The open space II

I like the tones. Slanted buildings add interest. I too am interested in viewing your notes. How did you do this?

Sorry Marc, but I fail to see the magic. I guess the subject is the sky, if that's the "empty space" we're talking about. So if you plant your camera on a tripod in a field, there had better be absolutely no air movement to get a shot like this.

 

I find little things most interesting in this photo, like the fact that the dark horizon just to the left of the buildings is very uneven, but the dark horizon to the right of the buildings is perfectly straight. I dunno, but if this came up while going through the RR queue, I'm not sure it would evoke any magic emotions for originality. It's a really nice photo, and for me, perhaps, asks more questions than it answers. There's not a lot of detail to get in the way.

 

I do agree that the availability of so much software has made it more difficult to appreciate actual photographic talent, and to differentiate it from computer expertise, but perhaps that's just the point. If we are to simply evaluate the image, it's like a lot of other images, converging lines and slants notwithstanding. I don't have enough computer expertise to tell exactly how it was done, so that's a non-issue for me.

 

Congratulations on POW, and on a very nice image. I looked at the photographer's portfolio, and find some nice stuff there. Nice use of tones and long exposures. Very smooth. Perhaps not much variety.

 

Cheers, and have a nice week on the forum.

After reading Marielou's comment I went to Denis's portfolio and there I found how he uses long exposures to take this type of picture. I must say I have learned a lot from Denis. Shame of my own comments. For others another photo from Danis?s portfolio. (sorry Denis, to post this without your permission). Regards.

Yes, Kaushik, that's the photo I found the most interesting in the portfolio, as well. Nice image.

I must agree with you about moving to the right..would have solved the pinched feeling I mentioned earlier.

To me Carl your tilt toward the right makes the entire image look like it is being sucked into the lower corner which just compounds the off balance feeling for me more.

I love this photograph and your work in general. I also spent time at your web

site and was very impressed. Thank you!

you silly naysayers.... this isnt manipulated... did you guys know that if you have a long

exposure, that moving things will blur? (<---- sarcasm)

 

neutral density filter anyone? maybe IR filter? duh (^_^)

 

cmon guys dont always assume just becuase it's a cool effect that its fake.

 

great shot denis, good luck, and don't let all the negative nancies that will stop by this

week get you down.

 

-David

Actually I agree with your assessment. I had to crop it a bit, which only compounds the problem. The rotated upload was meant only to show the effect of shooting the buildings straight and how it relates to the horizon. My ideal final image increase the space around the central elements and reduce the space between them.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the 3 degrees rotation. We had a falling house and some drama in an image that suggested decay to me, now we have a regular shot. What for ? Just to please the bubble ? I'd like to understand what we have gained with this rotation: correctness only, or is there anything else...?

 

Besides that, I would also like to understand why one would want to reduce the space between the tree and the houses ? This picture feels lonely, empty, this space is necessary to convey that feeling - imho.

hmmm... sheesh... well.. I only occasionally post on the POW discussion simply because I don't always feel that I'm qualified to judge the work of others that are far more capable than I. And this photographer probably falls into that catagory as do many on this site. Having said that, this photo doesn't do all that much for me when compared to other POW posts.

 

It IS a good image for the most part. Striking in some aspects! But... the moving clouds are distracting from the most interesting part of the composition imo. The texture of the grass and buildings.. and the lone tree behind are MUCH more interesting to me than blurred clouds, and the BIG sky also adds to the detraction. I also find the slanted horizon doesn't help. And I also think it's a bit muddy and soft.

 

All that and I still find myself reluctant to critique anothers work so harshly when I'd probably have liked it if it were my own. ;o)

 

Here's a crop... but I would have had the horizon at one-third from the top and added more foreground in the original comp.

cropped version didn't add for some reason..

totally love it, rocking shot; i'd guess long exposure to get the DOF and the blurred sky, am I right? else masked sky and horizon with motion blur in the direction of the wind?

what ever, very convincing and stunning shot non the less!

I like this one a lot... for a variety of reasons. Somewhat of a minimalist comp with nice movement in the sky, and an austere mood in general. Good work! I do wish the top left corner were not so dark, but don't see an obvious cropping solution. Ironically, I might work/experiment on that corner a bit with PS if it were mine. :) Congrats! -Greg-

This image does not work for me. The sky is interesting, and so are the

buildings as is the tree. But, I don't think they all mesh well to make a coherent

image.

I love the whole portfolio on your site- very strong series. It's funny how each is cropped to square- but the balance in each is impeccable, as well as the use of light. You have come a long way in just a decade, above and beyond most artists that take a lifetime and sometimes still don't get a style. The movement is my cup of tea, and minimalism works just fine with me to boot- both of which I'm into personally, even if not to your constant extent.

 

One can not please everyone, as you no doubt already know, so why try? Blessings, MS

The author of this photograph is well versed in the history of photograpy. It harkens back to an almost lost aesthetic from the 19th century, which is overdue for a revival. Compare it to George Davison's romantic masterpiece "The Onion Field", taken in 1890.

Beautiful photo! Very nice to see this kind of photo on POW for a change. I can definitely feel the mood you are trying to evoke here as well as in all the other beautiful photos of yours. Your photos have such great combination of technical perfection, aesthetic appeal and the best of all have so much sensitivity in spite of being such minimalistic compositions!!

Great photo. Structure and Creation know no time.

Wonderful capture and work Denis. Very good minimal composition and great light. The lighted areas lead the eye to the subjects. Blurred clouds and the warm tone create a dreamy mood. Excellent work, "less is more" is the key of its success.

OK, let's try that Davison picture again.

The tilt of the horizon, the "tilt" of the building, the dynamic lines of the field, the dynamic lines of the sky, and the motion of the sky all add a fantastic energy to a scene that is so often presented as calm. I think this is a fantastic, original shot which immediately made me say "wow" so I have given it 7/7. For those who think that the horizon must be horizontal, that's hardly imaginitive. The horizon is far enough off being horizontal to be obviously intentional to add to the dynamic and energy of the scene. A flat horizon would have no doubt diminished the quality of the shot - it's just a boring idea for yet more typical landscape photos. Nathan (www.nathanross.co.nz)

Just right

Love this picture and black and white is better for this type of photo. Though the sky is of

great work with long exposure I personally dont like the sky.

I have a difficult time believeing this is unmanipulated. The clouds for one are long and thick here. The only way I can see this type of movement with this thick mass of cloud cover is for one of two things to happen. 1) This would have to be a VERY long exposure. Or 2) It would have to be rather windy on this day. The problem is that if it were windy enough to blow these clouds briskly, you would obviously have blurred grass and trees as well. Not the case obviously, so we can quickly rule that idea out conclusively. The other possibility then, is that this was a very long exposure because we already know there is no wind at all. The problem with the idea of a very long exposure is that not only would digital noise likely become an issue in the darkened sky, but the Cannon 20-D can only expose an image for 30 seconds maximum. Which is a known negative issue for many landscape photographers, and applies to most all digital cameras. Now, I live here in the Hawaiian islands where brisk trade winds are a regular part of life. Here IS a 30 second exposure attached. Notice while there is some movement in the clouds, clearly not near as much in this image posted here. So then, who would like to explain how these clouds moved this much in under 30 seconds with no wind, and no digital noise??

 

Also the photographer lists the aperture at 2.8. I'd also like to hear how you can get a 30 second exposure, in daylight, at 2.8 without blowing the image to pieces?