Tibetan Horseman

I must admit I submitted a raw transparency image without any manipulation on purpose. I find it curious that so many people are so used to seeing so many posed and contrived images here that they find it hard to really see or understand the nature of real location documentary photography. What is unique about an image like this is not so much its individual technical merits, but that it was captured at all. The easy part that anyone can do is dressing up the details on the computer monitor. And I really appreciate that aspect too. A similar image attached.

A rider reaching out of his saddle on a racing steed come on all you so called pro's this IMHO is a great shot sharp or unsharp,or would you prefer some static green leaf!!!!!!

William, I'd love to see it, but it's not coming up - can you repost?

 

Thanks!

 

Sam

This is a great shot..

The use of color.. the action and the framing are perfect. I wish I had taken it.. or been there to witness it. This gets me there.

 

In fact, it is so good I don't even NOTICE if it has good or bad Bokeh.

This image got about 45 very high rates and 15 comments prior to being selcted for POW, but I don't recall reading where anyone indicated that this could be improved either in the capture or scanning. (OK, except for using PS to dodge the rider's face.) William says it's full frame, but since it's still in its' cardboard mount, there's more hidden that would be revealed using a full size Wess mount designed for the purpose. I always remount my slides unless I'm certain they're going to be cropped. Leaving a rounded corner in a scan, not to mention a huge piece of tape, if that's what it is, is very sloppy, and yet none of the comments (or rates) seem to take that into account.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this very discouraging because it only reinforces the notion that the photograph has been reduced to little more than a picture of a colorful exotic subject. I think the photographer should get credit for getting in good position and for firing off several quick shots, but I wonder what else is on the roll given that I wouldn't think of trying this shot with anything other that 400 print film . . . maybe 200 slide if I had to have the capture as an original transparency for some reason.

I think that my comment implied that unsharp images that are thrown aside are for images that *should* be sharp inherently based on the subject matter and the presentation. Of course other more abstract or "moody" images might merit lack of sharpness as a plus. Or something more denoting of fast movement, not softness due to being out of focus or poor placement of a narrow DOF. I'm sorry you did not see that.

So, are you saying that an image like this, with it's unsharpness (as presented---aside for the moment that fact that it might actually BE sharp in the original) would be acceptable to you and that being sharper would NOT be better? And why does ""crisp, tack-on sharp" denote "boring" to you? Is this image less boring because it's not sharp?

Funny, my experience with SWISS business people (in Zurich in particular actually) would have me thinking sharpness, and nothing but perfect sharpness, would be absolutely paramount. But that's more based on my business experiences and seeing their absolute and regimented approach to schedules, planning and presentations than art experiences, and therefore may indeed be flawed.

Despite all the criticisms, this is a spectacular image. Bill has apologised for the poor scan and stated that the original tranny is very sharp in the very first post with the uploaded pic. For some reason images in this very difficult documentary action style are deemed as poor second cousins to contrived, safe, well light, boring stuff. I am pleased to have given Bills pic 7+7 months ago.

I'll try again to get the image to load

I rarely do this, but this is what I call a great photograph regardless of any little technical imperfection. I especially like the feel of speed and the nice balance between the sides (head position of horse and rider). I would be interested to know about the lens (length) you used.

Congratulations.

 

M~

M- This image was shot with 100-400 IS Canon. It was captured in one of my "studios". To get there, I rode for four days in an open truck,crossed four 17,000ft. frigid passes, and arrived just in time to grab my gear and start shooting. This is only one of many "usable" images from that afternoon. The site of this annual event is in the shadow of and within sight of Mt. Everest.

Very very nice shot. Anyone complaining about the sharpness should

try shooting ANYTHING coming towards them at speed (using a tight crop, long lens and slow film,) let alone a horse at full gallop that you have to jump out of the way of seconds later. Ok, he loses points for this and that, but if the original (we have yet to see) isn't tack sharp, then we'll be bashing the autofocus system and not the photographer, right? Or was it shot with manual focus?

If manual, it's even more brilliant in my opinion. Great photo! (except of course for the spectator who was wearing the wrong hat? - pulleeeeze.)

Composition is excellent, position and attitude of both subjects is at his best IMO. I guess given the lense used and the speed moving towards the photographer horseman, it was hard to capture perfectly

But I also have a problem with that picture... I am not sure it is only the lack of sharpness... I feel a mysterious DOF here where the foreground on the left before horse foreleg is quite sharp, the left foreleg of the horse is unsharp and the moving hand of the man further behind as well the little ground projections are sharper... and I guess the movement is not a sufficient explanation for that mystery... I reckon also that the picture is not manipulated... so I just dont understand very well...

The clean-up version of Roy is a serious upgrade and IMO it should have been done prior to submit this image as a POW.

The only time I see a horses head like that is in paintings. It has a three dimensional quality that makes it stand out from the background. On the last POW there were a lot of complaints about the photoshopping that must have been done, on this one there are complaints about the lack of photoshopping. A great photo is a great photo. Period.

I like the attachment better. Thanks for posting it, William.

To me it is a great photo if it gives me chills. The more I look at this one, the more it has that effect. I challenge any of you to point me to a photo that can evoke this type of response. The action is pure, the sense of being there leaves the dirt flying in your face. I had to spit it out twice. The "experts" among you have found flaws left, right and center. I'd like to see you point me to [an] image that can provide this type of excitement. I dare you. Now get off of your high horses (yeah, pun intended), and admit that this is a great photo. I congratulate this week's winner for creating pure excitement, and making my week.

I want to preface my opinion by saying that this is my first photo.net post and I am not at all any kind of expert (best I can do is that I'm my high school's yearbook photo editor).

That being said, this photo is amazing IMO. The presentation isn't great (or tack sharp), but the photo itself is compelling regardless. The horseman is charging right at the lens, which I think is accentuated by the dof, frozen dust cloud and the great timing to capture the expression of the horse. The bright primary colours make the rider seem to leap towards me, and the horse with him. A caption explaining the picure (ie: what's in the rider's hand) would help, but as is it's still a great photo. I don't think there's enough praise here for the photographer's ability to capture a fleeting moment like this.

Jeff, one doesn't have to be an expert or "on a high horse" to note that, as good as this photo is, it could have been better. I like it myself and do not think for a moment that I could or would have done better in the same situation. Even so, it would have been better if (1) it had been sharper (or even "sharpened") and (2) the offending parts of the image had been cropped or otherwise removed prior to upload.

Please note that most of the critics have given the photo "very good" ratings. They have simply withheld the rating of "excellent," which implies near perfection. They have not trashed the picture with ratings or commentary. It is not nitpicking to ask what could be better about the picture. It is simply the kind of honest criticism that keeps us from all migrating to photo.sick or some other site.

As for the emotional impact, that is going to vary from person to person. Being around horses all the time myself, I can almost feel the breath from the nostrils as well as the dust and rocks being kicked up. It moves me very deeply, and I applaud William's courage in staying in there until the last second, and I don't fault him for not getting the perfect focus.

The evaluations and commentary, alas, are about the photo itself, not about the photographer. I repeat that most of us who have withheld unqualified applause have nonetheless had a lot of good things to say, and we have assigned sixes in most cases--hardly a shabby rating. We are still, in the final analysis, critics and not cheerleaders.

Love the shot; could help trying to improve it; the gimp rules...

What makes a good photograph? Sharpness? Well, it helps, but sharpness isn't everything. I've seen a great many photos on this site that are very sharp, and very boring. A good photo (or drawing, painting, sculpture, whatever) has that certain something that makes you want to look at it again and again.

 

This photo has a lot going for it, including the horses eye and mouth. It it were cropped just above the horses knees to be rid of the distracting lower portion which adds nothing to the photo, we have a nice DB square, with the horses features combining with the riders face and hand to form a good rule of thirds composition. Throw in the great color and action, and this image rates pretty high in my book.

"The "experts" among you have found flaws left, right and center. I'd like to see you point me to [an] image that can provide this type of excitement."

I don't know about you Jeff, but i was highly moved/excited by the scanned leaf ;)

I am reading the most curious posts on this image. Such as depth of field considerations. If you had ever shot anything that wasn't static, you would know it was impossible to capture a subject like this with a small aperture and still retain adequate shutter speed. I wish I had the luxury and time to set up the shots I need to make in my line of business,but I have to react to situations quickly and effectively under conditions that are not always pleasant. Like living on barley paste and butter tea for a week before I reached the location to take this shot.

That's tell'm, Bill!! By God!

Rienk.

 

You keep wasting your breath (fingertips), but I applaud you for it. In the 1940s, Wilhelm Furtwängler reacted to the super sharp/crisp conducting and orchestral playing in the USA by creating a sloppy and diffuse sound that was enormous, powerful, expressive and sublime. He is now considered by many the greatest conductor of all time, but I suspect if a "photographer equivalent" posted something here it would be immediately deleted. Oh sh*t, I've probably just given them the cue again just by mentioning deletions...

 

William.

 

Although you've shot an outstanding picture, the scan is inexcusably shoddy. You could at least have straightened out the crooked carrier placement (easy enough in photoshop) and spotted the dust on your transparency (admittedly tedious by any means).

 

Cheers,

Vuk.

Another example from the same day

"Excuse me sir, you in the baseball cap, could you please move you're in my shot."

"Um, Mr Tibetan rider could you please try that again, there was this guy in the background. Even better, could you please just strike a pose so I can use a slower shutter speed, enabling greater DOF? Oh, and please tilt your head up a bit, I can't quite see your face. On second thought, nevermind, I'll just fix everything in PhotoShop. That way it completely lacks reality."