The open space II

When I first viewed this, my initial reaction was to try to understand what this photo is trying to say. Perhaps I'm over romanticizing, but to me it could be speaking of two homes coming together as one--life, hope, everlasting togetherness. Perhaps I'm over analyzing and simply assigning qualities of buildings to human activities, but if we don't find meaning in the piece then what good is it? Certainly this photo has style, but does it also have substance? I think the lighter home, together with tree and darker home are joined together for a reason. They represent something traditional and good. The sky is the passing of two lives. Regardless of the technical aspects, the different elements we see here were assembled for a pre-conceived purpose. The photo was thoughtfully designed, well executed and I think this is why many enjoy the photo.

Thank you all for these comments.

Sorry for my poor english. For those who want to know more please read http://www.denisolivier.com/interview.php

 

Anyway yes, this is unmanipulated, no more than common darkoom

density and toning. This one is done with a Canon 20D, with an HOYA R72 filter, at f/5.6 and around 4 mn exposure. The sky was very dark

you have a no motion one of the serie here http://www.denisolivier.com/p_sets?sid=21&pid=731

 

Most of time for me technic is boring, I'm not doing scientifical or industrial photography. I really prefer "behind" the image, the time, story, past life and moment, universe and human confrontation, imagination and dreaming.

 

Thank you.

This is copied and pasted from Denis's interview:

 

"I use IR or neutral filters, sometimes combined, and a polarising one."

 

I guess this and Denis's explanation should allow to close the technical file.

Merci pour ces précisions, Denis. Si vous avez besoin d'un peu d'aide pour exprimer autre chose concernant votre travail, n'hésitez pas à l'écrire directement en Français et je le traduirai sous 24h. Beau travail, bonne continuation.

Thank you Denis! I appreciate your clarifying these things.

 

If I were looking to purchase a print of this as fine art, I would probably not be overly concerned about exactly HOW the sky came to like it is now. I am sure a few serious "museum gallery" buyers might want to know, but I would guess most would just be happy with a beautiful print. On the other hand, this is a photography site. Before I personally chime in and decide to comment on whether I like an image or not, (and many others feel the same) I DO wnat to know how this effect was achieved. To me, it adds value as well as strengthens my appreciation for the image that you did in fact capture this as explained above, rather than simply running a blur tool over the sky. Either way it would still be quite a beautiful image. But in my mind, it is more than just a beautiful image, because now I know (as a fellow photographer) how much work actually went into this capture.

 

Thanks again for taking the time. I have learned some things along the way too. Beautiful work indeed!

I don't care if this image was manipulated or even if the sky matches the frontal lighting on the building. This image evoked an emotive response from me and that's what good art does. This image is extremely emotive, visually interesting and well composed. Great job. I wish I were in your league. John

Dennis, you are truly gifted. I did a 4 minute exposure with a 1D mkII and had so much noise it was absolutely unuseable. How in the heck did you clean up the noise???

 

Thanks... Dave

I always use lowest ISO (100 here). Most of time I perform a dark myself or use the one computed by the camera which is fairly good, but needs to have it on twice the exposure time (so around 8 mn here) for all the capture.

 

Anyway it was cold so the sensor seems don't have warmed so much.

I take the opportunity to say that yes there was very fast moving clouds over me, and on the land it is not just grass but cutted corn.

 

I'm surprised that this picture have so passionnate discussion, that's

impressive, and it's really interesting to see and learn how spectators react on of my work.

 

Thank you again.

Double effect of both the long pause and the wide angle: looks as if houses are vacuumed by the sky... great image!

my appologies if this doesn't make sense but I'm merely an amateur at this stuff...

 

The user was using a digital SLR camera yes? so can you not set your own ISO on a digital camera? Thus by selecting the smallest possible ISO and combining that with, dark sky (poor lighting), and the smallest appeture possible (say f22) could one not achieve a long exposure even in daylight? And to increase the length of your exposure you could also add filters which would block some light.

 

Also, it's possible for clouds to move in a current at a different altitude with minimal wind at ground height. You see this all the time with groups of clouds moving faster than others because they are at different altitudes.

 

nice photo :)

I wish I could achieve half of that.

Well to add to some of the above comments I will say I am someone is opposed to digital manipulations even being in forums on photography, they belong in graphic design forums.

 

That said, this is very doable in camera and I love it. It's a beautiful scene, maybe it could stand for a little less tilt, but still a beautiful scene and very well done. It's a lot nicer than that silly ol angel photo for sure! If it had to be critiqued, and I assume the photographer in question would want to her that I would have considered using a low angle and getting some of the plants in the foreground, or perhaps getting closer to the buildings. But it rocks, great shot.

 

Also, I'd like to say that I absolutely love the image posted inside here by Pat Hilander. That is awesome Pat! I actually like it better than the image of the week, but I like them both.

--

Ok, here's an easy way to get that effect in film: use a ND filter- and I mean a REAL ND filter- try the B&W ones. They are very strong (the lowest one I have is the 6 stop one). I also use a 10 stop version, which will EASILY give me 4-8 minute exposures on cloudy days. They also make even stronger ND filters (up to a filter factor of one million! No joke) B&H in New York carries them, although they are special order.

I like the idea of timed exposure, etc. for detail w/blur. The B&W formatt accentuates the detail/blur contrast. The abstract cropping of additional images in the portfolio cause to me to wonder what color may bring to the ongoing study by the photographer. Whether muted or vibrant, I believe color would be an interesting advance.

There are three, non photo reasons the sky may be blurred and the ground not:

1. Upper level winds are blowing with the ground stationary.

2. Those are corn stalks, not grass. They're stiff and don't wave much.

3. or a combination of the two.

 

They look more like corn stalks and any timed exposure will blur clouds.

Interesting photo. I do not like the composition though. Although the the effect of the clouds is cool, I think there is a little too much of it, which distracts from the rest of the photo, which is quite nice by itself. I would have cropped the sky down a bit and made this more of a horizontal image with just enough of the sky to clue you in to it but not make it the major focus of the shot.

And you have killed the shot with your version... now you have a 'ping pong composition' and the balance is static. A classic case of "If it's not broken don't fix it." MS

 

PS I figured it was some sort of crop cuttings/stiff grasses, which would not move much in the wind. I also figured, however, that there was wind at groundlevel, as it's revealed with the slight blur in the tree by the house.

I agree with Michael on the latest crop suggestion. You lose the feeling of the passing of a lifetime. The sky must be larger than the land. It takes more than simply blurred clouds to produce that feeling. It also takes broad changes in tone.

 

Note how in the original the clouds begin dark in the bottom right (night) grow brighter as they move upward and left (even remain bright around the lone tree signifying new life), but upward and into the left corner there is a dark area. Night to day to night, off into infinity.

 

As the foreground homes decay and their tree dies, someday there may be two little homes by the distant tree--the hope of parents and generations to come. The clouds pull over the distant hill to another scene like this.

I am coming late to the game and uncertain that I have anything to add other than to say that I like the image and the metaphoric qualities previously mentioned in this discussion.

 

It is easy to imagine this image as representing an old couple bent with age, nearing their final reward which is a tree of eternal life, a very common religious and cultural symbol. This could almost be a still image from a film where passing time is often displayed with time-lapse photography. It also appears as if this life has been a somewhat uphill struggle.

 

Usually houses with tilted verticals bug the carpenter in me but in this instance things work out pretty well. I agree with the other posts likening it to impressionist painting (a subject I am personally fond of).

 

I like the graphic nature of the square format, though I think I would adjust the cropping slightly by clipping the top and left side just a bit. There is one light colored stalk in the foreground that I might have been tempted to burn in since it is near the center of the frame and a possible distraction.

 

I like the way the buildings are on one side of the frame and the tree is opposite and alone on its own side. There is also a dark line (furrow) dividing the foreground and leading directly to the tree. The houses are slightly off to the side perhaps suggesting some of lifes near misses or misdirection.

 

The truth is that for me this is such a compelling image that I worried very little about the technical aspects of it. It could have just as easily been taken with a toy camera through a glass pie plate for all I care. God has divided the land from the sky or something to that effect. There are nice opposing diagonals in the composition giving both tension and balance. The houses themselves appear to be organic and maybe that is why it is so easy to make the anthropomorphic leap. Buildings after all are a reflection of the people who build and use them.

 

This is very good work in my (constantly undervalued) opinion.

Dear Denis,

 

Congratulations on an excellent image. Of course there are minor points on which it could be even better (there always are). I wish there were just a bit more light on the front of the shed, for instance. But it seems to me that the tone of the preceding discussion turned a little too negative, given the quality of your photo. So my two cents is to emphasize that the majority of the comments here amount to constructive criticism aimed at the impossible task of making your already superb photo into a perfect one. In a way, this quest for perfection is charming, and it partly explains why many of those who have offered comments are themselves such good photographers.

 

I look forward to viewing more of your work!

 

Chris

Firstly, apolgies for not having had time to read the whole thread. I am sure I will be reiterating words already said ...

 

I enjoy this photo on a level rarely experienced. The feeling of solitude and standing against the universe, time, nature and so forth brings much impact, quiet peace and wonder.

 

The lens appears to have caused some distortion on the buildings but yet it doesn't bother me.

 

To those who criticise the level of the horizon - perhaps it is off-slant, but I assumed the ground not to be level. Land does dip and rise after all ...

 

Nice work Denis.

I do not care if this photo is manipulated or not, doesnt matter to me. What does interest me is the shadow of the tree, extremely long, yet the side of the house and the tops of the bush next to it are lit? how can this be? It seems a little pointless to drag sophisticated lighting equipment into this field and the foreground has no sign of flash lighting.

Raw effect of sunset or sunrise, at viewer discretion

Reminds me of the vintage stories of the Depression dust bowl era -- but without the tired,

desperate family portraits. In any case, it is not a cheerful shot, although it is graphicly raw.