colors and the detail of the original slide are gorgeous without a doubt. But, is it fair to the photographer to have his work judged in a small jpeg file instead of a 24x50 poster? I think not! Therefore, IMO, the photographer should not dwell too much on the negative comments posted here. I like the darker red rock to the left and the light bathing it, but find that the direct light of the sun, opposite of it, is kind of bothersome as it starts to become washed out and overbearing. But nonetheless, the photo holds an incredible tonal range especially for the type of film used and the kind of light bathing the subject. I suspect this is why the sun was eliminated prior to pressing the shuttera wise choice IMO. As far as the snow is concerned, Im fine with it! Some may argue that it steals attention from the main focal point, but so what, it pays back for this deterrence by adding another element of interest and yet another clue to the story that in the end becomes part of the photo instead of a superfluous irritation. Excellent photo, worthy of sevens IMO! You have to understand that 7 for originality is sometimes used as a way to reinforce the approval of the photo and as another means to say GOOD JOB. Its kind of like giving the photographer a high five. No one ever gives a high 2 ½ and this is why some use 7 for originality only because they think the photo is excellent and well deserving of praise. Not half praise, but full praise. As far as comparison with other photos goes, there are always better photos elsewhere, but if this was the purpose of POW then, that would leave no room for improvement and no room for you and me.

 

BTW what is the theme for POW this week? Maybe we picked on the elves too much last week that they gave up on the theme idea.

 

I would rather listen to von Karajan's interpretation of a "standard" like The Ninth, than another scratchy, tuneless, boring, but oh-so-teddibly-NEW! piece of contemporary atonality conducted by Sir Simon Rattle... any day. Even though The Ninth has (admittedly) been done a lot, it's not much chop to just read through the score to yourself, imagining the sounds (ironic note: interestingly, that's exactly what deaf Ludwig had to do). It was a piece written for private passion and public entertainment. There ain't no music without the band, so we might as well get as good a band as we can gather together.

Making a photograph of a standard scene is not a crime in itself. Who was it that said (something like), "If you can't make a great pitcure within two-hundred yards of the car park, then don't bother unpacking your camera"? AA himself built a whole industry on taking photos from the Tunnel car park. Through his eyes we saw nature's majesty, better than anyone else was able to present it (at least up until AA came along, car park, corned-beef sandwiches, hot coffee an' all).

The crime is making a standard photograph of a standard scene. To a neophyte in standard American scenes (like I am), this picture looks pretty good, if slightly cheesy in the reds.

Now that I know it was taken from the car park, that's all I need to someday visit and see for myself, maybe even take a picture or two. Anything - art, sport, any human activity - that makes you want to go out and try it yourself is inspirational by definition. If you don't care to participate then that means it's either going to be too exhausting, too trivial or too damned hard. For another person it might be just the ticket he or she needs to get off their bum and do something about their need to self-express. I bet somewhere in the world someone is painting cute little cats on black velvet for that very reason. If you like cats, paints and black velvet, why not? Same with car parks, cameras, sunsets and hot coffee.

To paraphrase a poster above, we have here a picture that is good enough to stir the imitative juices, and whose subject is accessible enough to make (at least some of the less demanding of) us want to try.

Is it enough? Not for everyone, but then neither was, is, or will be Beethoven, whether conducted by old Herbie or not. Ludwig was just a deaf old German who stole catchy tunes. No originality there at all.

While I do like the picture and would be proud to have it in my collection, I agree with most of the others. I saw this scene in a gallery a few weeks ago, then I saw it in a magazine earlier today, then now here again. The lighting is good, but it's not unique either. The location is amazing obviously, although I've never been there. The major distraction about it is the huge amount of rocks shown on the left side, it takes up almost half of the picture. A little less of that, and then you've got a great photo.

Eyes kept searching for the subject and at last subject was found in RHS lower corner of the frame. What the photographer wants to show? Colors or subject? If color then the photograph passes with flying colors but if answer is subject then I would say it is a bad composition.

Congratulations Morey, Now duck!!! The thing that bothers me in this photo is the poor air quality visibly noticable in the distant pinacles. I too have a slide of the overly photographed Mesa Arch. It's about 23 years old and I wouldn't dare post it. It's not original enough to post here, (even if I wanted to get a good crit and possibly learn something). When I lived at the south rim of the Grand Canyon a team of environmentalist came out from Washington to set up a optical device to measure the air quality and to detect the added polution generated from the coal fired power plant just completed at the 4 corners area (less than 65 miles from Arches National Park). They predicted correctly that the new plant would ruin the air quality that at that time was the very best in the lower 48. But I wouldn't blame Morey for that, he just took a photo, unoriginal as it is, that records for the world how people can foul up the most beautiful remote desert region in the World. By the way, Morey, Nice Work, needs a little crop, maybe. I'd like to see the same in B & W. You have a wonderful file full of good work, Brad

>>> he just took a photo, unoriginal as it is, that records for the world >>> how people can foul up the most beautiful remote desert region in the >>> World.

Well no, that's the very thing he didn't do. If he'd only have included the car park or some other clear element of tourist civilization, then we'd have something to talk about besides the level of unoriginality. As for the remark made earlier that there is nothing original to Beethoven, I'll let that pass as 'humor'. There is quite a bit of such 'humor' here, I should say.

Bee Flowers, You are absolutely right. For an interesting commentary on the subject of overbuilding National Parks see Desert Solitaire, by Edward Abby, a summer seasonal Ranger at Arches NP during the late 60s and early 70s. He too has pics of the arches but before the car park. Brad

As far as Mesa Arch photos go, this one is pretty darn good. I could go on about originality issues with landscape photography but I think I would rather point to the article here: The Landscape Photography Repertoire

After reading Tony Dummet's comment on Beethoven's Ninth I can't help being reminded of Nicholas Nicolas Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective. You would like it Tony. An excerpt from a critic in 1868 regarding the Beethoven's Ninth sounds similar to your appraisal of contemporary music:

...I regret to say that it appeared to be made up of the strange, the ludicrous, the abrupt, the ferocious, and the screechy, with the slightest possible admixture, here and there, of an intelligible melody... (The Orchestra, London, June 20, 1868)

I wonder how many symphonies that critic had written himself. How else would he know how to judge?

This is an excellent photo from all aspects, and I think a lot of people will be taking home a limited edtition lithograph of this puppy! One sign that this image is great is the shear number of strong responses on this forum. All that remains now is to get it translated as artfully as possible into press CMYK color space. If you don't already know a trusted expert, I recommend you consult Dwane Elmore of Elmore Graphics: DLELMORE@aol.com

I know I am late coming to the discussion, and I may well be echoing comments above, but here are my two cents nonetheless.

First of all, this is a great photo. Of the shots I've seen of Mesa Arch (and I've seen plenty), this is very well executed. I don't have other shots in front of me, so I can't compare this shot of Mesa Arch to the others, but I can definitely say this was very well done.

Mesa Arch at dawn is as original as Antelope Canyon at noon or Delicate Arch at sunset. Yes, the scene is incredible. Yes, this particular rendition is well done. And yes, although I've set my tripod in the same imaginary markings for popular subjects (not Mesa Arch, but I've done it for plenty of other subjects), I took those photos just to have my own shot of Delicate Arch (or whatever). I also took them knowing that I was taking an unoriginal shot.

Bottom line, there is nothing I see in this shot that sets it so far apart from the other good shots I've seen of Mesa Arch.

Mark,

 

I was glad to read your comment, with the Slonimsky reference, and I'd like to add that if photography were stuck as firmly in the 19th century as most of the classical music establishment.. let's just say we wouldn't be talking about velvia and the colors in this photograph. "Vulgar" as they may be. Beethoven, by the way, laid the groundwork for that so called atonal noise.

Pretty but the composition is mundane. the left side isn't interesting. I'm not a cropper but this image would feel 10x more fantastic, Luminous,(american Art) if you cut the left side of the image from the rock where the nice highlight lays. Now burn the blown out white on the rigth side of the image.

cfr