Topic: beams (Read 1876 times)

Jeremy Roussak · « **on:** May 23, 2010, 06:45:02 am »

Thoughts?

[attachment=22130:beams.jpg]

Jeremy

Ed Blagden · « **Reply #1 on:** May 23, 2010, 01:54:42 pm »

I believe they are called "God Rays".

Very nice, although I find the foreground a bit distracting.

Ed

Ed Blagden · « **Reply #2 on:** May 23, 2010, 01:56:19 pm »

I believe they are called "God Rays".

Very nice, although I find the foreground a bit distracting.

Ed

wolfnowl · « **Reply #3 on:** May 23, 2010, 03:05:40 pm »

I was thinking something along the same lines as Ed, although I don't know what the answer would be. The dark silhouette of the ground seems too prominent to me, but I don't think cutting it down it down would help much, and cropping above the trees would cut off too much of the image. Then it hit me what seems 'off' and that's that the light doesn't seem to reach the ground.

Mike.

RSL · « **Reply #4 on:** May 23, 2010, 03:37:20 pm »

I don't very often disagree with Mike, but this time I do -- at least partially. I have a feeling that neither Mike nor Ed lives in hill country. What I see in the picture is a rise in the ground -- a ridge that needs to be right where it is to support the rest of the picture which shows the God's rays falling on the ground beyond the ridge. Fine shot, Jeremy.

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #5 on:** May 23, 2010, 04:26:03 pm »

Quote from: RSL

I don't very often disagree with Mike, but this time I do -- at least partially. I have a feeling that neither Mike nor Ed lives in hill country. What I see in the picture is a rise in the ground -- a ridge that needs to be right where it is to support the rest of the picture which shows the God's rays falling on the ground beyond the ridge. Fine shot, Jeremy.

I agree with Russ. If you had a bulldozer maybe you could "crop" the foreground landscape a little to make a more interesting hill profile, but otherwise I'd leave it as it is. Very nice shot!

Eric

Chairman Bill · « **Reply #6 on:** May 23, 2010, 04:46:34 pm »

FWIW, they're crepuscular rays

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #7 on:** May 23, 2010, 08:18:48 pm »

Quote from: Chairman Bill

FWIW, they're crepuscular rays

Well, they're still lovely, even if they have an ugly name.

wolfnowl · « **Reply #8 on:** May 24, 2010, 07:31:41 pm »

Quote from: Eric Myrvaagnes

Well, they're still lovely, even if they have an ugly name.

Hey Russ - as the saying goes, if two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary! FWIW, I live on Vancouver Island, surrounded by the Rockies.

The real reason for the reply is that 'crepuscular' is a fancy name for 'twilight'. Diurnal - daytime. Nocturnal - nighttime. Crepuscular - in between.

Mike.

Author Topic: beams (Read 1876 times)