The trees do indeed touch the sky

The thumbnail gave me a bad first impression , kinda bland looking , but a pleasant surprize as I opened it ,the branches in the water are great with the water motion ,it sparked some interest for me. Id crop off the bottom 1/3 of the photo as I find it too obscure , I think that would strengthen the photo. I like it .

As someone mentioned:I am trying to open or click on the image for a larger version, but the thumbnail or maybe it is actual image, is all I can see.

 

I think the darkness is moody, and the blur in the forefront is ok( something off about it) so your eye is lead to the branch and water contact. As Igor mentioned, it still looks static as the reflection of the mountains are at a different pace (rather static) vs the energy flow touching the branch. It doesn't make sense to me in that regard, but I like the overall dark, cold clammy, feel.

In fact, I like it very much for the potential of what it would look like in Hi res, to see detail in the texture of the sujects and transitions, that is what would make this type of imagery appealing to me. Congrats on the selection.

Thank you all for your comments and thoughts about this picture.

Its certainly not catchy and I have to admit that it would not catch my eye either wasn't it for the Elves who brouth it to our attention. On closer inspection it has merit (both technicaly and aestheticaly) although I found the compostition somehow disturbing. I can't say why but the more I look at this photograph the more uncomfortable it makes me feel. But after all, maybe thats the whole point in it:) Congrats to the photographer for shooting it and to the Elves for bringing up such an interesting photograph for discussion

As I looked at this picture again, here's the second part of the meaning I read in this image. The greek myth of Narcisse watching his own image in the water...

 

That could explain the title as well. As the tree is about to die, its reflections are dark and blurry, but these old tired branches (which look so much like fingers) finally managed to reach their own image. Yet, this image was immediately spoiled because of the current - the passage of time...

Since Eirik is from Iceland it must be the skraggly hair of a troll about to surface from his gloomy underwater hideaway. No, on second thought, it represents the contortionary striving for constancy in an ever-changing universe.

 

This photo does little to attract or keep my attention. I think the twisted reflections, water blur, and branches are very common and mundane. Sometimes unremarkable objects can be arranged in an attractive or emotionally provocative manner, but these seem static and overly dominated by a central distracting dark object (small hill?) that is unrelated to the apparent subjects. The fact that it is has created various interpretations means that it either fails to communicate it's subject or that it intentionally has none. Some people see vagueness as a positive attribute because it allows their minds to wander aimlessly around the void, but to me, a good abstract image focuses the wandering in specific directions.

 

Like overly-creative wine bottle labels, the title makes me think that creative effort that could have gone into the product was wasted on a shallow marketing strategy. I think a good photo doesn't need (and in my opinion is degraded by) a poetic title, mood-setting description, or methodological essay to make it attractive, it should be able to stand on it's own.

who can do such touching poetry with such few things must be a real artist...

What a great use of outlying objects to create a strong sense of depth. Very little actual depth of field in items clearly seen, but due to the reflections you are expanded well beyond the frame. The dark area (mountain and background trees) are very necessary or you would not have the stream action 'pop' and become the center of interest. It keeps you in the image as you try to discover all of the varying items semi-known at first glance. Dramatic and dreamy.

 

I won't comment on if it's a good or bad choice, as that has never been the point of this column. (The elves state that right off and then Bill goes off on that very thing?). I had not read the title (at first) and in the end it makes no difference in the final analysis of the quality of work. It's an small added bonus if done right, and that in itself is subjective.

 

The crop suggestion has merit, and at first I agreed when going up and scrolling the bottom third off. (It does tend to take and keep your eye down there as there is so much of it, proportion wise). But maybe not enough to 'cry-out' for removal, as some compositions do. Back to you later on that.

 

Final thought: This is probably something the old masters Alfred Stieglitz or Edward Steichen would have done- dark and dreary/dreamy. Well done overall.

This must be a work of fine art as many find it that way and as it has been chosen as POW. But, many of us would probably not even take this photo or throw it away later even taken. Definition of fine art is always confusing - I personally do not find this photo any special. But as I am reading the comments, some people are "seeing" things that I don't see or don't find to be exciting or special. Surely not my cup of tea - but when I glance through Eirik's portfolio, this kind of makes sense. Sometimes a portfolio tells more about the photographers' vision and personality than just one photo - and this photo is not definitely the one

This is one of those examples of where I suspect the jpeg does not do a print justice. The connection between the branch and its reflection is not at all clear because the top of the reflection is lost in the dark hill. If the print clearly separates those elements, it would save the image, although I think the contrast of the dark water and trailing white wake, along with the reflections, would be enough to carry it without the added contrast from the hill.

I didn't appreciate this picture until I downloaded it, so that I could adjust the size a little bit when looking at it. Looking at it on the Photo Net site, I find that the picture occupies virtually the entire length of the computer screen, and I have to keep adjusting, up and down, to make sure I am seeing the whole thing.

 

However, when I adjust the size downward just a little bit after downloading it, I can see just how nicely balanced a composition it is.

When I first saw this, I was excited. The kind of image that I love and I opened it and just

couldn't get going with it. I looked at the portfolio, probably 10 times now, and still

nothing.

 

My mentor was Minor White and his work, which was a push beyond the work of Steiglitz

and Edward Weston in this genre, and those that followed him like Paul Caponigro (not

John Paul!) Carl Chiarenza and all just give me great excitement when I look at their work.

Here I wasn't finding the excitement, just the elements that they might have shot.

 

Then I noticed the Michael Kenna similarities. Again, the elements but not the excitement

those images stimulate.

 

This image is technically well done. I have no complaints with this or with most of the

portfolio, but I am left feeling that instead of the excitement of a zen riddle, I am left with

a beautiful Bell that just doesn't resonate.

First, let me say that this photograph is great for creating a mood. I realy like how the

wake created by the branches actually brings some of the grey/white out of the in-focus

branches.

 

Also let me say this, as I love square format, it just doesn't work in this picture. I get lost

in the out of focus branches and seem to miss the mood of the picture for a minute.

Perhaps if it were cropped the attention would be better met at the wake and not be

flushed out at the bottom.

 

Otherwise, great shot!

 

Collin

I like it. A good arrangementof elements and a good printing job, too; however the dark reflection in the center (a house?) just below the two white eddies holds my eye too long. I am wondering if it were a bit lighter, would it strengthen the image overall? That, and perhaps to darken the left edge just enough to prevent our eyes from wandering out of the picture? I hope these are helpful suggestions to you, because you have a strong image here.

 

If your uploaded image is darker than the scanned print, then of course disregard my comments about the center reflection.

This photo has top and bottom areas that catch the eye, with a black area in between. Like most photos with two areas of interest, this photo simply does not work. The more dominate bottom area can't hold the eye, which wants to jump up to the branches in focus. In turn, the branches are not interesting enough to hold the eye either, and the conflict between the two results in the photo's lack of success. I love black & white, and the tone of this photo is very nice, but the subject matter just doesn't cut it.

From the thumbnail I was excited, nicely composed and fairly good dynamic range, I even like the blurred foreground and agree that it was a good and interesting selection by the Elves - but when viewing fully, the image loses appeal and doesn't retain or try to compete for my attention. A square image has to really 'compete' against the norm to capture and retain the viewer, but this image doesn't do that. On a positive, it doesn't blatantly offend or make me click out of it, rather it just lets me drift out of viewing it - So, to get my attention back, I suggest rotating the image CCW and you will then see a man (similar to the comic book seller from The Simpsons TV show !) You will notice his face and his eyes popping out, and perfect top and bottom lips, and a big beer belly ! Yes, you have now got my attention back again and the excitement to go with it..lol

Eirik, I can hardly beleive what I wrote about my feelings about this picture. In looking back over your profile, I do see similar works, which I must say is your style. This is the sort of work you do. I, on the other hand, along with a lot of other picture takers photograph without style. But you not only display photographic style, you show style in your comments and more importently in your replies to comments - such as those I made.

 

My sincere appology for my uncalled for comments. They were rude, and not at all necessary.

 

I still am not too excited about the pic:Fre, and feel it would be improved with the crop mentioned above deleting the lower third of the photograph. I do understand it better now that I've had time to study it more and hear other's comments.

 

Keep your mittens on and your coat buttoned up.

 

Willie The Cropper

The first comments on this photo were astonishingly negative. How do comments expressing personal dislike help photographers on this site become better photographers? As for this composition, the square cropping is interesting. The repeating pattern of dark to light, dark to light from bottom to top is nice. The smooth flow of the water balances the starkness of the branches and their reflection. There are not distracting elements so common in other photos of this type, so I congratulate Eirik on this composition. Peace.

It might be fair to say that certain comments might not help a photographer, if one is

thinking only technically. But a photograph is supposed to communicate and if it doesn't,

the artist should here it. And, just because it doesn't communicate to one or two people,

that input is only important if it rings true to the photographer.

 

Eirik seems to be a technically good photographer. The only valuable technical advice that

I see is to talk about what bothers us, not what could/should be done. I don't presume to

be that knowledgeable, but I know what doesn't work and what does work, when I see it.

I do not find problems, generally, even on

screen, with the way he has handled the tones. In fact, it is this handling of tones, focus

and such, that made me feel that I was looking at a photographer who is interested in the

"equivalent", not the subject. I would not crop it or even suggest it--it would take away

important elements that build upon each other here, but I don't like titles like this--too

flowery for me, so I just ignore them. But the composition fails for me in a few ways.

Primarily because the important parts of the "message", if you will, are just overpowered

by

the support. Here the delicacy of the branches in the water, as well as the beautiful

reflections of the trees on the reflected hill and the out of focus skeletons of the

foreground are lost as our eye is pulled out of frame because the white is not contained.

How or if it can be contained is a matter for the photographer to decide, as is even if it is

important to him. But this is what makes this photo just a photo for me,

what

keeps it from going beyond subject and becoming more than just a pretty picture.

Oh the flow,great shot,you have the eye.

Interesting discussion here. I have to say that this photo leapt off the page for me. I don't usually look at the POTW, but when I saw this one i immediately clicked on it. I find it memerizing, alien and dreamy. I don't know why, either. But for sure I like it and I thank the photographer for sharing it.

It is a joy to see your carefully crafted photographs. I love seeing people, streets, rain, textures, Vaseline and city life through your B&W eyes. It's my bias toward humanity that I gravitate toward your shots with people or at least some trace of them. That scenery is beautiful but it's hard to impossible to squeeze a mountain or a seashore into a little frame. Ansel Adams does it for me sometimes (Clearing Storm) but I always wonder at the relevance of a landscape. I would like to see your landscapes in person and printed big to give them back their vastness. Congratulations and thank you for your inspiration.

I'm finding myself in a photographic conundrum, so to speak. I read with interest all the comments on this page. I came to the conclusion that at first sight I very much liked Eirik's photograph. I obviously didn't always knew why, but left myself the option of deciding that over the course of the week. During that process, I read the comments. Which spoilt the photograph for me. Now the only thing I see when I look at it is too much this, too little that, and the darn white light to the left which never bothered me, is attracting all my attention. Photo spoiled.

 

But I also learned much in the process (of which I obviously need a lot). And it can even assist me in my own photographic efforts.

 

To read or not, that now remains the question?

 

But Eirik, good photograph, great portfolio - good discussion on it. As they say in cricket: "Good play all around". As long as photography is the winner.

Excellent, Eirik,

 

to me, the image communicates both abstract and concrete visual experience.

 

Kjetil

" . . . . I read the comments. Which spoilt the photograph for me. Now the only thing I see when I look at it is too much this, too little that, and the darn white light to the left which never bothered me, is attracting all my attention. Photo spoiled.

 

But I also learned much in the process."

 

By understanding the dynamics at play here, you have taken a great leap forward in understanding how to read a photograph. How many poor quality snaps have you seen enlarged, matted and framed for prominent display in someone's living room? Once you learn various guidelines and techniques and how to apply them, then 99% of the images that you've seen become junk, except for their sentimental value. (The same is true for music.) The upside here is that I think we appreciate good work that much more, having the ability to understand how everything works together.

 

In the this POW, I can't get beyond the conflict between the hill and the reflected branches that it hides. It's right in the middle and is impossible to ignore. . . . at least for me. Would I have appreciated it more or less had I seen it before I learned how to read a photograph? The answer is probably both more and less, oddly enough. I now see both its strengths and weakness.