Marsh Remnant

[RMW]

South of Isle de Jean Charles, La.
Here an acre of marsh land vanishes, on average, every one hour.
All comments appreciated- especially about composition.
Thanks everyone.
Richard
richardwallerphotos.com

[PeterAit]

South of Isle de Jean Charles, La.
Here an acre of marsh land vanishes, on average, every one hour.
All comments appreciated- especially about composition.
Thanks everyone.
Richard
richardwallerphotos.com

Excellent!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Excellent!

+1.
I wouldn't change a thing.

[John Cothron]

Very pleasing.

As a side note, what is the primary reason for the vanishing?

[RMW]

Hi John.
The best and simplest answer I can give you is a lack of respect for it. This wetlands ecosystem depends on both spring flood water and protection from salty ocean water. It no longer has either. The Mississippi River has been contained and the oil and gas industry has been unleashed.
My fotos are an attempt to record for future generations what it looks like right now.
LuLa and the wonderful members on it are an invaluable help.
Thanks for looking and asking.
Richard

[luxborealis]

+1.
I wouldn't change a thing.

?

Eric, Usually, you I see eye to eye on photos. In this case, I find nothing about this photograph that would cause me to cast a second glance. It resembles a patch of cattails that has broken away from “any Marsh USA” (it, in my case, Canada) - a common-enough occurance anywhere cattails grow in profusion.

I think what’s lacking is context. So, this image might work brilliantly as part of a larger collection telling a story, but as a single photograph, as presented, there really is no story. Even the title doesn’t really add context because what might be perceived as a remnant is actually a perfectly healthy but if cattail that’s broken away from the main cattail bed which, as I mentioned above, is a common occurrence.

Technically, tonal values appear compressed. To me, the distant clouds should be white, just shy of being clipped, but appear light grey. This would provide a little more tonal separation. Also, lighting is flat and uninteresting. To me the importance of the loss of marshes is being downplayed by the use of average lighting and average tonal separation making it’s importance average.

But hey, that’s just my take. I’d love to see the whole project to better understand the context.

[Jeremy Roussak]

?

Eric, Usually, you I see eye to eye on photos. In this case, I find nothing about this photograph that would cause me to cast a second glance. It resembles a patch of cattails that has broken away from “any Marsh USA” (it, in my case, Canada) - a common-enough occurance anywhere cattails grow in profusion.

I think what’s lacking is context. So, this image might work brilliantly as part of a larger collection telling a story, but as a single photograph, as presented, there really is no story. Even the title doesn’t really add context because what might be perceived as a remnant is actually a perfectly healthy but if cattail that’s broken away from the main cattail bed which, as I mentioned above, is a common occurrence.

Technically, tonal values appear compressed. To me, the distant clouds should be white, just shy of being clipped, but appear light grey. This would provide a little more tonal separation. Also, lighting is flat and uninteresting. To me the importance of the loss of marshes is being downplayed by the use of average lighting and average tonal separation making it’s importance average.

But hey, that’s just my take. I’d love to see the whole project to better understand the context.

My thoughts exactly, Terry - even to usual agreement with Eric. I don't see the merit in this particular shot. Sorry, Richard.

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I'm clearly outvoted by those whose opinions I respect.
I guess the image just appeals to the quirky side of my nature.

-Eric

[RMW]

Hi Jeremy, Terry and Eric.

Please know I'm grateful for all your comments. Like most mortals I'm eager for praise, but I realize a careful honest critique is a whole lot more useful.

I see this foto as one in a series and so by itself it does have little context. That's probably unavoidable in this case.

What I do wonder about is the compression of tonal values. Might this be a serious technical error or might it be an appropriate rendition of a sorrowful subject? Most landscape fotos on LuLa are really celebrations and/or honorings of their subject matter so richness of tones clearly seems appropriate. But does the same approach befit this ecological tragedy, this wetlands graveyard.? If I were making a foto of a cemetery where my loved ones were buried how best would I express the sadness and loss I was feeling?

As you can tell, I'm more then a bit baffled. (And maybe that's a good thing ?)

Thank you all again.

Please let us all know any further thoughts you might have.

Richard

[farbschlurf]

I guess the image just appeals to the quirky side of my nature.

Seems I share this side ... I like the picture, too. It's not bright, contrasty, "loud", doesn't "pop", sure. It's pretty much the opposite. Maybe it even really is "average". Of course it's not the Grand Canyon. And it doesn't pretend to be. That's exactly why I like it. But I agree, for the majority of people watching it probably it will be boring ... which in a way basically mirrors the "respectlessness" towards the subject itself. Interesting, isn't it?
How would this photo be in a "high gloss" style? Would it really work? Do landscapes have to be "bombastic" to be appreciated or valued?

But one thing is true: although the low contrast fits, after the hint and some thinking I agree it looks like applied in post. Some real flat and dim light on the scene during capture might give a more appropriate overall impression.

I'm not sure whether my limited english can be understood. But I think it's a interesting discussion.

[John Cothron]

I can see the points made, but I like the image as well.  Sometimes, even in black and white film...images can tend to be flat or not carry every tonal range from black to white.  I think considering the subject and especially considering the message being conveyed...it works for me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[luxborealis]

Hi Jeremy, Terry and Eric.

Please know I'm grateful for all your comments. Like most mortals I'm eager for praise, but I realize a careful honest critique is a whole lot more useful.

I see this foto as one in a series and so by itself it does have little context. That's probably unavoidable in this case.

What I do wonder about is the compression of tonal values. Might this be a serious technical error or might it be an appropriate rendition of a sorrowful subject? Most landscape fotos on LuLa are really celebrations and/or honorings of their subject matter so richness of tones clearly seems appropriate. But does the same approach befit this ecological tragedy, this wetlands graveyard.? If I were making a foto of a cemetery where my loved ones were buried how best would I express the sadness and loss I was feeling?

As you can tell, I'm more then a bit baffled. (And maybe that's a good thing ?)

Thank you all again.

Please let us all know any further thoughts you might have.

Richard

As long as you knowingly chose the tonal values represented in the photo. The only reason I commented in the way I did was because photographers new to B&W often have trouble getting whites bright enough - often (but not always) because they have their processing canvas set to grey, or worse, black.

You make a perfectly valid point in choosing the tonal values to match the emotion you want the image to reflect.

Looking forward to seeing a set of these!

[RMW]

Thank you all for your helpful comments.
After thinking more about the comments of Terry and Jeremy, and what could be done differently, here's another version of 'Marsh Remnant' with (somewhat) less compressed tones.
Does it look all that different and perhaps more importantly does it feel any different?
Richard

[Jeremy Roussak]

Thank you all for your helpful comments.
After thinking more about the comments of Terry and Jeremy, and what could be done differently, here's another version of 'Marsh Remnant' with (somewhat) less compressed tones.
Does it look all that different and perhaps more importantly does it feel any different?
Richard

You shouldn't necessarily take anything I say all that seriously! I think this version is a bit of an improvement, but I don't see much of interest in the photo in isolation. As part of a series, it might work.

Jeremy

[luxborealis]

Thank you all for your helpful comments.
After thinking more about the comments of Terry and Jeremy, and what could be done differently, here's another version of 'Marsh Remnant' with (somewhat) less compressed tones.
Does it look all that different and perhaps more importantly does it feel any different?
Richard

The new version is less “muddy” but I’m with Jeremy on this. It really needs to be seen in the context of other photograohs because, on its own, it doesn’t say much.

[RMW]

Thanks Terry.
Thanks Jeremy. I'll try not to take either of us too seriously...