Moonlight Among the Cedars, straight shot

hmmm, the lines interest me...a fence?

yes, that's a fence, a livestock fence with four slats, each about 8 inches wide, and spaced about 8 inches apart. The first line from the left would be the top slat, which is approx. 4 1/2 -5 feet high. I guess if they were 8 wide and 8 apart, that would be 64 inches, which is 5 feet, 4 inches, but that seems a bit high. Maybe they're 6 wide and 8 apart? I know I can fit my head through the gaps if I turn it sideways first, so they, the gaps, must be 8. Not that it matters, I've never seen any livestock behind them.

 

 

Attached is a darker version, to go more with the moonlight idea of the other ones. With the posted version what I tried to do was print it conventionally because I don't feel the moonlight effect is very strongly conveyed without the softening filter.

Glad to have the opportunity of enjoying your always interesting photography, Doug. Unfortunately, nowadays with the combination of heavy workloads and no access to the net at home I don't have many oportunities to invest time into photo.net

Your submission here, as it is, straigjt from the negative, interest me a lot. I much prefer it to the other versions. Emphasizes the obviuos fact that a good photograph needs to have original quality at the moment of shooting with adequate composition in the head of the photographer and an intention, as well. And here you have managed a simple shot beautifully composed and lighted. Excellent!

Alberto, with such limited time on your hands, I'm highly honored that you would spend some of it here. Thank you very much. What puzzles me about your response is that I try to put as much thought and intellect into all of my work, yet my returns vary in terms of aesthetic quality. I can only conclude that the subject matter plays a role, which then leads to the question, what percentage of a successful photograph is due to the photographer, and what percentage is due to the subject?

I really like this, and prefer it to the softer version. So this was real moonlight? About how long was the exposure?

Oops, I notice from the discussion on the previous version that you have forgotten the details - one should always read before asking!!

"one should always read before asking"

 

Why on earth would anyone do that? I seldom do. Skim, maybe. : )

 

Somewhere I listed all the details I could. I didn't forget everything, but just a few things, like lens. I never seem to remember the lens. Maybe that was somewhere else. Now I'll have to check, myself. Be back later.

No need tp thank me. Sometimes I need to review my masters... LOL!

As for what matters most, the answer, IMHO, is simple: What's inside the photographer's head, combined with his ability to master his camera.

I just got developed my firts rolls with my brother's Hasselblad: 3 rolls of Velvia shot in the mounhtains, carrying the tripod and the 2 bags (the Nikon and the Hasselblad): What a failure! I'll scan only 3 shots out of 36!.

Reason: What was in my head I didn't know how or was not able to translate into the film!

 

Alberto, don't you know? The more gear you have with you the worse the results! That's a Law.

 

Here you go, Neil. I had to rob it from another site. (two days later I realized I cut, but never pasted)

 

"I'm not good with notes, but they tell me that the film was Kodak TMAX 400, the negative was overexposed (I have my doubts) with a Hassleblad Softar II filter, which reduces contrast considerably, but provides the glowing effect around highlights, not so much the shadows. The film was slightly underdeveloped. The image was scrinted darker than normal to simulate the moonlight.

"That's a fence on the right, and an asphalt road on the left. The sun is in front of me, and to the right, afternoon, about an hour before sunset. Lens unrecorded, probably 80 maybe 150. Date of exposure, sometime in August, or September, 2003, but the film wasn't processed until just last week, December 29, 2003. Plenty of time to forget what the dickens I did. Exposure was also unrecorded, but I tend to use max aperture and tripod, so I'm guessing f/22 at 1/2 second, or thereabouts. "

 

Cheers Doug - so it was actually daylight, but the effect you achieved is very much like moonlight, so 'well done' from me!

Thanks Neil.