mona_chrome

When I look at this

photo, or any photo, I certainly look at the elements of design and composition, but to me

aesthetic is emotion. The definition of aesthetic is "giving or designed to give pleasure

through

beauty". But I do think that when look at an image such as this, there are many levels to

appreciate it. The composition is fine to me, I don't see any overt problems here. It is an

interesting presentation just because it is a different view from what we "normally" see of

this subject. But once I come to terms with these things, I just don't find any other

aesthetic value for me. I am left a bit indifferent or without any strong emotion one way or

the other. So I think, as I have said here before, we have more of a graphic image and less

of an aesthetic piece for me--others may have a totally different sense of the aesthetics of

the image, that is a very subjective thing. And, of course, a graphic image can be

aesthetically pleasing and evoke strong emotional response.

I still don't see the light conflict--it is coming from above right-look at the

highlights on the foreground dunes and the shadow fall off on both sets. The patterns

don't seem to be at odds to me either. When you have high spots and valleys, the air can

be turbulent and add to that just the perspective of where the shooter is and you can get

things that maybe don't read as you might think, although this hasn't been an issue for

me. I am attaching a grossly done shdw/hglght adjustment to show at least what appears

to me

to be the connector shadow slope to the middle ridge.

 

It is what is presented and it should be looked at in terms of all those

things you mentioned. Sometimes it is worth discussing those things as a focal point and

sometimes it is just how the image ends up and maybe some issues become subordinate

to others. This is a nice graphic I guess, but I don't think it has legs and will lose its power

quickly, although it was very quickly for me. There just doesn't seem to be anything more

than the resultant graphic here.

Anders, I understand-sorry, at first I thought I was seeing a sand and feathers montage.

 

I agree with Marc regarding the light, I looked before David's comment and after and really

don't see a conflict in the light direction either.

 

Manipulation is a wonderful thing. It allows us to express ourselves and how we feel

about things. Here, I am sure there has been significant work done and I do agree with

Hips that you rarely visually see such blank shadows in reality. I don't know that that

matters, but it does give us a baseline for looking at things and evaluating what

manipulation has been done.

 

No one has really mention any color issues here, so I will raise one again. It has to do with

the ridges in the black area. These seem to have lost all of the warmth and do, as Anders

observed, move these to the sense of cold steel. Shadows do pick up cool tones from the

skylight, but in low light one normally expects a considerable warming to take place on

strongly lit surfaces, which

has disappeared here. I think that this result is another one of those little things that

causes me a disconnect with the image and wonder to what end this was done.

 

I think when we manipulate an image, as said before, we do have to know why and to what

end we are doing such work. Here, as I said before, this has no roots Simon's portfolio, so

I really can't go there to find a reason or to get my bearing as to why these things have

been done or why this photo is presented this way--what is Simon trying to say here.

Obviously, from this, I didn't pick it up from this image on its own. So I am back where I

was yesterday, just looking at a graphic. Odd that someone should say wallpaper, as it

was one of my first thoughts-would this work as a wallpaper design.

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.

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.

Just revisiting the image here, I noticed a few comments by people who feel that some of

us are not talking about the image as it is, but rather suggesting ways to change it. I

would like

to see those people put forth more on this image-I feel they have abandoned us without

giving of themselves. For me, I think I have been pretty

straight up that I find the color objectionable, so objectionable in fact that other things

about the image have just seemed insignificant.

 

As to the color, I think someone mentioned that maybe we should accept this color

because it could be dirty water that created it. This is a good point, however, if this was

created by dirty water, it was not so dirty that it created thick muck with no translucence

or reflective properties. Also, the sky color really doesn't feel right, but moved towards

warm and away from the natural. On all these counts, we should expect some blues to

show up here somewhere. But for me, it isn't that it needs to be real, but I feel this

doesn't work and, as said before, I am at a loss as to why Vilinis would want it this way.

 

Talking about alternative ways to improve this composition is a dicey thing at best. None

of us were there to know the conditions or possibilities that existed-and I am sure there

was a precarious element to making the shot. Maybe a higher shot

would have been better, but how do we know that would be possible. If we deal with the

composition as it is, we might question why Vilinis chose to close us in with the two

pilings on the side at the edges-maybe just the one on the left and let us skip to the more

forward one on the right, pulling us in-or maybe neither. Does the ice on the left,beyond

the piling at the edge, create another

impediment to our getting into the image. Are the left side pilings too close to tangency

with the horizon and water line and thus create a disturbance to the eye. Other than the

natural

effect that is interesting on some level, is there anything else going on here to hold us or

give the image meaning. Has a way into the image been created or are we essentially held

at bay.

 

But I just can't get past the color and think about other issues, so maybe someone who

looks for more discussion can give us some insights and help us out.

To clarify for those that are wondering, my version is color not b/w. As for cloud detail, I was

just trying to show a different version and since I don't have the original to work on, or the

time, some things will necessarily get lost along the way.

I think that to say this version has created a reaction and therefore it works is a bit of a

stretch. The reactions seem fairly well split between liking, disliking and wanting B/W as an

alternative.

 

Here is a post I thought kept some sense of the quaility of light that might be desired, of

course, I have no idea what will happen in the upload--also increased the contrast a bit to

get rid of the veil, which may have been generated by the original upload.

CR, I think that is precisely the point, why did Vilinis choose this? The problem is that

there really is no clue here. If we look at the landscapes in his limited portfolio, they are

predominantly sunsets/sunrises or a night shot also with a warm bias. There truly isn't

enough here to get a complete read on his vision, but I really do not see this photo fitting

in to the body of work there in any meaningful way. The colors chosen here, based on the

portfolio, might be presumed to have been based on a predilection towards sunset/

sunrise light, but this one just misses the beauty of such light and leaves us with sick

chicken skin (I love that reference) ice. Maybe if there were more images that tormented

the landscape color and gave us a solid vision of such a thing, we could come to a

conclusion that this was intentionally created to off put us. Barring that, and seeing what

is in the portfolio, one has to feel that this was supposed to be a beautiful, serene

landscape, but ends up more like sewer water and a comment on man's carelessness with

the environment. A result I would be hard pressed to think was the intention here.

 

I may post a completely different color version later since it seems appropriate at this

point.

Just an add to the comment about the color being this way in reality. I really don't think,

even had Marc not pointed out the use of a warming filter, that one who has spent

anytime in the landscape would come to the conclusion that this could be the color as it

was. There is warm light coming from the break, but there is nothing to suggest that

there is a blanket of golden light anywhere to create this look, only the result of synthetic

manipulation. I know for me that my goal in shooting landscape is to have my ice and

snow look like that of dead chicken skin--I haven't quite gotten there yet, but I think I am

getting closer now. The suggestion of black and white on my part were more to the point

that if it was intended to be separated from the reality of the moment, I think b/w would

have been a better choice than yellow-brown.

 

Anders has taken the opportunity to again let us know that creativity and innovation are

coming from the Baltics these days, but even if one were to fully agree, one could not look

at this image and see it as innovative in its approach. This is very much in the vein of the

great western landscape or West Coast School of Photography as made famous by some

old guy from Yosemite/San Francisco/Carmel. I

think we would be hard pressed to say that most of us would have passed this one up had

we seen it, and I think most would have seen it if we were willing to go out in this weather.

This is not a statement to take away from the shot or creativity of the maker, but more just

a reality check on the idea of innovation being embodied in this photograph.

 

I really struggle here to see any metaphors other than ones that are superficial and require

little or no thought--maybe I am just not that deep!?! I think this is a nice image(with a

different color palette), one that many would enjoy looking at and it may even have life for

a bit of time due to the odd nature of it, but I am not sure it would have the legs to carry it

over a long distance and it would soon fade away after our next adventure into the

landscape.

 

But these are really all just first impressions, if I get any definite opinions I will be sure to

pass them on.

Wow, as I looked at the thumbnail of this, my stomach started to turn. I thought for sure

that the title was going to be something like "Winter Sewage Spill on the Potomac".

 

One thing I love about what computers can do for us in the interpretation of color versus

the organic processes, but here, I am sorry, I just have to question this result. I don't care

if it was anything else-natural or unnatural, this is just a bit sick. Color is a major element

of the design and content of a piece and here I just am not having a pleasing result with

this. So, if the intent was to put someone off, this is indeed successful. I pulled this into

photoshop and there are many ways this could go that would be more appealing, but I am

left here being glad that we have not yet developed "smellavision" and thinking to warn all

"Don't eat the Yellow ice!"

 

A nice scene, maybe it should have been b/w!

I think Carsten is right, you have handled the lighting very well, but the pole almost appears to be growing out of the biker's head. This is one of those things that you just need to always watch, especially when these tangencies don't have anything to separate them-like tone, color, focus or whatever. but otherwise a very nice composition and design and handling of a difficult light situation.

So, finally, there is some real question coming up about this smoke thing. When I first saw

this photo, and the one with the white smoke/black background, I really did wonder about

it. It did appear rather thick and cohesive to me and not exactly like anything I had seen

before. There have been a couple of suggestions that it was created-one by using a

program for such things and one by faking it organically.

 

For myself, I allowed it to exist as real upon looking at the behavior and nature of the

smoke inside the glass in some other shots, as well as my experience with smoke in other

situations-very different, but similar too. I also thought in terms of thermal downdraft--

Paal lives in a pretty cold climate, this appears to be rather thick heavy smoke, so could it

have been the result of a cold studio where the smoke rises, cools and falls, while the

hotter smoke pushes through the middle creating the rollover effect. Or would we really

expect the smoke to maintain such perfect cohesion, in any case? So, this is the end of

this POW and I think it would be interesting to hear some scientific opinions on this, or

maybe Paal would be willing to step out and give us some info.

Lannie, first I have to agree with you that there should be some kind of compensation for

being chosen for the POW and having to put up with all of this dissecting and such. You

have to stop and wonder if it is an honor or a curse!

 

As to your last comment, and what do you expect from me anyway, can you really think of

a documentary photo, that was memorable, of war or anything else that wasn't also a well

designed photo? How about one without a sense of context, without emotion or that

didn't tell a story?

 

There are purely scientific photography-I have seen electron microscope photos of cancer

cells that were pretty boring to me a non clinician-and that has a purpose,but I don't think

it would make it to a site like this.

 

I have been hard on this photo, not because it is awful-it isn't- or not well done

technically, but more just as to how it falls short of what it might be. i don't see it as a

large print at an engineering firm as I don't really see any meaning in it-I think there are

shots of things technical that would be more meaningful to scientists and engineers.

 

So maybe CR overstated or limited what this site might be, but I don't think it was totally

off the mark--I just think that no matter what we shoot, we should try to do it as well as it

can be done, and if our talent is not there yet, work to get it there while having fun along

the way.

CR, I like a lot of what you say here. There are two sides to things and as we share from

our own biases, hopefully we each grow more as we digest each perspective.

 

One comment you made was re: human context. I would say that even just context is

important. As I said earlier, this photo came across to me as an exercise in just doing it.

The kind of thing you do in the studio to see how things work before you make the real

image with the client standing over your shoulder. Here, there just is no context or reason

for the image-except as I mentioned

above. Why is the bulb broken, why is it burning up--you are right, it is not doing what it

was intended to do. I believe it was Anders who talked about Edgerton's photos-things

were being destroyed, but you saw why. Here, I thought what was missing was the why or

context of the action-spontaneous explosion, something breaking it etc. Of course, that

would be much more difficult and time consuming and may not yeild a satisfactory result

without some expensive equipment to assist in the process. Or maybe there is just some

other

context in which this might have been put to give it some relevance to something.

Without that, it just ends up being, at best, an experiment.

Jayme, as to the gradient, sure, that could have been added, but it certainly is a familiar

type gradient for shooting still life. I have no reason to believe it is photoshopped, but it

certainly could have been.

 

As to the lines, set up a wine glass in a dark room--doesn't have to be blacked out--and

put a piece of white board behind it, lit brightly--voila, black lines at the edges. Here,

there are many undulations in the glass causing wider and odd little things going on.

Essentially, as the glass turns on itself, it stops transmitting and becomes a refracting

mirror. You can even put white below the glass and light everything-Try it!--you would

probably have to tent it and light the tent to get rid of it--I have shot a lot of glass, but

have never used a tent myself-not my style-so results may vary.

 

Also, I am curious how to not have the image totally fall apart if I look at it much bigger

than as it appears on the screen--just kind of pixelates to death on me and then there are

the jpeg artifacts.

 

Finally, not to you Jayme, to those that didn't get the joke, and I have been accused of

being cryptic recently, what follows the word "seriously" to the end might be better to key

on if you want to criticize how I see the image. (thought "seriously" would be a good hint

tho)

So, after reading all that has transpired since yesterday, I thought gee, maybe I am missing

something, so I started thinking how can I connect with this image?

 

First, I thought ﾓtouchdownﾔ, a referee gleefully throwing up his hands as the home team

scores, but I couldnﾒt really get too far with that.

 

Then, maybe ﾓstick ﾑem upﾔ, a connection with a bank robber and crime, couldnﾒt make

that work either.

 

But then it hit me, Burningman! Takes me back to Nevadaﾒs Black Rock Desert and the

annual Labor Day ritual or anarchy and art! So I pulled out my cd with my archive of proof

sheets and relived the experience-a poor proof snap of the ﾓmanﾔ with arms down and

burning, arms up, attached. So, maybe this image did do me some good after all!

 

Seriously, tho, to those that have questioned the technical here, there really is nothing

here that screams photoshop or digital correction. The lines Jayme describes are just the

refraction of the dark studio around the image-well known to, and often loathed by, those

who have shot glass much. A flash or highspeed shutter catches the smoke with no

problem. A fallen piece of the burning filament creates the smoke trail from the bottom.

Nothing here that would need to be created post.

 

Mark was right when he talked about crowding on the sides, which probably makes the

image feel more loose to me by elongating it and distancing the action(smoke) from the

rest of the shot.

 

Chris, even a commercial shot needs to have more impact to it and the design should

definitely be strong and have some dynamics to it. But there are probably elements that

could be sold as stock-like the smoke, to someone. I just think I have seen less dynamic

subjects shot with more impact that this.

 

Lannie, I think hits it on the head, this shot lives on the curiosity we have with such

scientific things, whether we are male or female, and that is certainly a valid level of

enjoyment. But I still think there are other examples of this shot, as Mark and Jayme

pointed out, that tell tis story and are more dynamic and interesting as photographs. I

actually find the series in Paalﾒs folder of the smoke inside the light bulb much more

fascinating on several levels.

 

By the way Lannie, your word smithing on Paul Simonﾒs song on the last POW really upset

Kote', my son, but my daughter, Vera, thought it hilarious!

Sorry Mary, but for a moment there I really thought I was in trouble again!!??!!

 

Anyway, I really was not saying that it has to tell a story, or have emotional impact or

whatever. What I was trying to point out is that I can't find a level, for me, on which I can

find this image all that interesting. I feel it lacks any sense of good design-very loose

feeling, static-just no dynamics to me. So I was just trying to find a hook somewhere and

came up empty. I don't even think that here it has anything to do with is it art or not. I

just think there are so many other shots of this subject out there that do have substance,

including some

wonderful studies in Paul's own folder, and yet this has none for me. But, as always, it is

just my opinion.

So, obviously, by the comments here, an interesting subject and technique to many. There

are some nice things going on in the image, the smoke ball is nice and there are some

interesting masks or faces that seem to be in there. The way the light travels through the

glass stem is nice.

 

But, all together, I find the photo not very interesting-sorry, I am doing it again. I really

don�t find the overall image particularly well designed, it does not seem to be telling any

story-just feels like a broken bulb that was set up and ignited- and I certainly don�t feel

any emotional impact or any immediacy in the image-like in others of this nature I have

seen. The glass at the bottom gives no sense of motion and almost looks like it has been

set and held there and is an odd, uninteresting shape at that.

 

So, for me, it ends up feeling like an exercise in how to do this and possibly in lighting a

subject like this. The lighting is nice and it did burn and make smoke.

I think this is a very compelling image. When I look at your portfolio and this is by far my favorite of you shots. Many of the others are maybe a bit predictable and a lot less loaded as images. There are a couple of others that approach this tho. Generally, i am not into a lot of added textures, but this is wonderful and just has an incredible power to it. Even all the footprints just help the story. The colors are wonderful in completing this story vignette.

 

i like this a lot.

you know, this is such a photographed scene but you have done well by it. I do feel that I want more drama here (contrast in the lighting) and that maybe it is a little pink feeling. I haven't been here for awhile, but my recollection was that it was a bit more yellow than pink-not that you have to match color, but this just feels a little too pink to me without regard to true color. And the overall feel is a bit soft to me.

 

For me, the sky version is much less intimate and so I am more drawn to this one for that reason. Second, I think the one with the sky is not as good a composition and, for me, John's comment seems to apply to that one more than this one. I feel the columns are much too centered in that one and so tends to make it pretty static feeling. Here, you have moved the columns to the right a bit and that opens up the eye to move around a bit better.

 

Nice photo, makes me want to go back again.

Jenny, I think that is a good point and kind of what I was saying. I hope he does find even a

better photo of the shark, we should always look to improve on what we did even if we think

it was perfect. I am not sure what you may have seen that made you think I was having a bad

weekend, but at tax time every day is a bad day!

Of course, what Tom didn't realize is that if Mona climbed to the top of that high peak, her

altitude sickness would be so bad that she would be tossing her cookies, not

photographing--if she wasn't totally unconscious!

my subject line is for you Lannie, somehow I couldn't resist (don't just read the first two

words and think it refers to how some seem to think of my comments tho)

 

Anyway, Tom's comment reminded me of being at a workshop in the early 80's with Philip

Hyde(known for his Sierra Club books, Bruce Barnbaum and Jay Dusard among others.

Hyde and Barnbaun preceded Dusard giving presentations and described arduous treks

into the landscape to get various shots. Dusard got up and said something like this "I

have to take my hat off to Philip and Bruce for their tenacity in getting these shots, but a

long time ago I came to the conclusion that if you can't drive to it, screw it!"

 

Just a thought, it is the photograph that is important, but people do love a good story!

When I read a comment that suggests that limitations of a shot should play into our

assessment, I wonder why I get up at 4 in the morning and go to bed at midnight, stand in

swarms of mosquitos and brush ticks off for 5 or 6 days straight hoping the elements will

cooperate to get the shot I am after--my assistant wonders anyway. I suppose, under this

type of rationale, I could do it

for one day and if the magic doesn't happen, no one would care because "it was hard"-to

quote a certain politician. I haven't tried that one with clients and galleries yet, tho. At the

same time, I do think we need to take our hats off to someone who does get a seminal

shot in difficult circumstances(is sitting or laying on a platform above the water difficult

circumstances?), or who takes incredible personal risk to record an important event, but

otherwise I just think a shot is either great or it isn't-it just falls where it falls on the

continuum. Sometimes it may even appear to be easy or just luck and fortunate

circumstance, but a

great shot is still a great shot even if we are just driving down the road and happen to

notice the moon above a quaint little New Mexico village.

 

That said, I do want to say, for clarity sake, that I am not saying that I think this is an awful

photograph, it isn't, but it doesn't hold me for all the reasons I have stated before.

Honestly, if I had been there, I might have taken a photograph like this and also waited to

see if others would present themselves, if I had the time and other tourists weren't

pushing me away. Film is cheap(dating myself again), but I probably

would not have felt compelled to exhibit this print. But again, that is just me and I think

everyone has a slightly different aesthetic, which is a good thing.