Trestles and Rock

Since the diagonals are a reflection, they have a surreal quality that matches the appearance of the time-exposed water, IMO. If the trestles themselves had been in the photo, their diagonals might have been too strong and therefore drawn too much attention to themselves. My eye wanted the rock to be a little more to the right, but this is a minor thing. I see the rock as the subject and the trestle reflection as framing. I don't think the picture could stand on its own without the rock.

It is absolutely beautiful. It will be timeless. Thanks for sharing.

Congrats, Robert. You deserve recognition for your work; you are talented and hard-working. An excellent image executed, IMHO, with sensitivity and intelligence...not to mention good taste!

Portland, cold rain and mud, how I remember those childhood days and to one day point to my shadow in amazement that I had one.... Back to your image, it is Zen like and I like it, simple and drawing the attention of the viewer. As with any Zen image there must be action in stillness, and contradiction. Sometimes the answer is not the solution but the path to the solution, the thought process in pondering, but then again I maybe reading to much into this image, but that is what I like about photography the endless possibilities.

Robert,

This is absolutly fantastic. I love it. It makes me proud of my fellow Oregonian.

Cheers!

OK I admit it, that shadow bothered me too and that does not even take into account the endless debate on what to do about it. I do not think the diagonals counteract the serenity of the water but rather compliment it. Photographs like sentances can have more than one subject (See Dick and Jane run).

 

After looking at the evil shadow decending on the rock, I decided that what really bothered me was the fact that the photograph did not seem straight or level to me So like a bad friend who critiques the new shirt that you just bought, I messed around with Roberts photograph and I hope he will forgive me for that. I really enjoyed this photograph on many levels but perhaps I was influenced by warm memories of being somewhere between ankle and shin deep in the mud a few times myself. I think this photograph is really about being there and having the vision to create something of value.

Actually the shadow that bothers me is the one at the bottom of the rock. I didn't notice the one basically pointing to the rock until Dennis blurred it out. I think the original is gorgeous but in my opinion it looks even better in the modified version.

I'd like to adopt just about every word written by Marc G. The one thing I'm not convinced about is that the rock ideally needs to be placed a little further to the right. Its placement seems to reflect the aspect ratio. If it's heading right, picking it up and plonking it back down again is hardly worth it. We'd be talking millimetres. To answer the elves questions, I'd say the diagonal adds a dynamic. And rather than seeing this as a shot of two subjects, I prefer to regard it as having one object, namely the visual ping pong between the static rock and the oscillating trestles (which is where the dynamic comes in). I think it a refreshing alternative to display the motion and direction of water by reference to shadows cast upon it, rather than the line of surf and tide. But if there was a dominant subject it would be the rock, and I think it owes it's dominance to just sitting there, enthroned in its kingdom of glassed over water. Conversely, I think that if anything was to be removed but a worthy picture was to remain, I'd remove the rock. The rock is not especially beautiful. Submerge the rock and what would remain would still be delicious. And mysterious too. Though the rock dominates, the aesthetics of the picture are to be found elsewhere I reckon. I am also uncomfortable with the strand encroaching upon the rock's territory. I think it needs to be told to butt out.

I don't like this picture very much. I like the concept, and I think it could have been good, but something about it doesn't sit right with me. It almost looks fake, because it took me so long to figure out what it really was. I had to read your description to find out. I find the rock looks like it's superimposed on the water, and the shadows/reflection bother my eyes for some reason. I think if you get a chance, you should try this again and try some different angles/time of day/available light, as it's very interesting. I don't think it's a terrible picture, it's very unique, and a lot of people seem to like it. My own personal taste, it doesn't fit, but I can admit it's something I've never seen before. I gave it a 4/6, I might change it to 4/7, but I'll have to think about it a little while overnight. If anything, this picture sure has given me a lot to think about! Nice job, regardless of any negative comments in here. Your skill is quite good, it's just hard for me to enjoy the actual photo. I imagine if I took this photo, I would be quite pleased, however. Such a complex image...

The picture is nice, I appreciate the diligence of the photographer but it does not do much to capture my interest. A nice abstract and a technically good photograph...

A very beautiful image. Captures my interest. Nice printing too.

Just one question.

The rock appears to be perfectly in focus.

The trellis is out of focus, and looks like it is out focus consistently, without much change along its length.

How is it that the trellis on the LH (almost in the same plane as the rock) is still out of focus, despite approaching the focus plane ?

Oops...the trestle is just a reflection...

 

Cancel the question in the previous post...

Thanks, everyone, including the elves, who, like everyone else, I've had various "issues" with over the years. It's really nice to hear from many of the photographers I've both admired and learned from on my three years of Photo.net--Marc G., Carl, Doug, Jacques, and Phil, as well as some newer members whose work I admire: Sarah, Kim, and Todd.

 

It was also great to hear from a few of the Oregon contingent--thanks Erik Lundh and Don.

 

As for the image, I've pretty much covered shooting the shot above. I've debated cloning out the line above the rock (I've sold three prints of this shot as shown), but after a year I'm ready to get rid of the line. Besides that, I'm pretty happy with the result. For some that don't like the shot, I do shoot a lot stuff that's hard for some viewers to get oriented in. My wife sometimes has accused me of being deliberately obscure (both in photography and poetry). She's probably right. I think some would have preferred a less cluttered, more Michael Kenna-ish shot.

 

If I could have one thing different, I wish I would have shot this with my Hasselblad on film . . . . Perhaps I shouldn't mention that.

 

Thanks again for all of your comments.

"..being deliberately obscure (both in photography and poetry)..."

 

--There are few things worse than poetry that doesn't make sense, but at least with photography, the visual appearance of the image might be reward enough, even if it doesn?t make sense. .

 

 

"If I could have one thing different, I wish I would have shot this with my Hasselblad on film . . . . Perhaps I shouldn't mention that."

 

--I've made this lament many times, followed by cursings towards the digital simplification of the photographic method, which frees the creative mind, but adversely impacts image quality and enlargement potential. What comforts me, and I suspect others of the same mind, is that the image probably wouldn't have been made if it had to go on the ?real? camera; at least it exists, even though it?s digital.

Robert your neighbor to the north sends his regards and respect. Interesting discussion generated here by your image. I will just say that the rock anchors this image. There is an almost imperceptible movement in the water against which this rock sits unperturbed. Together with the many other paired opposites light/dark, hard /soft, diagonal/verticle this image conveys balance and harmony.

Hideo Tsuneoka was right, its nice, but not an image that shakes me off my seat. I can see a lot of thought went into its creation, but i always ask myself, would i spend hours looking at this on my wall and the answer here is ... no.

i agree with rich. this is about a photographer's skill, the subject matter is just a stand-in, too much so for my taste.

I like the silky smooth appearance of the image. The technical aspects of the photo are very good. The composition and the subject I like not so much. But the photo shows that the photographer knows his stuff. Well done.

Geeze Robert! Why don't you just post your photo's to the opening page or something. That'll get everyone's attention. <:P

 

I love balance and symmetry in a photo. You've achieved both.

 

I love the tranquil mood you've created and the easy smooth tones overall. Sounds kinda jazzy when I read it back.

 

Very nice work and I think you walked away at a good time.

 

It is........COMPLETE.

I think I would enjoy this with more exposure. A 'glassier' looking body of water would have really offset the harshness of the rock and given an even more etherial look to the shadow. I also agree that the lone shadow trail to the rock probably should be remove. Emotionally the image leaves me a bit cold, but I don't really see this as an emotional image.

 

Congrats on the pow.

Cool composition. Cool mood.

There's something "unreal" there, maybe the disparity y focus tween the two subjects. I just don't know if I like it because i don't truly "understand" the pic. Is the rock too close to the other graphic formation?

Keep it up, man.

Beautiful !

Makes me think of Michael Keena. And that is a COMPLIMENT !

Lenny

AFimage Photographe

Indicating the image is lacking is one thing, but (for the purposes of discussion) I wonder if you could suggest some addition that would bring it up to your standards. For instance, Rich, what could be added (or subtracted) so you would enjoy this on your wall. Dave N, what does it need to spark your emotions?

I see, well the picture is good there is no denying that, I just think it is a little uninteresting to look at. Ok, try this maybe, a little less exposure and the reflection of a figure with no rock.

A liitle too cliche maybe but at least it makes you think