Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Lone Sentry  (Read 8806 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2012, 02:27:41 pm »

And you're his lap dog, Slobie. Jen was right.

I do not remember Jen ever implicating me in anything, let alone "Russ' kennel."

If, however, you meant to imply that anyone who disagrees with your primitive debate style belongs there... then you are probably right. Anyone who cares to pay attention to such things would have noticed that Russ and I have a fair share of disagreements, both politically and photographically, yet never stooped so low to call each other names.

I understand that it takes a bit of intelligence, civility and sense of humor to disagree with someone without resorting to primitivism, thus I sympathize with your struggle.

Dale Villeponteaux

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2012, 03:05:11 pm »

Worth hanging.  I would like to see the original capture.  It would help me to understand the postprocessing
Logged
My avatar isn't an accurate portrayal; I have much less hair.

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2012, 04:39:48 pm »

I disagree, with both you and M. Cartier-Bresson. And you're an idiot if you conflate length of membership on this forum with photographic experience. It doesn't begin or end with LuLa.

Bow down, chaps. We are honoured to be in the presence of a Master. Let us be silent and heed his Words of Wisdom.

More sensibly, remove the trees from the left and you ruin the photo. I disagree with his dogmatism as regards cropping, but on this occasion, Russ is right.

Jeremy
Logged

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1077
    • flickr
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2012, 05:34:31 pm »

The image is exceptional. Having said that, regardless of how, or even if, the LHS is addressed, the overall image would be better without the high contrast/weight that's there now.

I don't know what LHS refers to, but I agree, I think, about the "high contrast".  After photoshopping the image into black and white, I like the trees on the left that way.  I was right when I didn't like them in color, so I have now been right on both sides of this argument.

Bruce
Logged

Ed B

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • Light Conspiracy
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2012, 06:16:23 pm »

I don't know what LHS refers to....

Left hand side, I think. The trees on the left don't bother me as much in b&w but they are a little distracting in color. Either way, great image.
Logged

marvpelkey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2012, 06:47:50 pm »

Thanks all for the comments, critiques and suggestions.

In RAW, this image was rather flat (and quite blue) and I must admit I struggled mightily and spent a lot of time trying to balance the tones and the struggle between too flat and too contrasty. In fact, by the time I reached the current version, I must of had at least 7 iterations saved, for comparison, done in three different conversion programs. Some were more contrasty while others were less. I finally settled on this version. As to the cropping, or not, while I have no philosophical issue with cropping an image if required, my reasons were twofold for not cropping - I wanted to have as much space around the tree to "enhance" the feeling of "lone", the other is, after spending a small fortune on my D3X with a, then, large real estate sensor, I cringe every time I contemplate reducing that acreage. In closing, this is one of those images that I will probably re-visit and re-process forever and never be completely happy with the result.

Marv
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2012, 08:00:09 pm »

You got it just right, IMHO.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2012, 04:13:06 am »

Quote Russ

it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom’s enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there."

Unquote

Russ this is something that you like to quote regularly. The problem I have with it is that in the final print - or upload to the internet - nobody knows what .....the integrity of vision.....was? Only the photographer knows that. The vision, if he/she had one, was possibly/probably compromised by the aspect ratio of the camera lens? This means that in a lot of instances cropping to get back that vision is necessary? This is what I find most of the time. Not cropping and leaving in superfluous objects and dead space means criticism is heaped upon your head if the final print/upload is shown to someone. As stated the vision is only known to the photographer and isn't known to the viewer. Personally I think there is an art in cropping and getting it "right" can make an image. :) 

RobbieV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 281
    • My work.
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2012, 11:30:50 am »

I would have a hard time keeping the processing as delicate as you have with this. It's a beautiful image and I wouldn't change a thing.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2012, 11:46:02 am »

At the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony, may I suggest flipping the image?

I think it would diminish the "weight" the left-had side trees (in the original image) have, while still keeping them in the image as a counter balance for the much bigger RHS. It would also provide a nice lead-in diagonal, leading straight to the main point of interest. Lower-left-to-upper-right diagonals typically imply movement into the image, while upper-left-to-lower-right diagonals imply movement out of the image
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 11:49:46 am by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Didymus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2012, 01:47:52 pm »

Beautiful image.
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2012, 02:28:19 pm »

At the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony, may I suggest flipping the image?

I usually agree with your suggestions, Slobodan, but for some reason I strongly dislike this one. Just me, perhaps.

Jeremy
Logged

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2514
  • I've even written a book about it
    • SkyePhotoGuide.com
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2012, 03:54:46 pm »

Excellent shot, very atmospheric and beautiful.

I wish it was mine.

Dave
Logged

marvpelkey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2012, 04:04:39 pm »

Slobodan,

Curious, I reversed the image as you suggested and looked at it big on my computer. Perhaps if I had no familiarity to the place photographed, I may tend to agree with you but, because I have visited this place a gazillion times, I find the reversed image very weird and my connection to the place makes it difficult to look at the reversed image with a dispassionate calculating eye. Sort of like taking the typical photo of the leaning tower and showing a reversed image to a local, I suppose.

Marv
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2012, 04:10:05 pm »

Marv, can't argue with that. Geographical fidelity is always a major consideration with image flipping, especially for those in the know, like yourself or your local market.

Can't argue with Jeremy either, as it is a matter of personal preference.

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2514
  • I've even written a book about it
    • SkyePhotoGuide.com
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2012, 07:17:06 pm »

At the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony, may I suggest flipping the image?

Sorry Slobodan, but that I really don't get, I can understand and fully agree with cropping when the image needs it, rotating macros and abstracts, not a problem, but flipping landscapes? No flipping way  ::)

Dave

Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2012, 04:02:37 am »

Congratulations on a fine image. Very nice capture and a job well done revisiting the scene.

I am however also in the camp of readjusting crop. First of all, I am not diametrically opposed to cropping since I am a proponent of freedom-of-speech, and if a crop tells a better story, then a crop tells a better story. Whether you have seen this crop prior to capture is largely irrelevant.

Previsualising a crop is more about determining the relevant elements in a picture. Which means it may be useful to snap a slightly larger picture to be able to weight the elements in post-processing.

In this case for example a useful argument can be had over the LHS element. For one, it contributes to the "realism", leaving it out makes the image tend towards a digital manipulated composed image, as if the tree was pasted in. However, in the current crop it also distracts from the subject. Had you captured a slightly larger crop with more of those trees, you could always decide in post how much is necessary to tell the story.

Considering the elements I would personally opt for something along the line of the attached crop, which to me results in a better overall balance and emphasis, including the flow drawn by the mist. I would certainly keep the colors, but would consider doing something with the sky. An ever so slight graduated color perhaps. I would further rotate the image to level the waterline.
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2012, 04:06:51 am »

Lower-left-to-upper-right diagonals typically imply movement into the image, while upper-left-to-lower-right diagonals imply movement out of the image

Well, even if this were true, would it perhaps be useful to the image to preserve the original lines in order to emphasize the "loneliness"? Since if we are drawn toward the subject it will be more about wanting to be at that spot, as opposed to being repelled?
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

marvpelkey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: Lone Sentry
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2012, 07:57:36 pm »

OPGR,

Thanks for the comments and the time taken to offer some suggestions.

As to the crop, at first glance it looks promising. I will give it a try on the original and put it full size on my monitor to get a better feel.

Regarding the colours, the RAW was, except for a whole lot of blue, very bland and I had to bump it up considerably in the orange/yellows to even get it to what it is.

As I always do, I used a bubble level during capture and it seems pretty level to my eye. You may have noticed, or not, the line of highlighted water is not an indication of level as, if you look closely, the horizon is a bit above that (look at the point of the land on the left and the more rounded points on the two on either side of the passageway).

Marv
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up