Mont St. Michel

[KMRennie]

ICM from this iconic location. Comments? Ken

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Ghostly and quite effective.

[32BT]

Ghostly and quite effective.

+1

The slight curving seems to work very well here, also still iconically recognisable.

[RSL]

That camera badly needs servicing.

[luxborealis]

A little too much French wine or brandy?

Ghostly, yes, but effective? The photography certainly has appeal, but I'm not sure what it is effective in doing beyond being the backdrop for an ad encouraging people to drink less so as not to miss the amazing scenery!

You've made some great ICM photos, I'm not sure this is one of them.

[David Eckels]

You've made some great ICM photos, I'm not sure this is one of them.

+1
Perhaps it is that it IS recognizable undermines the image, no?

[brandtb]

Color and tones are nice but the bldg. "movement" problematic. It may have been successful(?) if the movement blur was more "perfectly" vertical...as it is you have a curving movement visible...which is distracting in a way

[KMRennie]

Thanks for your comments, they are making me think a lot about ICM. I usually take them when the light is unusual but the scenery is nothing special. This time I decide to ICM before I got here as I usually have a recognisable element in the image and I thought that this very recognisable shape would work. I may have just produced a blurred shot of a known location. I tried various shutter speeds and have images that would require a forensic scientist to work out where they are and I will see whether they work but I suspect that they will not. I did take a "normal" shot and hope you like it. This is not a usual viewpoint as it requires a low tide and someone stupid enough to not mind getting very muddy. 2 versions from the same location I prefer the mono version and refer both to the ICM one. Comments?
Ken
On further reflection I produce ICM shots when I am concerned with mood and don't care about detail and this shot has detail and not enough mood and the detail may kick your brain into trying to see what and where it is.

[RSL]

Looks as if the camera was repaired successfully. Nice shot.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Looks as if the camera was repaired successfully. Nice shot.

Both cameras seem to work now, but I prefer the B&W camera.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Both cameras seem to work now, but I prefer the B&W camera.

Me too. Great sky.

Jeremy

[luxborealis]

Nicely done on both accounts.

[francois]

I like the B&W a lot, it's perfect for the situation. The sky of the color version looks almost too monochrome (although it is not).
As for the first shot, I like it also but prefer the latter versions.

[KMRennie]

Another one from slightly further round the island. The footsteps were deliberate. I also walked way round so that they were not in the shot but then deliberately walked through the shot. Are they distracting? I believe that there are patches of quicksand but I was only a few feet away from the tracks forged by the guides taking parties out. This area has the largest tidal rise and fall in Europe and this was a spring tide at low water. It is more than 40 years since I have been here and despite the tourist tat it is awe inspiring. I am annoyed at myself for not taking a panorama to allow more of the sky as it was spectacular. I also had a 14mm lens and didn't use it-blockhead on both counts. I thought that when I went across to the Pointe du Grouin du Sud 4 km to the NE and across the bay then I could get a grand sweep but the clouds were full of rain and the visibility went down spoiling the shot. Comments?
Ken

[luxborealis]

Beautiful work on both accounts. The footsteps will be entirely up to personal preference. At least you "did" them right with an arc and not a straight line!

[John R]

Lovely work.

JR

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Lovely work.

JR

+1.

[KMRennie]

Thanks everyone. My preference is for the 2nd last monochrome but time will probably change that. Another ICM from Mont St Michel.

[RSL]

-1

[32BT]

-1

+1 @ -1

In the first image it works because of the mirage curve. Very impressionistic, despite people blaming your camera for what they deem a bad picture, i still like it. This last one however is not vague enough to be impressionistic in style, and looks exactly like a dropped camera during the capture.

The second to last bw version with the unusual vantage point is really nice because of that different vantage point, but the sky needs to be a whole lotta lighter imo. It works great as a composition and doesn't need the overdramatized sky with haloing gratuity​. A lighter sky would better emphasize the composition in a similar way as the first impressionistic version does.