Glowing Tufts

Eric your entire body of work is much deserving of attention. This image as well as others of yours that utilize the technique of blending two images with different exposures to capture a more dynamic range of light than would otherwise be possible is impressive as well as instructive. This technique clearly gives a strong advantage to digital images that is not available to film based images. I also want to acknowledge your generosity in sharing so opening with others your 'secrets'. Thanks.

A little too much minimalism for my taste in landscape shots. I find this image needing more and find the same with many shots in you gallery. All are shot very well and prove your mastery of your equipment but emotionally they just don't make contact with me. I am looking for that other element that gives the emotional tie in that for me all images need. I'm sure it's just a personal thing. I do (and always will) applaud originality and experimentation. For that you have my admiration.

 

Congrats on the POW.

I also want to acknowledge your generosity in sharing so opening with others your 'secrets'.

I belive there is no secret here David. Just go to the luminous landscape web site, make a search for "contrast masking" et voila... dinner is ready.

My criticism on this picture alone would be on originality. It's a nice place, shot at a good time ect.. but the framing and general emptyness of the scene makes it pretty boring imo. I agree with Doug Burgess when he says that the intresting part is the plants and the contrast they make with the dark ground.. but, not enough for me.

 

Where this photo gets intresting is in this wonderful folder ! All those landscapes shot in the same way give a sens of space that is really captivating, I can almost feel the wind and fresh air =)

 

So for me, poor photo alone but great put together with the rest of the folder.

 

Cheers ;)

Not much to say. Just the the comp, light and subject are just right.

What could be added to a perfect shot?

 

Regards

 

Leo Garcia / Venezuela

This is an excellent image exactly as presented. The composition would make no sense if you cropped out the sky because it leaves the light beams without a source. The postion of the clouds relative to the sun amd nearest clump of grass provide a simple balanced composition which is sorely lacking in so many landscape images.

 

The lighting is exquisite. It's so nice to see a sunset shot that does not hit you over the head with heavy reddish cast and dark contrasty elements. If you visit Eric's website, you'll note that he sells large prints which I'm sure would show off the backlit grass in a way that a jpeg never could.

 

The PS technique used to balance the contrast range is, of course, similar to the use of grad filters in film photography and when done poorly, gives the impression of an additional light source on the foreground. Eric is to be commended for showing restraint in this shot and throughout his portfolio.

Thanks to the elves for the pick and to everyone who has taken the time to share their thoughts.

 

This photograph is part of an ongoing project where I am exploring the vast spaces presented by several large, shallow (and sometimes dry) lakes and sloughs in the Edmonton area. These areas provide a constantly changing and often ephemeral collection of elements that I seek to organize in to my rather formal compositions. My hope is that the best of these photographs create at least some confusion as to where you are and what is being photographed.

 

I've really enjoyed hearing everyone's reactions.

 

Thanks,

Eric

Absolutely beautiful and intriguing!

The light and shadows are perfect!

"The composition would make no sense if you cropped out the sky because it leaves the light beams without a source."

 

You're right Carl, but, speaking for myself, that's not what I'm suggesting.

 

What I mean is a different camera angle, maybe a slightly different camera position, that would eliminate the horizon, the sun and its rays, and would instead focus on the plant and the repetitive pattern of all the other plants behind it because that's what's more interesting to me, that's something I don't see every day. I've seen plenty of sunsets and this one, although it's nice, is fairly common from the horizon up to the top border. From the horizon down it's absolutely fascinating and made all the more poetic by the absence of the sun and its array.

 

On the other hand, being unique individuals, we are affected differently by the world around us: What appeals to me might seem like crap to someone else, and vice versa.

As you know, the choice of lens was just so he could get low and close, getting both foreground and background sharp, so I'm not sure what other option there is (assuming you want the wonderful backlight).

I'm not sure either, but it's fun to speculate.

Hi Eric,

It took me one glance at your picture to think: "Too much sky: I would have cropped it tighter ...but on the other hand, the cloud formation really works there; bet that's why he'd left it."

As I read through the discussion, I came across Geo's crop (exactly as I envisaged it), and then your response to his comment (which confirmed what I presumed about your motives). To the point, since neither options is just right -- and you mentioned yourself that you "wish they were a little further down in the frame" -- a thought occurred to me. Would it be possible to digitally 'compress' the sky, so that it would occupy less space / smaller proportion of the frame? I'm by no means a PS guru, so I wouldn't have a clue how to do it, but suspect it could be a pretty straightforward procedure. Can't hurt to try! Would anyone like to give it a go...

..

Tomek I did what you asked for, the link doesnt appear here but in the forum thread.

Cheers ;)

The composition is just right. The whole idea of avoiding subjects that are not "novel" is

rather ironic, considering that the very precision of the photographic medium means that

no subject is ever captured twice in exactly the same manner. "Okay, so I've seen a sky."

"I've seen a sunset." And maybe for some, "I've seen those plants, just like that." So what

if I've seen them before? Novelty and interest are two distinct concepts.

 

The photograph is interesting because of the play between sky and earth, how the pattern

of the clouds are echoed by the sun-dappled plants. The use of color is interesting as

well, and the photo is an excellent example of how good technique reinforces aesthetics.

Remove the sky and you remove the harmony of the scene. Remove the color and the

mood is lost.

 

From a conceptual standpoint I might have preferred that no mention of the time of day be

given, leaving the viewer to wonder if the scene was sunrise, or sunset, as it could be

either. So it is appropriate that the title makes no mention of time, leaving one to think of

how there really is no distinction between the two...and so is timeless.

 

Truly, a fascinating image, and worthy of discussion.

There is so much that is good about this image that it almost seems unfair to nitpick about what doesn't quite work. I really like the play of light on the tufts of grass, the capturing of the sun's starburst (for want of a better term) without resulting flare becoming excessive, the pattern of clouds with sky, the overall clarity and sharpness, and on and on. The only thing that I don't quite like is the dark, featureless lower left section. It looks like he chose to have the foreground presented this way because it offered the best overall composition, including the full featuring of the single grass tuft in the center of the foreground. Sometimes that's what the landscape offers.

 

Overall, kudos. I like the image.

Took me a while but have finally managed to find it, Olivier -- that's exactly what was on my mind and personally I think that's "the best of both worlds" combination. Folks, check out Olivier's compressed sky version here. What do you think? Author's opinion of special interest!

Do you tilt the lens to get that extreme depth of field without having to use too long of an exposure?

Thanks again folks.

 

Some thoughts on cropping: personally I feel that cropping disrupts the balance of the elements as noted by some people. Certainly this environment presents many opportunities for other photographs including ones that exclude the sky and horizon and focus only on the foreground patterns - but that would be a different kind of photograph altogether.

 

Regarding the 'compression' proposal: I actually like the proportion of sky and land as is. My comment on the cloud wasn't because I wanted less sky but that I wish I had taken this shot about 10 minutes earlier when the cloud was a little closer to the horizon. Compressing the sky yields a 'fatter' aspect ratio which some people prefer but I think it disturbs the balance of the elements by putting too much emphasis on the foreground. Entirely a subjective opinion of course. Even if I had preferred it I wouldn't do it because it distorts the scene as I experienced it. It would destroy (for me) the 'decisive moment' aspect that I value in this body of work.

 

Regarding tilt: I can't recall for sure if I used tilt or not to be honest - though I think I did. I often don't and just rely on hyper-focal focusing which tends to yield plenty of DOF on a 35mm form factor at this focal length. The 24mm TSE makes a fine prime lens.

 

Thanks,

Eric

you give me something to shoot for! at first i thought this was taken from the air some how, with clouds above and below the sun set, then fromt the other comments and looking at your picture more closely, "i thought wow! that is cool!" i wonder, how would one take a photo like this? exposure, tripod, flash, remote? or do you want to keep this a secret?

Stephanie - I always use a tripod, so yes this was taken from a tripod using a remote release. No flash. Probably shot from a height of about 4 feet. Two exposures (blended in Photoshop - see above for a more detailed description) both at f/16. Sky exposed for 1/50 s and foreground for 1/6s. Thanks, Eric

Hi, Eric. Nice picture, but I'm affraid it doesn't move me very much - emotionally speaking. I'll be among those who like quite a few other pictures from your folder better than this one. Nothing much to nitpick, I suppose, and it's well done, but it simply lacks something more spectacular in terms of angle and composition imo. Shooting at one's feet with nice light on nice bushes is a safe way to take a pretty good photo, as you did here, but for an outstanding photo of this kind, it takes a little more imagination and creativity, or something very special in the subject itself. That's at least how I look at this POW.

 

And finally, how would this look with a darker sky...? Or a heavier sky - more clouds, more drama...? Just some thoughts. Best regards.

The portfolio has many exceptional images, so thanks for introducing me to it.

I'm afraid I don't go for this one. I find the colour palette unattractive. The dark brown of the soil and green of the foliage jar with the sky. The sparse foreground does not provide an interesting subject.

Rocks at Sunset in the Spaces (Vertical) portfolio is lovely. Same elements in the image, but beautiful palette, texture and composition.

Very nice!!!!

Eric, I went to your website, and you do have much more intersting photographs. You are a very accomplished photographer and extremely competent. I really like a lot of your work. However, this photograph does very little for me.

 

While this photo is not a typical sunset shot, it still uses the empty attraction that people like about the endless array sunset shots, I am not saying you are one of those people who pretty much ONLY shoot sunsets, for these people sunsets are almost like some kind of heroin (you know the type). But, these photos of sunsets are just of beautiful light, and judging by the number of photos of sunsets that exist out there, beautiful light isn't unusual enough really to document. They are one to one interpritations of what was see, very little artistic interjection exists. It's just pretty; really, not a whole lot different from any other sunset shot, IMO, in this way your sunset is pretty much the same ... only differing in that the grass is the main charicter rather than the clouds.

 

I am not saying I am originality defacto; just that this photo doesn't really seem to serve what in my opinion are the requirements of a worthwhile image.I don't get a clear feeling of the essance of this place, and I don't get a clear feeling of the essance of your response to this place. It fails to express your intellectual or emotional ideas of the place, and it also fails to document the place in entirety; the scene ends where the edges of the photo does.

 

While it is a nice looking picture, I doubt it is *as nice* as being there. So I am left with pretty colors ... and, that's about it. Like I said, you are a very good landscape photographer. But, this image just doesn't move me the way your others do. I am not saying this to balance a negative reply, if I dislike your work, I won't make up some garbage just to make you feel good. This photo just doesn't reflect what I see as what you do well, manage to document reality as well as express an interpritation in one photograph. This is photography in perfection.