kenneth_logan

I believe that the technical information included with the photo, stating "Au 1250e s", means that it was shot at a 1250th of a second.

I find difficulty accepting this as a four-second exposure. The small squiggles/highlights in, for instance, the lower-right corner seem to be in the nature of very transitory elements such as disappear in a lot less than four seconds, because their lines are so cleanly drawn within a dynamic, fluid environment. Why then does their lightness/intensity seem to rival that of the large-area highlights that apparently were essentially-stable in shape over the length of the exposure? Why does the water seem to be so stable in its patterns over a four-second exposure? Could it be that this is this a 1/4-second exposure? At such close range, I think that this amount of blending of the water could happen in 1/4 second, as could the squiggles mentioned above.

This is a very striking image. One-quarter second seems quite daring as shutter speed for this particular portrait. At such a slow speed, I would like to understand how the blown hairs--or many of them--seem to be not moving.

Glad to see an organ image on this site--in my experience here, they're very rare.

 

Great placement of the trumpet's "bell"--the curved front--against a subtle, dark and narrow background that brings it out in contrast about as much as possible.

 

Tough exposure situation--perhaps you've done as well as possible. Think I would opt for a tad less exposure, given how much detail is burned out in the organ pipes and windows. But you HAVE managed to keep a reasonable amount of detail in the woodwork. And I do have to admit that the pipes would have little real detail to show even if the exposure were much less, meaning that their "gleam" or "glint" in the light would just be less. So maybe I've talked myself into recommending that the exposure is fine just as it is.

 

About the issue of simplicity mentioned by a poster above--some things are just complex. I wonder sometimes at comments on photo.net that move in the direction of great simplicity. While I, for one among many others, often strive for very clean, simple composition of photos, the opposite direction also can be compelling--the direction to represent a complex, detailed place in complex detail, with lost to see and "decode".

I really respond positively to this kind of basic idea, that is, something in the foreground that is in focus that comments on something in the background that is out of focus. That part is effectively represented in this photograph.

 

However, an identifiable object that is meant to be out of focus generally should be considerably out of focus. Otherwise one can have an uneasy sense that the object should be in focus and didn't quite make it. So I think that the foreground is too in focus. If you had opportunity to "move" the person, you could have had him be closer to the camera and simultaneously farther to the left in order to keep the approximately-same amount of space covered by him, while making him more out of focus.

Carl's opus is a contemporary playing of an old song: the blend of Classic and Romantic elements in the same work.

 

The Classic side--rational, logical, well-proportioned, given to feeling yet generally not overwhelmed by feeling--is expressed in the marvelous lines of Carl's composition.

 

The Romantic side--wide-ranging, emotive, sometimes soaked in the evoking of feeling--is expressed in the colors of Carl's composition and the deformation of straight lines in the reflections.

 

In music, Beethoven, for example, is a great example of the fusing of both tendencies: a Classic Romanticist.

 

Is this work primarily, or importantly, Carl's? I'd say yes. In music (I'm a professional musician/avocational photographer), I think that people often look at a printed musical score as a kind of fixed, finished object. Many people, I think, don't absorb a musical score with much realization of the kinds of options that the composer had--and rejected--on the way to achieving, hopefully, that sense of inevitability, that sense of "this is just right now". Actually, I suspect that many people on photo.net DO have the sense of the creative process that typically goes into the type of composition that Carl has created here. I like the reference to "discovered" photographs, in this regard. Carl has "discovered" a telling photograph, but he, the creative artist, had to go after it and reject possible captures that were not as telling.

 

The architect(s) deserve much credit for creating the context, but the capture from a particular angle, in particular light, and the ensuing work with PS curves, is a distinctive artistic mark from the artist-photographer.

 

Shouldn't creative photography be like music of Mozart: as someone once said, too easy for children and too difficult for adults?

Color caste = unfiltered incandescent light?

Part of what attracted me to this image was the very smallness of the people, so I would not change that significantly. Tough question about the blown-out highlights at top: Looks to me as though even if you closed down 1/3 to 1 stop (as the 10D deals with stops, and sacrificing some shadow detail at upper right) you're still going to have blown-out highlights. So I suspect that no exposure change is necessary. Maybe a little recomposition would have been helpful: a little less of the blown-out sky showing at the top.

While I deeply respect Carl Root for his expertise in the area of effective minimalism (did't know that, did you, Carl?), I have to disagree with his view here regarding cropping the image toward a 6x7 or square, etc. Here goes:

 

 

With the current proportions, the image is very close to achieving the Golden Section vertically (very roughly 1 and 1.6 proportion): going from the right side at bottom of the tank to the point where the yellow stairs cross that line is the "1", while the distance from that point to the top fills out the "1.6" by adding the additional .6. While we may not realize this consciously in looking at the image, these proportions are essential elements in some of the greatest architecture this world has held. The photographer here creates a rough simile to these proportions by how he has cropped the image.

 

Also, the crop at the top eliminates the amazing sense of twist that seems to move upward from the bottom and continue at the top.

 

Finally, verticality and upward thrust are important, I think, to the wonderful effect of this remarkable image. The 2x3 proportions assist importantly in communicating this thrust.

Am I mistaken that in order for the heli blades to have been caught with paths travelled as narrow as they are, this had to have been taken at an extremely-fast shutter speed? Its interesting because the resultant pattern is like, is it not, the "danger" pattern used years ago and perhaps today to identify radioactive items and/or maybe other hazardous items, with three radiating black arms joining at the center on a yellow background? At any rate, even given the overcast sky, to have gotten as much sky detail and yet to have also gotten a reasonable amount of detail on the lower sides of the arms is quite a noteworthy accomplishment, I think more readily accomplishable in B&W with its tonal range than it would have been in typical color.

A vital ingredient in this image capture is the "length" of the shadows and their proportional relation to the burned-out white area. So I don't know that early-in-day or late-in-day shooting would be the answer. Perhaps shooting on a slight-cloudy overcast day would, thus retaining the shadow proportions. But then, did the photographer have that option? I get the impression from the mountain in the distance that this is shot from a very high mountain location, and maybe not one to which one could easily return another day. Or maybe the photographer actually resides up there! (;-)

While so many aspects of this portrait are classic and remarkable, I am disturbed by what is, on my laptop monitor at least, a sort of sickly yellowish/greenish cast to the shadow at the lower right and on the neck of the subject. I do think that it is fine that there is a shadow on that area of the face. But is the color issue just in my monitor? To me this issue upsets this otherwise terrifically-beautiful rendering. If it IS my monitor, which is a recent one from a major vendor, then this points up one of the the perils of web publishing of photos. What do we do about THAT?

While I'm very much into special effects using shadows or reflections or foregrounded images sharp and background blurred, et cetera, I fail to see "the point" of this image.

 

The model looks tense because, from this angle, her right arms looks as if it is in a locked position (joints should generally be allowed to flex in portraiture, unless there is specific expressive purpose to have them not flex). Why is she tense? What is she looking toward her shadow? The shadow seems rather nondescript: woman on bench with slat-construction bench back in a mist.

 

I think that my eyes would prefer to see only the shadow, not the originator of the shadow. Yes, the locked-arm appearance persistently bothers my perception of the image and that is sufficiently unclear in the shadow as to not be such an issue in that shadow.

 

Three cheers for creative shadows, but perception of a photo is a composite experience, too, in my opinion.

Striking portrait which would be improved, I think, by a better angle of flash or other light source. To the right of the girl it's burned out and to the top left corner it's dark. Maybe the dark has an intended aesthetic purpose.

Excuse my ignorance on this point, but how do you select in PS an area so specific and variegated as an existing reflection to recolor?

Someone posted the question about why the shot runs uphill. The ground does, indeed, seem to be not parallel with the bottom of the frame. In my opinion, that adds much to the dynamism of the shot, and gives a great counterbalance to the lean of the tree that is closest to the camera. Also, from the same vantage point, had the ground not seemed to run uphill (to the right, I mean), then that same tree in the forefront also would have not appeared to lean as much: again, not as dynamic! A level horizon or groundline is far from being always ideal.

The subtle interplay of color with shape, muted pastels in the star trails adding to the aspects of the width of trails, would not be a negative, in my estimation. Too much color would be a negative, but I don't think that would have been an issue. But it is simply an aesthetic choice, and I respect the B&W choice, especially as it is close to how the unaided eye would view such a scene with only pinpoints for stars and with, at best, muted dark outlines for the trees (if at dusk or dawn, of course). One possibility: do your eight-hour-or-so shoot in color, then convert to B&W in PS so that you approach the best of both the color and the B&W aspects. You cannot convert B&W to realistic color, but you can go the other way, though some may say that the PS B&W is inferior to "the real thing".

I'm not so convinced that the front string is not effective. Playing the instrument, after all, involves exciting a string into vibration. Whether the "out of focus" effect is totally focussing or involves motion of an "excited" string is unclear to me, but I do believe that the foreground string adds a dynamic element that strengthens the composition. It also helps to establish a nearly-horizontal reference that helps us to see how far down the next string is pushed by the finger. I'd leave the foreground string there.

This photo is eloquent validation that simplicity is indeed a virtue. I'm not sure that it "moves" me, but who is to say that a photo always must "move" the viewer? I'm interested to know whether there were more keepers than you have posted on pn, in your musical-instruments series. I'm a professional music teacher and avid amateur photographer.

What to say in this election year but, "The eyes have it"! (Yes, I can spell on occasion.)

I've pondered this and wondered what separates it from the work of the greats when it--and the photographer--have great potential. First, nothing seems to be sharply in focus: this technical point reduces my interest quickly. Second, it lacks a something-extra focal point: What am I supposed to SEE and FEEL? What is the point of the photo? Nice differentiation of colors in the respective mountains, though.

The left side is fine, in my opinion. Adds to the mystery: who needs shadow detail here? Would have been stronger if could see cleats clearly on bottom of left shoe, too, but--under the circumstances--outstanding capture. You did tripod, didn't you? Here's guessing that you did not, and the sharpness is outstanding given the extremely-limited light.

It's hard to make early-morning or late-afternoon snow look right if it is dark. Lens shade vignetting is neat.

Tough exposure situation. Still, the foreground log is just a little too burned-out in exposure for my taste. Also, do you really want the scraggly tip of the evergreen at the right to be so prominent on the skyline? And the top of the one at the middle to obscure a part of what may be a visually-pleasant curve toward the right in the body of water?