Mesa Arch

Mesa Arch is not Canyon Lands NP anot Arches.

If not for anything else, I admire the sheer patience and determination this photo required. I was in Canyonlands (IITS section) 3 months ago and remember getting out of bed at 3:30 in the morning and driving for what seemed forever to get to Mesa Arch. Thankfully I was rewarded with a similar photo that Morey has out here. For those who are not familiar, there is but a very short window of time when the light reflected off the rocks lights up the underside of Mesa Arch brilliant red. Unless you are fully prepared this photo will never happen. Good work Morey!

Discussing the originality of THE SUBJECT of an image that would fit in the "LANDMARK" category of a stock library catalog seems like a painful waste of time to me. Was the Mona Lisa original back then ? Yes, because of the smile. It was original because it was exquisitely painted with a realism and an expression that people hadn't seen yet. Is it still original in the year 2003 ? Well, no, because everyone has now seen it and copied it in many ways. Same goes for this arch. The first photographer who got there won the game. But the smile is still wonderful and so is this picture - eventhough I prefer the Mona Lisa, admittedly...:-)

I love Brad Hiltbrand's first 2 paragraphs about originality. I disagree with Isidro on one thing (while I agree with most of his post), in the sense that I don't think that a great photo is necessarily a good balance of originality and aesthetics - despite this being the criteria proposed by photo.net. To me, the beauty of the light in this picture, and the way it enhances the amazing depth of this layered composition, creates a strong impact. What came to my mind when I saw this was "Wow!"... And in landscape (especially in landmark) photography, I tend to believe that creating a strong impact is a form of originality, and that an aesthetical impact is pretty much the goal. Trying to be absolutely original can also be very dangerous at times, since it may easily lead to an interpretation of the subject that goes *against* the subject. So much for the originality debate...

Now, how about the aesthetics of this picture...? Well, to me, the light is what holds all this together. The light grabs the rocks from the left side and never let go till the far end of this incredible depth, coloring everything on its way. Some said that there was no real focus in this photo, and to some extent, I see their point, but the eye is drawn in from the left rocks till the far end, so there's a direction rather than a real focus, but it works fine imo.

Some mentionned about the top left corner being a problem. Well, yes, I think this area is the least interesting and we wish it were closed, but I tend to believe that Morey could probably not do much about it. Some have suggest a crop on the left, but I feel it would be a crime to crop any more than 0.5 "monitor-cm" on that side, because we would lose the transition from dark to light on the rocks, which is gorgeous. Some have suggested a crop at the top, but here I disagree: the top is the arch and there isn't much of it left already... make it any slimmer won't help. Then there have been comments about the bottom right corner of the picture: that piece of rock with snow... Well, if it was possible to avoid it, the picture would imo be better, but I'd like to hear Morey on this. Why did he leave this rock within the frame ? I'm sure there must have been some impossibility to do otherwise, or else most of us would leave it out - including Morey probably.

I'd like to add that I have never bought a panoramic camera myself, and always regretted it to some extent, and perhaps some day I still will. But Morey's picture illustrates perfectly the reason why I didn't buy it: a panoramic is almost never panoramic enough...:-)

Wouldn't we all want to see a lot more on the right side of this frame (while keeping all else as it is)? Well, I certainly do. When I saw this picture, the first thing that crossed my mind was "Wow ! What a light !", immediately followed by "Too bad he didn't have a 360 degrees...:-)

What's missing here for me, and we can't of course blame Morey for that, is the magic of the very expensive 360 camera. And this explains why so many people are now using stiching and programs like "Quicktime VR"... Perhaps your next investment, Morey...?

Anyway, congratulations on this POW, not for the originality of the subject, nor even for the approach, but for capturing such a wonderful light.

What's missing here for me, and we can't of course blame Morey for that, is the magic of the very expensive 360 camera.

That is an interesting comment in the context of this discussion because a 360° camera would show a very different reality in many of the famous landscape locations. A 360° camera would show the trash cans, the interpretive signs, the road, the parking lot, the crowds of tourists with video cameras. A 360° camera would show all the things that landscape photographers don't want in the frame when they shoot these icons as examples of the great american wilderness.

Mark rightly points out that The Ninth was once regarded as the worst kind of modernistic scratch music. Just goes to show how wrong some critics can be! A wise man once said (paraphrased), "No one's ever put a statue of a critic". But I'm sure there are statues of Ludwig. I used to have one myself: fake marble, but real plastic. He must have been famous... and a genius.

 

This idea that because some of The Greats, like Beethoven, were lambasted by their contemporaries, then ANY person who is lambasted by THEIR contemporaries must be a genius is too illogical to even begin to refute. Now, I know Mark Meyer didn't say that (he was just having some fun), but a few others above have come perilous close to it. Dangerous ground.

 

Many make their livings (and handsome ones at that) from taking photos that make photography look easy, and fun. This is to be encouraged.

 

That damn G617 is hard to use: no focus feedback (it's utterly manual), no meter, only six shots per roll (and that's if you're using 220), a wally shutter trip mechanism and its hard to load. So even just a good picture out of it is an achievement.

 

And what's wrong with taking pictures from car parks? That's why they're there, isn't it? For the view?

Boring car park shot by Ansel Adams.

Marc

I cropped off 30% of the right frame because these monitors don't have the right aspect ratio and much of the detail is lost when you include the full frame. However, my 16 by 48 in. looks quite nice. A 360 pano would be interesting and to correct one impression suggested by others: this is not shot from a parking lot. The parking lot is ten minutes hike from this point. There are no crash cans, signs, no signs of human activity. The problem with the 360 is that you would include the dozen or so other photographers that usually show up for the morning sunrise shoot and make getting a good shot that more difficult. If you can imagine you have few precious minutes to compose your shot and make sure you have not included someone's foot or tripod leg. Getting to this point is not a picnic either, as Tim can confirm, it is not well marked and I drove past it the first time wondering where the hell is this place. It is better to scope it out during the day because timing is critical. If you don't have a flashlight, which I did not, it is easy to trip and fall, which I did. My nose broke the fall, but no damage reported. Tony is right about the metering and the focus as well as keeping the monster level. You are spot metering like crazy trying to average the light while it is changing and you have the added concern of catching the optimal glow on the rock that can last a few seconds, depending on the clouds, etc. To add to the frustration that we photographers encounter, after the shoot I went to another position to take some shots with my Mamiya 7ii, I had put my 50mm lens in my coat jacket, not smart, and as I bent over I noticed it rolling toward the edge of the precipice, toward what would have been an untimely plunge of thousand feet. It did stop short, but sustained about $500 in repairs. I do not want to create the impression of Inspector Clouseau, but I think we all have these Kodak moments. So you drive to the middle of nowhere, Moab, Utah, you set your alarm for an ungodly wake up, try to compose yourself, make sure you have all your gear, drive about an hour in a pitch dark, on poorly marked roads, freeze your buns off, smash your nose, blow $500 in equipment and than wonder for the rest of the trip whether you got a decent shot. No digital confirmation here. But strange as it may see, you love every moment of it and would not give it up for anything. Happy shooting!

http://members.rogers.com/saintjohnphotos/special/detail.jpg

 

what's up with this edge?

Everyone should try a shot like this when they're ready. Getting up long before sunrise with the sole purpose of capturing a few seconds of light is an experience not to be missed. You may ultimately decide to concentrate on street shots, or set ups, or PS composites, but when someone talks about capturing the light, as Morey did earlier, this is what they mean.

Not five minutes ago, there was a brief moment where the morning sun poked through the storm clouds lighting up my neighbor's house across the street. Should I have grabbed the camera to get a shot of this very unoriginal subject? Moot point. While I was thinking about it, the light vanished.

Read about AA's making of "Moonrise, Hernandez."

Hokum, first try doing this analysis on one of your own sunrise

shots. Then read various articles on the web about digital

sharpening. Then read the PN guidelines for digital

manipulation.

What's been bothering me since this image was posted was the extreme horizontal frame, or panoramic treatment, and the massive form of the rock which tends to resist this kind of framing, as if there should be another half of arch in another photograph. Also, according to the lines of composition, it's the underside of the arch that we're looking at, not the distant background. Although my western eye wants to read the image from left to right, and the light/dark values of atmosphere draw it under and beyond the arch into the canyon, the rest of the image (lines, massive forms of shape and color, texture, interplay of light and shadow on adjacent ledges, etc) holds my eye back at the big orange spot of arch indicated by the arrows.

 

I'm able to identify the claustrophobia of an enormous landscape composed within a slit crop, but what I can't figure out just now is whether the compositional forces are good (acceptable tension) or whether they are bad (confusion and disharmony)

I'm not referring to sharpening (or jpeg) artefacts, but to how the saturated orange area under the arch appears to trail the leading edge of the formation (as recorded by the camera) by a uniform 2-pixels. Was it painted into a selection, or the saturation boosted (one may ask the same thing about a couple of other areas).

I adjust hue/saturation and curves of selected areas of my own photos all the time, and Morey's picture apparently bears some of the hallmarks of a 'quick-and-dirty' effort, including a somewhat careless selection (there are ways to mask this to perfection, with time and effort).

Another area of dangerous ground is to generalize that everything you don't like, or don't understand, or that is new, is garbage. Tony didn't exactly go there, but gets pretty close. The value of Beethoven's music is not in question, what's questionable is the choice to program the proven and the safe to the exclusion of new ideas, and new experience. And this is status quo in the classical music world. How often does one even hear recognized early 20th century masterworks by Ives, or Webern, .. Messiaen, Stockhausen? No, more likely we're treated to milktoast Copeland, because it draws from familiar vocabulary. The problem is what is not getting heard. The same circumstances exist in broadcasting, we hear Kenny G, instead of Steve Lacy (do you know who Steve Lacy is? IF not, why not?). And perhaps here. Mesa Arch is beautiful, and the whole process of getting the picture was also beautiful and one can readily appreciate the totality of the experience Morey describes. It is shared by fly fisherman, and it is wonderful. It's great that photography can be this among so many other things, a recreation, a way of interacting with nature and our surroundings. On a purely aesthetic basis though it fails to challenge. It's pretty, it's decorative, but there's not a lot to read, IMO. I'd rather see the light captured by something else. But it is well done, and at 48 inches I imagine it looks more impressive than a trophy trout.

Morey, this is an excellent image. With or without any digital

manipulation, the best arch picture I have seen. A great choice

for photo of the week.

Why should gigantic print size be the test of image quality? That's a tad bit on the fanatic side, if you ask me. I'm talking about image quality as it relates to content, not sharpness, definition, etc. After a certain level of enlargement it's no longer the power of the finer aspects of an artistic vision that are impressive, but mere size alone.

 

Print size is a measure lens quality, yup, and processing quality, ok, and negative quality, sure, and has a thing or two to do with one's aesthetics, I'll give you that, but if the image is graphically challenged at 4x5, what's 40x50 going to do but numb you to any content flaws?

 

The average person may be wonderfully impressed by a large image, but you have to wonder if the image is any good on its own, or if it's just carrying a big stick.

With or without any digital manipulation>

 

Here's the problem with this statement:

 

http://members.rogers.com/saintjohnphotos/special/no.gif

Mark Meyer,

I'm sure you realize that the 360 degrees panoramic doesn't NECESSARILY include the trash cans around. There's obviously a danger to incude not so pretty elements, but the photographer is in such cases supposed to work around the problems he faces. Besides that, shooting with a 360 degrees isn't exactly new and some of the best landscapes I've seen were shot with such equipment, so I suppose there must be away around the trash. Finally, a 360 can also become a 280 or 250 degrees etc. Meaning that cropping what's unwanted is still possible.

Morey,

I'm very interested in seeing the POW "uncropped", but I just can't see it: your link didn't work. How about uploading it to one of your folders and posting the URL here ? Would that be ok ? Thanks.

Photographers = Nitpickers?

This discussion is sounding sad: on the one hand is a gorgeous picture to view, study, emote to; on the other there are the celebral who wonder whether a 7/7 picture can actually be such.

How can everyone here get into a beautiful orange/red bath of rock and sun and space and not feel? Do we go to a concert and critique the hairdo of one of the musicians? Can we as phnetters not emote and let 7/7 alone?

Are we emotionally starved, dead? Like an exhausted battery? Shell without inner substance?

What better composition is there for the arch? And does it matter? 99% is close enough in my eyes and this picture releases great awe in me, not composition nitpicking or "originality" blank face orgasms.

Sorry, guys, but I miss a true human and feeling response...

Why is anyone taking pictures? Seriously, why? And why can't we see?

Originality 0 ! I'm quite with John Photo. A landscape is nice

naturaly. i think photographer needs to create a different angle or

situation to shot it, because if he doens't it we have just a

register, not a photo.

So, when you want to take a picture of some landscape, look it

for a different angle, light and situation. Sorry, but this POW is

only a register.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1118524

 

For those of us who were trained to be nitpickers regarding

composition, I find this other version to be much better balanced. At

the time of that upload, Morey felt the same way.

I've come over the pond to Utah in winter and hiked in to this arch before dawn and got Nothing, zilch , zero...but i loved being there! and I will be back again untill I get more than zero. I would like critics like 'john photo' to illustrate what kind of images he considers creative , fresh, and innovative so the rest of us boring lanscapers can mend our ways and aspire to ...

Morey, Great Photograph!!! :-)

I commented on this photo early on and stand by my critique of it

then, its awesome.

 

I have been to this area, and yes it may be easier for those that

live there to be able to capture a similar image, as they have the

time, patience etc. For those of us that live far away from such

places we are only there for a few days and how frustrating it is

when the weather is not so kind to us as we would like, or the

light is wrong etc etc.

 

Therefore we view the subjects more objectively, and this is a

great photograph no doubt about that. I don't care if its been

photographed a million times and its not considered original. I

agree with Morey's comments about the quality of the different

lights, its what makes this shot. For the rest of my thoughts, I

can only say I echo Brad Hiltbrands comments.

 

Morey's photograph is original, its his, he took it, he got up earlly,

he chose the shot, way to go Morey.

 

I had similar comments about an Antelope Canyon shot of mine,

but I remain extremely proud of my work. I hope you are proud of

this shot Morey, I certainly would be.

 

Alethea

Marc

 

For some reason my links are not going through so I will follow your suggestion and place the full pano in one of my folders. Thanks.

The best and most predominant contemporary orchestral music (in my opinion almost the definition of it) is film music, not set piece concert hall compositions. Film - or if you expand that a little, imagery - is what Beethoven didn't have and what we do have today. In Ludwig's day you had to sit in a big room and listen once to a piece. If you wanted to hear it again, you had to either shout "Encore!", have enough money to pay the orchestra to reprise, or come back next Thursday night and hope for a better seat.

 

Nowadays, we have recordings that allow even the composer (as well as his audience,) to hear an orchestral piece over and over again, better than anyone ever heard it before, in their living room. Picking nits is easy. Ditto with those edges in this photo.

 

Combine orchestral music with film (another recorded medium) and its a whole different ball game today: recorded music, recorded images. One might even argue that music and images have a natural symbiosis, delivering a complete sensory experience (the one both distracting from and supplementing the other). Would Beethoven have written film music in the 21st century? We can never know (they didn't have movies then), but I'd like to think he would have (couldn't have been any worse than almost any one of Phillip Glass's droning repetitions, reminding us how miserable we are).

 

I once attended Sydney Opera House to hear that Ligeti piece used in "2001". It was almost unlistenable. Even the orchestra was dozing off. But Kubrick rightly set it to images, making it famous, establishing a genre of space music (or, if you like, music for films about space) that survived quite a few years. Incidentally, he also showed just how visual a piece was The Blue Danube. It was just that nobody had thought of the context until he did.

 

This picture would be well accompanied by a milktoast Copeland piece, perhaps set among other similar images (playing in the background through a gallery's sound system?). The Ninth would be totally inappropriate. A modernistic Concerto for Vacuum Cleaner and Spoon in A-minor would be laughable. Some composers hit the spot - they evoke a resonance - in both the critics' and the public's minds, provided the context is right. That's why they endure. So do some scenes, causing photographers to return again and again to reinterpret them, as Morey has done here. Combine good examples of the two and you usually get a winner... something to wallow in.

Hi Morey (and the Rest Of You),

 

I'll give you credit for making the trek up Island In The Sky in the middle of the night (well, early morning) that's for sure. It's a visually stunning image, made all the more real for me by the fact that I've been there, and stood in exactly the same spot. Unfortunately, there's the rub. The entire Arches/Canyonlands/Bryce

Canyon region is a photograhers' paradise, and even though I love looking at technically proficient photographs (especially of that area) the subject matter has been well-exposed (pun intended). I love your portfolio because it takes me back there - don't let the pundits and critics get you down. If you enjoy photographing it, that's what counts.

 

RGDS

Doug