Dance of light

Veldig bra Eirik, alltid likt bildene dine veldig godt og du fortsetter den trenden!

Fantastisk bilde, bra 堳e noen nordmenn p場opp her:)

 

Keep it up!

GREAT SHOT!

very nicely done!

As an XPAN shooter myself I love to find others work that inspires me. This and others in your body of work have done just that! A wonderful dance of light across the entire image. Magical!

Nice work - beautifull tonal range.

 

Shows that medium format/BW has plenty of legs left.

Eirik--Great shot with beautiful tones,It makes me wish I was there,(summertime of course),Thanks for posting it.

But it's 35 mm film, not medium format. :-)

 

I think this is one of the most beautiful photos on the site.

wow. this is a georgous capture. Did you have to wait around for the light to be like that? or did you just happen upon it?

Adam.

Eirik, congratulations on your well-deserved POW. This one has several strengths: strong composition, nice tonality, and of course the rays of sunglight. The black hills frame the image very well. My one small nitpick is that I'd like the top right corner to be a little less bright, but that's really a small concern. Another strength of this shot is that the tonal areas almost break down into geometric shapes, giving this landscape a real sense of solidity, which contrasts with the nearly ethereal sunlight. I also shoot with the Xpan and it's nice to see another Xpan shot chosen as POW--one was chosen a year or two ago: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=469941. (I wish I was smart enough to know how to make things show up as links!) Congratulations again on this fine POW!

Congratulations... a truely wonderful image. One I would have chosen if I were one of the "elves".

 

I can imagine this printed very large, covering a focal wall and all viewers gasping at their first view of it.

Very nice! I would like to know the details of it's creation.

Well, I think it's neither, really. The Xpan uses two 35mm frames side by side to make its images, so while it isn't medium format in the sense that it uses 120 film, the negs are twice the size of 35mm.

It is indeed a beautiful photo; it shows a great sensibility for both nature and geometry. IMO accomplishes something very difficult which is to reduce shapes to a minimal, geometric form and at the same time to convey a rich feeling. A weel done, almost baroque, interplay between light and mountains. On the other hand it shows imposing forms interlaced with light in a playful dance (as the elves said). Bravo!

I met this light in person. Stood still long into a moment. The pain of no

camera about. Here it is again, saying in god-like overtones, "Yes, it's me".

Thank you Eirik!

I found this photo here on photo.net before it became the POW, which it rightfully did. I don't know about Norway, but I know that here in Southern California, it is a rare day indeed to get a mixture of clouds and sun like this...and at this location, this POW is magnificant with remarkable composition. I too would like to see this enlarged, especially since it was taken with medium format. And I do like this panoramic cropping job.

Thanks for the comments. Light like this is not uncommon in Norway since tall mountains often attracts clouds. This is a few hours before sunset, and I could see the potential from my original position by the fjord below. All I had to do was to get up in the mountain (which was a very painful experience for my car).

Well, at first sight, I like this picture, as many will like it, I suppose. Yet, one thing bothers me in cases like this: the image is not checked as "non-manipulated", and we know it's pretty easy to add rays of light or enhance rays of light with Photoshop. I also see here a few details regarding the light, that made me raise an eyebrow. I am not saying the rays were added or enhanced - I can't tell for sure -, but I'm saying I would like to know if this image was manipulated and how...

 

In my view, Photoshop has helped photographers a lot in many ways, but it has also, unfortunately, contributed to raise doubts about images like this POW. Rays can nowadays be added anywhere in a seemless manner, and therefore the value of such unique lighting conditions has gone down in my view.

 

No matter how beautiful this picture is (and yes, it is beautiful), both the manipulation issue and the fact that such subjects are common mean that I am not greatly interested in this POW. If at least we could leave the questions about manipulations behind us and recover some sense of uniqueness, it would help me to enjoy the beauty of what I see. Hope we'll read a clarification about the manipulations that occurred or not in the process. Regards.

In my view, this photograph is not manipulated more than a traditional darkroom print is. The negative is scanned and processed in Photoshop using more or less tradtitional darkroom techniques. That includes burning in the sky, selective contrast etc. with the use of masks. An experienced printer could easily have produced a similar print in the wet darkroom.

 

Still, I see your point (and no offense is taken by your question), and I agree with your observations. This photograph though, is not manipulated in the meaning you suggested.

Thanks for your reply, Eirik. It *IS* a beautiful picture, no doubt. Glad you see the point I was trying to raise as well, which has a lot more to do with the present days than with your photo itself. Best regards.

left side is way too burned in, midtones are flat. right side needs to have at least some detail or at least a bit of tonality. the sun beam is very overexposed where it hits the water.

Great image. The only thing I would suggest is burning the highlight a bit. Not sure if it's really necessary but I just keep focusing on the highlight. Congrats on the POW.

Everyone that has worked in the wet environment of a B&W labo knows that even sun rays can be forced with clever use of printer light. You can even use negative masks (ask Howard Bond). So I don't care about Photoshop use: is the image that counts, this is a beautiful image and it deserves a place in the Hall of Hame at PN. However I think some detail on first black mountain at right would be better (old zone III ?)

Is this lack of detail there and dense black an efect of digital file on my monitor?

Just one question Eirik, how did you manage to blow-out hightlight [on water] while still rendering shadows on the hills detailess [i am talking about hills on the right and side and other dark hills]. Was that part/process of digital darkroom or that's the way it was originally captured.

Though I love the photograph.

Very nice, but I don't like the "wide" crop. I think also that we should judge such images from a large print, since there is not much to see in a small compressed jpg.

 

Simone

I don't have a problem with the overexposure. It's just how things are, some things are too dazzling to take in. The lack of detail on the right side is more of a problem. However, it is still a wonderfull image.