Jump to content

From the category:

Landscape

· 290,306 images
  • 290,306 images
  • 1,000,004 image comments




Recommended Comments

Hi marc, This of one of my favorites from your recent work. I am wondering though, is this a single image or several images blended.... thanks.

 

Link to comment

Please note the following:

  • This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
  • Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
  • The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
  • Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.
Link to comment

Marc this is a nature's lovers gift with many attractive details. the stricking Sun gives it a point of fucusing to everything else. Is as I am suck into the light and then I am able to see the beauty it is showing. It is a magical meditation image. Warm regards.

Link to comment

The picture is composed of many small things - details which naturally had to be taken with a closed aperture. The vantage point is great. No doubt about it. What I see as a weakness is that the picture was overly processed, and the overall texture looks very plastic. I'd like to be transported into this place, but I feel repelled due to plasticity of the texture.

Link to comment

Marc,
I am missing the hobbits and Gandalf. I like the image and still think it a bit over the top. It is simply too beautifull. But, thank you for sharing.
Kind regards,
Herman

Link to comment

The overall scene is well perceived and the capture of light shows the professional photographer's competence. The result for me is much as stated in a former critique (Kristina), totally artificial and lacking in subtleness that nature can provide to a sensitive eye, and which, unfortunately, is not allowed to express itself by being obscured by this excessive post-processing. I am not someone who is a purist photographer, wishing only to record a scene as accurately as possible, but I think there are better ways to confer abstractness, Fauve chromatic tones, fantasy or other imagined qualities without the artificialness of this form of post exposure manipulation. Marc's portfolio shows similar qualities of scene visualisation but with similar over-the-top manipulations.

Perhaps for many photographers (as witnessed by the photographer's many favorable critiques in his portfolio page) this type of photography is the ultimate form. For me it lacks artistic spirit and simply leaves me cold and indifferent.

Link to comment

I'm not of the opinion that it lacks artistic spirit, but rather that the technical spirit and the technical process (guided by an artistic spirit) takes precedence over everything else. In the end, it's the technical aspects of the processing that stand out the most, and the resulting perfection in light (in particular) and color catch the viewer's attention. The result reminds me of a Thomas Kinkaide painting: perfect, stylized, and nearly instantly recognizable as to its source. I think it can be debated whether the comment "it looks like a painting" is a compliment, just as it can be debated when processing (not content) becomes so stylized that viewers often instantly know who produced the digital assemblage of light and color. Marc has a variety of photographic experiences, and those that I admire the most are treks into the wilderness to capture nature that can't be seen on a trip to the local park. On those occasions Marc will go to great lengths to get a unique composition, far beyond my physical abilities to try to do the same, and that aspect of Marc's perseverance and subsequent attention to processing are what I admire most about his photography. This particular photograph is not in that league, IMO.

Link to comment
Guest Guest

Posted

Actually, what I'd debate is whether a comparison to Kinkade is a compliment. For me, it would not be, though I think it's quite accurate here. [i've never minded comparisons between photos and paintings, per se.]

Link to comment

To me, authenticity is critical in this type of work unless it is obvious that the intent is to make an artistic rendition of nature. I feel I am in "no-man's" land with this one. Stuck somewhere between authentic and artistic (Fred, I'm not saying artistic can't be authentic it's just a feeling I get with this). The attached link is an example of photography in which the tenuous nature of these two things is superbly balanced to me:
http://www.bartocha-photography.com/
Where the processing is evident, it is also evident that it serves a greater artistic purpose. Where it is not, one gets an authentic feel of nature beautifully rendered in all it's subtle and wonderful moods.

Here's the thing for me....it just comes off as a trick, a manipulation (pun intended) which serves only the purpose of making me stop and look. In this sense, it's superficially dramatic.

Having said that, there is no question that Marc is amongst the best in this style of work that there has ever been. He is a master of this. Best, Jeremy

Link to comment

I was not familiare with Thomas Kinkade's paintings and not even his existence as a painter, so I went to look ( being a painter as well for many years), and I understand Stephen's comparison.

The first look at Marc's POW it looked like a very " sweet" landscape, idyllic, and a bit unnatural to me as landscape has a bit of "savage' look even a bit of untidiness. I came several times to see if I'm wrong......so then I went to look at Kinkade's paintings and all of them(I saw quite a bunch of them) have a very ' sweet/candy/idyllic" look.

I appreciate Marc's knowledge and even wrote him on his body of works (2005)! but this one is not one of his best ,IMO.

Link to comment

Too much post-processing, IMO. There is an increasing trend in photography (at I perceive it this way) to put a lot of effort in post-pro. In many cases, in the end you end up with something that is not a photo, but something else.
I even see 3D renders submitted in the critique forums! I don't get it.
My guess is that I'd like this specific shot more in it's original form that this one. I find specially artificial the lens flares.
Maybe it's just me... I'm not a purist, I have some highly-retouched shots, but my intention was -they are old- to make it clear they were post-pro.
Regards,
Esteve

Link to comment

I'll begin with the title. "Spirit Garden" is a dreadful. If it is not a cliche it is at least somehow influenced by a cliche. Sound like the title of a painting you'd buy at a garage sale. I cannot stress enough how an awkward title can prejudice viewers against a photograph.

As for the image, it's okay. Some viewers may find nirvana in this photograph. I find it static and boring.
How I would feel in the actual place would depend on circumstances. If I were lost I would be scared witless.

The tranquility of nature is deceptive. It is not warm and cuddly. If you do not watch where you step you could end up with a twisted ankle. If you are far away from your base and alone you'll got a long and painful crawl ahead of you. And you'll have leave your camera equipment behind.

Anyway, this sort of photograph has been done before and done better.

 

Link to comment

Seriously, isn't this maybe an obvious choice for the "elves"? The image to me seems very much what one might find in a children book as an illustration of where elves might live--or maybe a scene from the children's game CandyLand. And then reading Alex's description, I wonder if he hasn't had some pretty awful experiences in nature…

I have been a bit surprised at the responses here as I thought this might get a more positive reception. On the other hand, I guess I am encouraged by them.

The image itself I think was seen well but I would agree with the over processing. I would also suggest that it is always a major risk to include these types of sunbursts as they rarely move beyond being a bit trite. I have one of my own from the early 80's that I have always liked but is routinely panned by everyone who sees it--it has a very personal meaning so I just don't show it anymore.

After Mark's last POW, I thought a bit about why I like shooting in the landscape. One day I was out shooting and maybe experienced a somewhat similar scene to this--it is just great to be out and feel the air, sun and smell the fragrances of the environment. But I think there is more substance to be garnered than just creating pretty images with the landscape--although I know that this can bring much pleasure to many. Maybe it's just better to leave the sledgehammer in the shed and present something more subtle and sophisticated that can be relished over time.

Link to comment

I wrote the above and with a twisted back and got some twisted typos. The offending passage should read: "If you do not watch where you step you could end up with a twisted ankle. If you are far away from your base and alone you'll have a long and painful crawl ahead of you. And you'll have to leave your camera equipment behind."
I agree about the problem of post-processing in this image. But I think there is also a problem of pre-processing, namely imbuing this scene, which does not resemble a garden, with romantic presumptions.

Link to comment

The image to me is attractive in its own right, but as a true photograph of a idealic landscape the image comes over surreal and not natural. I would love to find an area in the world that looks as though its from Avatar. The image is striking and I've seen Marc's portfolio which is rather stunning. I would like to see the image in its natural form and beauty with not as much processing done.
Great work anyway!!

Link to comment

While I've already stated that I'm not a big fan of this Thomas Kinkade look in a photograph of a woodland, I'd like to consider an alternative and look for an explanation. Most of us in the (distant) past would probably have made a single exposure and then tried to deal with the tremendous range of light in the scene. We could have detail in the area around the sun, with the other shadow areas going quite dark and lacking detail, or we could have let the area near the sun blow and then hopefully pull out detail around the trees, along the stream, and in the canopy. I don't think I would have liked the result; the light here is just too difficult (too wide of a range) for a single-exposure photograph.

So Marc has used one of several digital methods to overcome this limitation of the camera and to show a greater range of light throughout the photograph, perhaps even closer to how the human eye with its greater dynamic range might have seen the scene. The sunlight isn't blinding in a large area around the source, I can see some amount of detail on the shadow side of the trees, and varying amounts of light and shade can be seen throughout the frame.

So what is it that makes this appear "over the top" to so many viewers? I really don't know, but I'll hazard a guess and hope some might respond to it or give their own explanation. While it might be the subtle degree of color saturation, I have a feeling it's the way our eyes move through a scene. When we look at an area like this in person, we don't see the entire scene at once. We look at a part of it, say the sun coming through the canopy, and our eyes adjust to that part of the scene and the rest is not directly viewed with much acuity; we know it's there, but our view is not direct or clear. When we shift our view to another part of the scene, say the tree trunks, our eyes automatically and instantaneously adjust to the light in that part of the scene, and we can see some detail and the gradation of light and shadow in the vicinity of the tree trunk. I suppose at that moment the light around the sun we were formerly viewing becomes much brighter, but our interpretive mind accounts for this and the great dynamic range of our eyes doesn't take notice. And so it is as we move through the scene with our eyes.

A skillfully blended photograph, though, captures all of these subtle shifts and freezes them in a single moment. As a result, we're able to see the scene in a photograph in a different way than we would see the scene in person as our eyes move through it. Perhaps this is why Marc's photograph, even though it's individual parts are (I assume) similar to how those parts might be seen by the eye on site, collectively appears to be "over the top" when everything is viewed in a single instant.

I'm just looking for an explanation as to why this looks like a fairyland and not a scene I might see as I walk through the woods. I want to know why the promise of digital processing to overcome the inherent limitations of a camera to record a range of light has resulted in something that to many still looks unreal and overly processed. If it's not my pseudo-psychological semi-educated guess, what other explanations might there be? How might have Marc approached the processing of the scene differently and made it "better?" Rather than just criticizing, are there any specific suggested alternatives?

Link to comment
Guest Guest

Posted

Stephen, for me, it's got nothing to do with digital processing per se, though it seems obviously digital. I do some extremes of digital post processing so I have no bone to pick with digital work itself. I've seen over-the-top film landscapes as well.

The sharpness of the photo is unsightly to me. The lack of shadow gives it a flatness and superficiality. It makes the scene seem hollow. The color is not, IMO, subtly saturated, but instead reads like a neon sign to me and there is little variety to the greens, variety which I often find visually compelling when I'm in wooded areas. Blurred water has begun to feel kitschy and overdone to me in this manner. The starburst flare just seems like an effect and doesn't integrate well. I don't like telling other photographers what to do, so I won't. What I would do is explore the atmosphere, not try as hard, not be as obvious, be in touch with my own feelings and try to show them or visually translate them. I usually find mystery and movement in scenes like this. I would metaphorically suggest such mystery and movement if I were doing this kind of photo. Others would present the scene much more clearly, and could do so compellingly in a variety of ways, which I would leave to them. This photo feels static not actually in spite of the blur of the water but in part because of that blur which, as with the starburst feels more like an effect, than an expressive gesture. This kind of blur with rushing water actually seems often to make it feel still and dead to me rather than suggesting the kinds of rhythms and movement rivers and streams strike me with. The photo feels polished and cleansed. And it has more the feeling of exploring processing than it does of exploring the subject or the potential of such content. I think Kristina's comments on texture are particularly insightful. There is no sense of harmony or tension among the elements, but rather an almost obfuscating blast of stylistics. Style can support and deepen narrative and content or it can overtake it. Here, I experience the latter.

Link to comment
Guest Guest

Posted

Stephen, I wanted to add that I sometimes like and appreciate what I would characterize as over-the-top approaches. It depends on what it looks like. There are reasons, which I've given above, why I might or might not like an over-the-top presentation. Some subjects or situations seem to suggest it to the photographer, and sometimes content seems to support it. It depends what the over-the-top-ness is achieving and what raw materials it's working with and what sensibility seems to be behind it. Over-the-top-ness can often seem like and often is a default processing mode, seem like a one-trick pony, which can put me off. It can also, in adept hands, be or appear to be more sparingly and intentionally chosen and even may, in some cases, be visually acknowledged.

Link to comment

Fred, I have no bone to pick with digital work either. I'm disappointed in this digital work seemingly not living up to the promise of some digital techniques to overcome the inherent camera limitations we've lived with in the past. I'm not sure my assessment is true, but if it has some degree of veracity I want to know what elements are detracting from Marc's photograph in the minds of some viewers.

Using your post as my guide, my eyes really move toward the sharp greens on the far side of the stream. For me, this is where "natural reality" is starting to break down. It's hard for me to judge the saturation; when I look very closely at a small part of the greens, it looks o.k., but when I back away and look at the entire scene, it looks too saturated. I can't account for this.

I find plenty of shadow (e.g., lower right corner, shadow-side of the trees). I think part of Marc's technique is to have detail everywhere and to have few if any areas so dark that no detail is shown. So there may be shadow, but there is little if any really deep shadow or black areas. That may be one source of the fairyland look.

I know what you mean by blurred water (although I still generally like it, especially in large expanses of sea). I have a feeling that the look of this water is not due to a long exposure, although I'm not sure. Our eyes are good up to a certain speed, beyond which things begin to blur. To my eyes, this water looks pretty natural (a few small standing waves, and then some areas of small white-water). A really long exposure would have had all of the white-water silky smooth and without any of the small detail it is showing. I think the opposite extreme of an exceptionally fast shutter would have shown detail that our eyes simply can't see and would also have looked "artificial" for that reason. Our eyes are good for seeing certain wavelengths of the spectrum, and they're good for seeing certain speeds of moving water; I don't know what that speed range is, but to my eyes this is falling within the "visible range."

I, too, think the starburst flare is overdone. I've seen it and light rays streaming through the canopy when I'm in the forest, but never to this extent. I think Marc's shutter has exceeded the capacity of my eyes to see this effect, and as a result it lends itself to the idealized fairyland look.

I share your feelings that the photograph feels like an effect, something polished and cleansed, an exploration of processing rather than an exploration of place. It's something I'd expect to see in a children's book rather than National Geographic (there's nothing wrong with that; I'm just searching for ways to describe my overall reaction to the photo).

So both of us can point to specific elements that seem more artificial than real. For me (and maybe for you -- I'm hesitant to attribute thoughts to other people), these taken together give the appearance of a stylized, ideal photograph rather than a real place. My original idea of the difference between surveying a scene with our eyes versus seeing that same scene captured at a given instant in a photograph is still a thought or explanation that I find intriguing, and I'd like to ask a visual scientist whether it has any validity.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...