eagle sanctuary and svensen island Into the Mountains

Comments, ratings on composition and tone--thanks.

The trees frame the top of the picture nicely. Conventional thinking is to not center the tracks, but that doesn't bother me here. The toning is good IMO. Just a trivial matter, but is there a bend in one of the tracks near the front?

It has this old 18-19th century frontier look to it. Good work.

very succesful toning Robert. The composition is very balanced and keeps my eye in . PK .

I like the treatment of this image. Nice work!

For the life of me I can't understand all the 6s and the occasional 7. No disrespect for this is an OK photo, but who hasn't pointed a camera down some railroad tracks and snapped the shutter? This isn't even a large format 8x10 that you could blow up so each detail is beautifully printed-- it's a what, 2500 pixel digital that you'd be hard pressed to print above a 12x16, more like an 8x10. Sorry, but you'd be better served if you would ignore the chorus and concentrated on a less stereotypical angle in a scene like this.

Everyone above, thanks for your comments. A.--I'd like to address a few of your points.

 

1) ratings--I've taken far better photos that have received far worse ratings . . . this is photo.net; what do you expect? Do I think that this is an exceptional photo, even by photo.net standards? Does it deserve a 7? Not by my scoring system. I think 6/5 aesthetic 5/4 for orginality would be appropriate. By photo.net standards.

 

2) Detail--this is a 6 mp camera and the images enlarge quite nicely to 13x19 on my Epson printer with a little help from Genuine Fractals. In fact I've had a few enlarged to 20x30. Does it match a 4x5 or 8x10 (I've shot in both formats) for resolution? Of course not. But the same case could be pressed for every scenic/landscape on this site--wouldn't the image be better served by a large or medium format film camera?

 

3) Originality--I peeked at your portfolio. You seem to favor a grittier "street" type style, which, I hate to share with you, isn't all that original. I do like a number of shots in your portfolio--some are even somewhat original--but a large percentage are simply genre shots executed in a style that doesn't distinguish them from thousands of others shooting in that genre--especially those who have graduated with some type of photography degree in the last 20 years.

 

4) Is this shot original? Is its intent to be original? I think I have some photos in my obese portfolio that are reasonably orignal. This is not--it's part of my attempt to document the area in which I live. It's is not high art. It's trying to evoke a feeling, but the feeling isn't new. There are some photos in this folder (salmon habitat shots) that are more interesting.

 

I do appreciate your comments are you are certainly entitled your opinion. However, in all art, whether it's literature or painting or sculpture or photography, there's really very little that's new--but I'm sure you already know that.

 

Perhaps we could sum up your critique in another way--that this photo doesn't engage you, that it offers you no visual or intellectual pleasure, because in part, it's of a genre the doesn't interest you.

 

Oh, well. I will peruse your portfolio in the next few days in search of elusive originality.

Robert, no need to start comparing my portfolio vs. yours, I was just surprised at the number of 7s that I saw. The only reason I only opened up the thumbnail was because I found the image attractive enough. Sorry if you took offense. As to interpolating up from 6mb, yes it works but it doesn't compare in quality to the real deal. Best regards.

Oh, and you're partially correct that I rarely find landscapes "original" (in PN parlance), but there are some, just as much of the work in city photography is cliched and boring, including of course much of my own. Truth be known, I find the vast bulk of the portfolios in my type of shooting utterly uninteresting as well-- but in PN those types of shots get 3s and 4s, not 6s and 7s.

I'm afraid I can't really say much for this photo. The ridiculous amount of photoshop that went into this tells me that there wasn't much done to it to begin with and frankly, putting the subject in the middle of the frame is the most common amateur mistake in composition. I think this photography is certainly undeserving of its ratings and is comparable to those photos taken at fairgrounds of children dressed up in 19th century regalia.

The composition works well here. If he had opted for the rule of thirds shot, the symmetry would have been lost, and I think it would have suffered because of it.

 

As for originality, I think its a waste of breath. Only truly uninspiring things are original these days. Total and absoulte visions of artsy-fartsyness are the only alternatives. I once made a comment about shooting a chipmunk with a 1000mm lens roasting a marshmallow over a fire fed with Freon (in order to procure green flames) is the only option for originality anymore. While an exaggeration, it conveys my idea of what it takes to be original.

 

If the photographer is happy with the shot, its successful. The fact that it has drawn me, and the rest of everyone else looking at it shows that other people are at least interested in it, if not liking it.

 

I've got a similar railroad shot taken near Camp Douglas, WI that I love. Has it been done before? Probably not at that location (as this one probably hasn't been). Do I like it. You bet.

 

Wonderful shot, Robert. Thanks for sharing!

 

Chris