Lake StevensSunrise Pano

4 verticals shot with a Samyang 14mm on a Sony A7rII stitched in

Photoshop. Winter sunrise on Lake Stevens, WA, a mile from my

house.

Nice clouds and reflection.  I owned this lens very briefly and didn't like it because of the colors (compared to Nikon lenses for example) and the really cheap starburst (six-pointed due to six diaphragm blades).  My guess is that the yellow sun is somewhat enhanced in post.  The foreground sky reflection seems to have a green cast too for some reason.  Regards, Jeff    

Very nicely done image!

A strong artistic amazing result. Beautiful in its symmetry, light and colors.

BR, Holger

Wow this is a great shot! perfert symmetry in the water and beautiful colours! This is a keeper.

Normally I don't like a centered horizon but have to admit it works here.  The symmetry is striking... Mike

Hi Jim,

  Breathtaking scene with dramatic sky, colors & reflection.  Take care, Patsy

Wonderful mosaic of light, colors and reflections!

Really nice image.  Making me realize I need to pull that lens out of the bag on occasion.  Really lovely.

Jeff, I've been pretty happy with this lens (for the cost - I got it on sale). I agree with the lack luster starburst, and yes I worked the sun in post. I got it to do night photos on my A7rII and for that it works well, although I hate carrying the beast. I'd love to get a lighter lens for such work, the new Zeiss 21mm looks good, but costs 4X!!

Interesting choice of the elves, as I think that Jim D is not usually an eye candy type of photographer. This is what I feel this one is, and it is I think much less engaging than other of his more perceptive images, such as "Whitehorse Mountain" from the same sub-portfolio.

I will go back to looking at "Whitehorse Mountain"....and recommend it to others.

Thanks Arthur, for making me open the portfolio. There is a good number of photos there I like quite a bit better than this one. Also more than a bit. So, indeed an "interesting" choice, but I add quotes, as I think this image is not a great introduction to a photographer who clearly has more on offer.

I guess that implied enough that this image doesn't convince me all that much. Yes, I can see what is attractive about it; colourful, the choice for symmetry and a square size to suit that - all OK. Lovely sunrise. It's a pleasant image to look at, calm, peaceful. But also lacking in dynamics, in getting me involved. Nothing in this photo pulls or pushes me as viewer to see more than that, to dive deeper into it. A pretty image, period.
It's -to be honest- a pretty good example of why the rule of thirds works better, in my view. The image is too balanced, a bit sedate. It's hard to imagine this photo sits in the same portfolio as this one. Sure, it's a matter of personal taste and opinion, but well, one doesn't move me, the other inspires the hell out of me.

Now I know the photo of the week should be a photo to provoke discussion, and not be an "award" for a great photo. But this portfolio, in my view, deserved a better entry point.

I like his color choices. Very masculine.

I am rather surprised at Arthur's eye candy comment. I see this picture as very representative of the photographer's output. Aren't all/most of his panoramas eye candy, for example? Isn't most landscape photography essentially "eye candy"? I suppose if in black and white it becomes "serious" and "artistic". Is it realistic to expect a scene like this to say more than its (manifest) aesthetic appeal?

All this aside, this is a beautiful scene and, although the rule of thirds is not obeyed here, it is ignored for a good reason: in order to maximize the symmetry of the reflection.

I do, too.

IMO, yes.

Yes, though some can still stand out as different. Salgado's landscapes come to mind, even though they're a bit much for me.

Yes, interesting observation. Looking at a lot of Jim's black and white landscapes, my guess would be there would be many who would see those as more "artistic" and yet they approach the landscape in pretty much the same way as the color work.

Interesting question. I think, yes, it could be realistic to expect more. We just don't often see it. The reason I mention Salgado's work is that it's part of an overall project to bring environmental concerns to light. There ought to be plenty of room for such type of landscape work, work that might tend toward a more realistic view of what we're doing to the environment as opposed to the more mythical and ideal view we're often limited to by landscape photographers.

On this, I'll disagree with you. I don't see what bringing symmetry to the reflection adds to the photo. For me, it loses what dynamic energy it might have had (and this kind of energy can be as important in a serene photo as much as in a more aggressive photo) because of the composition, and I'm one who would often be happy to dismiss the rule of thirds. I just think this composition is bottom heavy and it doesn't seem like heaviness was inherent in the scene. In terms of beauty, which I take to be a deeper concept than pretty (which I think better describes this scene), it's got the same degree as last week's POTW, which is a shallow degree of beauty for me.

My perspective on this image is at odds with some others. My impression is that Jim's composition and presentation are absolutely intentional, and reinforce specific characteristics inherent to his first-person experience of this scene. The experiential characteristics of a sunrise can include stillness and peacefulness at the moment the sun crests the horizon, in contrast to energy we know will come. This is true in the desert (one of my favorite sunrise venues), high mountains, and across bodies of water such as Lake Stevens. This composition effectively captures and communicates that moment of stillness. I believe this image is all about a moment in time which is still, quiet, peaceful, and nascent of the day aborning. The very centered placement of the horizon, the cool colors, the centered position of the sun, all contribute to this feeling. Yes, it is "pretty", particularly considering it is located in a heavily urbanized environment. It also is evocative of the feelings I have at similar times and places. These are good feelings, and their evocation brings pleasant memories. Assuming this was Jim's intent, then this is a very effective image. I don't know that it needs a higher purpose.

David, none of us knows the mind of the photographer but I tend to think like you do that this photo does fulfill Jim's intention. A photographer as practiced as Jim, I think, would not make such a blatantly symmetrical and centered photo unintentionally. And he may well feel that this composition expresses the stillness and peace every one of us has experienced during such a sunrise. That doesn't change my own response to the photo, which for the reasons I stated doesn't really work for me. I just spent a week on the road, witnessing many a sunrise and sunset over waters and deserts and mountains and trees and this photo does not evoke at all how I felt. Then again, admittedly, my own photos from the trip do even a worse job than this at evoking those feelings, which is probably because I don't and the reason I don't do much landscape photography.

One thing I feel about landscape photography is, this genre benefits a lot from proper exhibition which includes the size of the canvas, the atmosphere and room lighting, and this image is no exception to that. I think if this image is displayed in a huge canvas in a dimly lit silent room, I will feel very different than when I view it here. The huge expanse of the sky and the water, the subtleties of the colors and cloud pattern that are more evident in a large canvas, all are critical in a landscape image like this to elevate it in any way beyond an eye candy. I think the appeal of this image if any is in absorbing the viewer into the scene perhaps in a setting described above.

I usually don't like to rethink someone else's image and I have some aversion to some past member's of a print club I belonged to briefly (!) who reacted to just about every image they saw by applying two L-shaped cutouts to reframe just about every image that came before them. One should accept what the photographer has presented us and come to terms with that.

There are some not frequent times when reframing can add something rather than just take something away. Further regards at Jim's photo suggested to me that there are some interesting cloud patterns close to the left and right horizons. They are as different from each other as the tree line with no common symmetry on either side of the sun. But both become "buried" in the apparent symmetry of the whole image. By cutting off the lower 1/4 or 1/3rd of the image, the movement apparent in these linear cloud traces becomes more evident (the left side strongly directed to the left, depicting movement, while that on the right remains less dynamic but different), and the majority of the cloud pattern (mostly static and repetitive) becomes less obstrusive and allows the more interesting (in my mind) and somewhat more dynamic image to appear. This does not change my mind much about the oft-seen color eye candy, but adds another possibility.

The best landscapes are like the best portraits, they can convey much more than texture. light and compositional artifacts and so provide a sense of place or spirit or even emotion like that of a portrait. We just don't see that vey often. A good subject for a future post, of course.

I think there is beauty is the almost perfect reflection, and the photographer has not attempted to brighten the reflection which would be very tempting but not realistic. A wise choice. By cutting a third off the bottom you remove this whole aspect of the picture. It would make a different picture altogether. I agree with Supriyo that this is a shot that would be stunning when printed as large as possible.

I agree, Arthur, about the best landscapes, but in a sense, this is true of all the best shots. Although these feelings of pleasure are generated by the action of the image upon our inner feelings - these feelings or reactions are often unpredictable and not common to all people. Aesthetic appeal in and of itself to me is one of the most important aspects of photography, and need not be relegated to second fiddle to "seriousness" or "social purpose", or even "meaning".

Robin, I guess I don't understand your use of the word "aesthetic." In my understanding, there are moral components to aesthetics, for example. The aesthetic of any photo would include "seriousness," "social purpose," and/or "meaning." But my thinking is that aesthetics is more than just the superficial looks of a photo or, as I said, how pretty it is, how neat and clean the lines, how pleasing the colors and composition, etc.

The problem, for me, may be when the experience is limited to pleasure (your word of choice). That's usually not enough for me.

Fred; I'm a little confused. Are you saying that photography (or art) is only valid or valuable if it has a higher or deeper purpose/meaning than communicating joy or pleasure? Please clarify. You've already pointed out that landscapes aren't your thing (my paraphrase). I'll be the first to admit that some photographic genres are more and some less appealing to my own tastes, and I assume this to be true for most of us. I'm interested to understand how you interpret the concept of an "aesthetic", and how that relates to the relative value of one image over another.

No. I'm saying that, usually, photos that are limited to being pleasing or communicating pleasure are not enough for me. Not enough, that is, for me to care much about or be turned on by. I'm not talking about validity or some objective criterion of value. Plenty of things I don't particularly like have a lot of various kinds of value.

Earlier, you had said . . .

I actually think evocation (you said the photo evokes a great deal in you) is a higher purpose. And, yes, for me art does have a higher purpose, but higher than what, we'd have to ask. For me, higher than design. Plenty of paintings and photos adorn people's walls because they are pleasing to live with. To me, that's not art. It's decor. It's important. I like a nice living space and having nice things around. But, IMO, that's not art.

Getting back to this photo. You said you find it evocative. That's a good part of the reason it succeeds for you, and I can understand that. For me, though, this photo is more representative than evocative. A representation shows or describes something, often either using signs and symbols or becoming a sign itself. It's a bit like a stand-in. That's how I see this photo. As a stand-in for or reminder of the experience but one that also uses accepted signs (most "beautiful" time of day, bilious cloud formations, digestible color palette) in order to do the standing in. It’s more like a post-it note I might put on my desktop. For me, it lacks creativity, meaning it never transcends what it actually is. It is a representational picture of something meant to remind me of that thing. I think that's a perfectly good use for photography. I don't think it's art. It’s a picturing, for me, without creating a unique or personalized experience. For me, it shows and it shows in a technically competent way, but it does not evoke or suggest.

As for aesthetics, I believe it's a matter of looking at things in a particular way, a more wondrous way, if you will, than normal. I think aesthetics encompasses illusion, creativity, passion, expressiveness, the unconscious, symbolism, sensuousness, the relationship of content and form, and I think aesthetics often have moral and intellectual ties and ramifications.

My own aesthetic tends toward a fair amount of provocation. The art I often most appreciate provokes me in some substantial way. It's not provocative necessarily in the sense of being sexually or politically subversive, though a lot of art I like does that. It's provocative in terms of leaving me incomplete, or being suggestive without full closure. This photo, on the other hand, completes its own picture.

By the way, to say I don't like landscapes is an overstatement. I like Monet's landscapes and Van Gogh's landscapes and I appreciate (though not nearly as much) many of Joel Meyerowitz's landscapes. But that's because they seem to put in more than they get out of the landscape. Van Gogh's brushstrokes, Monet's softness, Meyerowitz's play with light and color all provide me with that kind of suggestiveness and provocation I'm talking about. Now, many of these also hang on people's walls. And probably many do so because they find them pleasing. But I bet if you could get right down to it, you'd discover more than that.