The Great Sand Sea - X, Siwa, West Egypt

Please

Very good job! I like the texture on the sand ... thats splendid.

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. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum. We have this forum because future visitors might be interested in learning more about the pictures. They 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?

So, when contributing to this thread, please keep the above in mind. Address the strengths, the shortcomings of the image. It's not good enough to like it, you should spend some time trying to put into words why that is the case. Equally so if you don't like it, or if you can't quite make up your mind.

Let's make sure this forum is a wonderful learning resource for future photographers!

Thank you and enjoy!

A splendid image and an especially fine pick for POW. At first glance it appears to be nearly a pure abstract, which then gradually resolves into a desert landscape, whose contours become clearer the longer we look. I admit that I still don't quite understand what we are seeing in the shadowed area at the top of the frame, and I hope Simon will eventually explain. The quality and direction of the light are ideal, and the composition is simply spectacular: all these diagonal bands radiating out of the top right corner and contrasting with the waves of light and shadow running in the other direction along the surface of the dunes. The hints of detail in the shadows are beautiful, as is the fine texture in the foreground. I see one tiny flaw, what seems to be a bit of flare in the shadows at lower left, which could be removed easily enough in post-processing. That aside, to my eye this is a near-perfect image, full of fascinating detail that I expect to enjoy viewing again and again.

It is a very good observation and presentation and as a general critique that is all I'd say. On a personal note, I feel that landscapes, particularly desert landscapes, where everything is stripped down to the fluid bones of nature, the value of an image is in revealing a natural underlying order that we preceive as beauty. Usually these patterns, countours, colors and arrangements are understood by the viewer to transcend the dune, hill, mountain or whatever the image is, and pervade life itself. In this way, the errant, etched ribs of a windward dune can invoke Beethovan, or the glance of a woman in repose...

 

But your image straddles too severely the abstract and the natural and I feel suspended in space between a cold pattern and the warm shards of pure natural expression. As a result, I can't feel, can't recognize my world in the one you've presented.

I like the composition, but the attempt to maximize curb appeal by using a black mat with a color matched outline and the apparently intentional blocking up of the shadows creates a kitschy elvis-on-velvet image. Simon, would it be possible to see another version with no mat that is processed to bring out the shadow detail? I expect it would be very well received.

Different, calming patterns. It seems more abstract to me than a landscape picture. even though I realized it is a desert photo as soon as I 've seen it. I agree with Carl Root about the velvet effect. Since it is quite unique than the images we see everyday in bulk, it is a good choice for the POW. Keep up the good work Simon. Regards.

The picture is certainly a very composed one but in fact not a very coherent image. I do not understand it, that is I do not understand what it shows. What the image shows does not "speak" to me. For me what is incoherent is what the image says about how the two distinct rhythms of wave patterns shown here relate. I cannot recognize whether these patterns are sand and water or cross-bedding in eroding sandstone and something else sedimentary or fluid and my difficulty is that I want to recognize what is shown if the image is one from "Nature". I acknowledge that this is my problem and may not bother other viewers of the image to the same degree at all.

Sand dunes, what subject is shot more and what subject do we all wish we could find a

new way of presenting/seeing. I think here we do see a pretty unique presentation of

dunes. It is

not that I have never seen a graphic representation before, but this does take that to a

different level and I really haven't seen this interpretation before.

 

Looking at the other dunes in Simon's portfolio, we do see some more traditional

approaches to dunes. So, we are again left with a bit of a wonder as to whether this image

is a one off or will we be seeing other landscape shots coming along that give us a similar

treatment and context to which this might belong. I don't think others are necessary, but

like images do help us sometimes understand the vision from which a certain image

comes. Right now, I don't see a particular genesis other than it being just a graphic

image.

 

Bottom line, I do think this is an interesting approach to shooting a dune, but I really don't

find much I can get interested in. I guess I am not one who gets overly excited by just a

graphic and here I don't feel that I have been given anything more. I don't see the

wonder of nature, I don't see any message, metaphor or the like and I don't feel moved in

any way. I don't feel like "gee where is this, I want to go there". Nice image, hate borders

in general, especially decorator ones, but I just can't go further than looking at it and

moving on.

Hmmmm... Interesting picture, and a nice start in this discussion...

 

Firstly, may I post an urgent suggestion...? See attachment. :-) Sorry, but I think the black mat and gold outline are fighting the great graphics, that are the soul of this picture.

 

Carl, what do you mean by: "the apparently intentional blocking up of the shadows"...? Contrast was probably increased in PS indeed, but my guess is, that this picture was simply, exposed for the highlights.

 

Shadow areas serve imo no specific purpose here, or rather, just serve as separators in the overall abstract design presented to us. So, I have no objection to the possible darkening of the shadows. Rather the contrary, in fact. I really don't see such darkening as a kitschy decision PROVIDED it improves the design - and I think that's the case here. Care to tell us exactly what reminds you of black velvet elvis, here - besides the mat and its golden outline...?

 

As for me, I love the convergence of lines - very artificial, yes, but this is cold art despite the warm colors. The kind of imagery that hangs nowadays in modern appartments. And to me, an absolutely successful take as a modern abstract.

 

Textures and light are magnifiscent, composition is unusually simple, and the overall result is imo a faultless design, almost a robotic pattern. Nature seen as a geometric pattern: a very enjoyable paradox for me. A very neat and cold beauty, but still true beauty to me. It tells me tales about some underlying mathematical order in nature. Perhaps some aesthetical order, in the end... My minddoes travel looking at this, in metaphysical ways, at least...

 

Congrats on this interesting pick - and pix.

I would love to find the pleasure Chris has when looking at this photo, but it does not seem be to catch my interest, although I can see several of the qualities Chris so well call to our attention.

 

One element that catches my eye and that may explain the problem, is the contradiction (?) between the perspectives created by the convergent wires and the surface of the sand which seems to have less depth !! The result is a certain discomfort of vision.

 

Another aspect is the contrast of texture between the metal wires and the sand - a contrast which I don�t see as complementary but in contradiction and creates heterogeneity of sentiments.

 

All together, in my view a photo that lacks unity of visual message despite the elements of technical perfection.

I think I do have to thank Marc for posting this image sans the black and tan border, it

does look much better this way. I don't know yet whether I will change my opinion here,

but at least I feel I have been freed to do so.

 

Anders, I think we are just looking at receding dune ridges. In fact, if you open it up with

Shadows/Hghlts you can see some of the sand fall off in the near black area.

 

Just a comment on composition, I do think it is well done. In fact, I had a lot of fun

turning it 90 degrees 3 times and seeing it in all angles. It holds up well, a good sign of

good design, no matter the attitude of the axis and in reality seemed more interesting in a

couple of the alternatives. It can take on almost an insect quality on end.

Impressive, but too plastiquish.

I like the design of the background of the photo. The foreground right is less impressive. I'm fond of right to left compositions, so I wish there was more to the lower right--something that worked the viewer toward the background to balance the primary lines moving from left to right. The bottom center is especially weak. The patterns on the right are indecisive, and somewhat lead into the upper right. So, there isn't anything tying the foreground to the background and we're left with a simple contrast between foreground and background.

 

Then as I look closer I notice that direction of the light on the left is from right to left (really from background to foreground). The direction of the light on the right is left to right. This disappoints me, mainly because if we're going to manipulate a photo--let's produce a design that fits together better than this. There is a nice design element here, but the foreground is missing.

I wish I had the words to fully describe what I feel looking at this image. Alas, I am unable to. I see a little of what I feel in several of the above comments, but most especially as Peter Mead described his feelings. (He never stated if he approved of the photograph or not.) I do!

 

This is simplicity at its best, yet truly isn't really simple. A lot of thought and artistic skills went into the picture. I see it as a very dramatic design, rather than a landscape of dunes, yet I know full well what is pictured here is sand. I'm driven to want to do something similar, but don't know how.

 

A really nice piece of work. The color is fantastic, with or without the dark frame. I'm glad your picture was selected for POW. It gave me the opportunity to check other bits of your most interesting work.

Personally I respond positively to the graphic approach of this image. It also has a degree of tonal subtlety that is alas so often lost with digital capture. The cold shadow tones and warm highlights balance nicely and conforms the reality of dune-scapes and deserts in general. Places of complimentary extremes. I find merit in fact this rendering is not just another trite example of a dune picture.

 

The comment of "plastiquish" above I find interesting as it is a criticism I have for many digital captures where the in-camera files are highly processed. ...but I do not see that here. This image does not stand up and scream "I was made with a Canon."

 

I do echo the comments about the presentation border. The composition is strong on its own and embellishment with such a border only serves to diminish the strength of a fine image.

 

C.

The discussion has taken some interesting directions. Our varying responses seem to rest at least partly on our expectations and preferences as to the treatment of nature in a landscape photo. I find Mona's and David R's take particularly helpful in improving the way I see. I agree that a landscape image that reveals something profound about nature is a "greater" photograph. (Certainly this one doesn't convey the essence of the desert in the way that some other dune photos do.) But I also think there is value in a simpler image, such as this one, which is mainly just about abstract graphic patterns.

 

(We seem to be echoing some of our discussion of Jack's "Suntory Museum" photo.)

 

My earlier (middle of the night for me) remark may be guilty of a bit of hyperbole, but I continue to like this one. I think there is sufficient foreground interest, if you savor the light and texture in the larger version. I would really like to see a bit more shadow detail, though.

 

Taking a second look here, what strikes me most is what I now see as potentially a devastating flaw. I mentioned this in my earlier comment, and now for me it dominates the whole picture: What is going on with that topmost black triangle? There is no shadow detail there at all -- none visible even with the help of the shadow/highlight tool -- and I'm beginning to wonder whether that part is purely the result of digital manipulation. If it is, that would spoil this picture for me.

Ok, nature is really only the sub-text here. We are being pulled down a desert highway in

excess of the diagonal speed limit. I need something to slow me down (preferably living).

The notion that the wind was here creating designs in the sand seems too simplistic a

concept to stand the test of time ( in this case 1 week). Also the notion that there is a

shadow side corresponding to a light side, well it takes my breath away. God I wish there

was something moving( slithering ) in the sand. Has anyone ever actually seen such a site (

black shadows with no subtlty)? Chris I hate to be the one to tell you, this picture has been

heavily manipulated, I think. The good news is that the Artist probably only had that in

mind. So we can either see it for what it is..... An excessive diagonal composition going

nowhere or we can invent notions as to what we want to see but isn't there...or we can

settle for the minimal amount of Art within the frame. I my humble opinion, a "revert to

original' might be a good starting place to rethink the whole idea.

Mona, I see very well that we are looking at sand and nothing but sand, but when I mention "metal wires" it is because I want to communicate what I see as a conflict between the different textures and between different perspectives as they come out due to the two very dark lines (or "metal wires").

 

I think in general, as someone has said here before, that the very first impression of an image, before our brain, analysis and knowledge translate the message into something known, is a very good guide for the quality of the thing. Well, I saw "metal wires" the first half of a second ! ! !

"Has anyone ever actually seen such a site ( black shadows with no subtlty)?" - C.R. Hips

 

The answer is, of course, yes - if you are talking about what thebare eye can see. But... You also write:

 

"Chris I hate to be the one to tell you, this picture has been heavily manipulated, I think."

 

After trying to brighten up to the extreme the shadow areas, and seeing no detail at all in the 2 upper black areas, I start to believe, that Carl and C.R are probably right about the shadows being "made black".

 

Still, this would not be visible on a print, even a large one. So I'd say that what matters is mostly: did the darkening of the shadow areas help the picture or not ?

 

As a side-note, I found David Rossein's comment about the conflicting directions of the light interesting - because that suggests, this may be a montage. Unfortunately, I can't really see a contradiction in the lighting directions, as far as I am concerned: light seems to be coming from top right - on all 3 dunes... So, what am I missing ?

To Marc G and Anders Hingel:

This picture reminds me of Giorgio de Chirico.

(sorry I don't know much about photography techniques so I tried to explain my impression by comparing this photo to this painter's works).

With respect, Fey

I don�t need to say anything, Marc G. did it for me. I�m agree with him, completely

i knew i was looking at the sand on the right but the black spot, i thought was like wound cable like on bridges i couldnt really tell. i like the way the black tricks your eye at first.

Fey I totally agree, this is in the style of Giorgio de Chirico, but I don't think it is a very successful in following the master. I have tried explaining why the photo does not work for me, as you can see above.

 

Another discussion that pop up yet another time is the question of "manipulation". I would love if we could stop trying to keep back progress. Ludite attacks on electronical manipulation of photos (help ! I only use RAW) is like trying to forbid painters to mix tubes of colour or trying to impose on poets to write with goose feathers. All this will be in vain. What matters is the result. Concentrate on the photos when it comes to aesthetics and novelty unless you want to understand the craftsmanship of creating them. I think the whole discussion on "manipulation" is seriously out of date and try to repeat with new means and in a new context the secession movement against the pictorialist at the beginning of last century.

Anders, I agree with your conclusions about manipulation. Whether it makes the picture

more interesting or gives it more meaning is what matters. I believe that here it simlifies

the visual to a graffic cartoon. I personally find comparisons to de Chirico hopeful at best.

de Chirico was a surrealist with a deep perspective into reality as it relates to our sub-

conscious. This image stays on the emotional surface, rather like wallpaper on a wall. Its

decorative and psuedo attempt at meaning gets lost in cleverness. If we want to view it

from its textural possibilities, it feels unrewarding, from a design poit of view it is too

obvious, It resembles more of a collage to me. In its pure abstractional ,form it lacks visual

content that would take it above purely plastic values. Usually we are attempting to

desipher the 'hows' and 'whys' but this time neither really matters.