Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Yosemite Valley, CA  (Read 4731 times)

MTGFender

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 709
Yosemite Valley, CA
« on: February 03, 2013, 03:28:01 AM »

Hasselblad H4D-40; HCD 35-90mm; Lee 0.6 GND; Lee Big Stopper

Thanks for viewing!
________________________________________________________
Pramote
http://pramotelaoprasert.zenfolio.com/
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 06:13:08 AM by MTGFender »
Logged

sdwilsonsct

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2013, 03:34:24 AM »

The motion makes it.

MTGFender

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 709
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2013, 06:11:59 AM »

Thanks very much Scott! Pramote
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3324
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2013, 04:47:55 AM »

I like the movement in the trees, grass, clouds, and water. These are the elements that have shaped the place.

sdwilsonsct

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2013, 04:53:17 AM »

To me, the motion in the grass and trees and clouds is a distraction which doesn't help recount the particular experience of that place.

Interesting. To me the motion effectively contrasts the ephemera of forests, grasslands, skies and photographers with the unchanging and indifferent mountains.

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8139
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2013, 05:26:42 AM »

I'm not bothered at all by the motion of the trees and the grass. The big granite walls are a solid counterweight to the vegetal world.

Well done!
Logged
Francois

Enda Cavanagh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 617
    • http://www.endacavanagh.com
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2013, 07:52:19 AM »

Interesting. To me the motion effectively contrasts the ephemera of forests, grasslands, skies and photographers with the unchanging and indifferent mountains.

+1

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 421
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2013, 08:24:46 AM »

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9406
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2013, 11:22:32 AM »

To me, the motion in the grass and trees and clouds is a distraction...

+1 (as much as it pains me to agree with Isaac  :P)

There are cases where smudged parts in an image can successfully convey motion, and then there are cases where they just look like... well... smudged.

While I've seen numerous examples of Big Stoppers doing wonders on water (if you like that effect, of course), I have yet to see (or remember) cloud movements captured equally well. Or other moving parts for that matter.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 02:01:17 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

langier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 817
    • Celebrating Rural America and beyond
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2013, 12:55:46 PM »

Without the motion, it's another of the millions. This one stands out well!
Logged
Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier

brandtb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 624
    • http://www.brandtbolding.com
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2013, 08:12:35 PM »

Quote
A glacier shaped the place -- it's gone.
+1
Quote
Mountains are no more indifferent than forests, grasslands, and skies. If you've been close to a rock-fall you understand quite well that mountains are not unchanging.
+1
Quote
To me, what stands out, is the motion in the grass and trees and cloud -- and for that motion it might as well be a photo taken in a city park anywhere.
+1
Quote
However, long exposure does show something particular that wouldn't be seen with shorter exposures -- the spray across hundreds of metres below Upper Yosemite Falls; so to me the technique would been more successful on a still day, as a way to highlight the power of the falls.
+1

While I personally don't care for the knee-jerk habit of some to stop down and make every last bit of "liquid" water into a vapor - I've often thought - if it's so absolutely essential - why don't they just blur everything else in the picture too?  This come close to that. I kept looking at the blurry sky and thinking that those clouds are probably extraordinary - and would balance well the rocky range - without the blur. There is one shot of El Capitan in summer by Adams where there exists this balance - and it is one his best of E.C. imo.

There nominally should be (at least for me) compelling reasons why one chooses any camera effect/equipment, whether it is a lens, a camera, a focal length, an aperture, a shutter speed etc.. Regarding stopping down in this instance, I think Isaac's points are well taken...and for me there don't seem to be compelling reasons for doing this.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 09:04:05 AM by brandtb »
Logged
Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com

MTGFender

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 709
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2013, 09:47:11 PM »

Thanks very much everyone!
Are you surprised how different point of views we have on the same image? This is what I love about photography.
Best regards,
Pramote
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2013, 09:11:08 PM »

It's not the motion that bothers me (at least not too much), it is the lack of some crisp near-whites and the muddy near-lifelessness of the sky and grass. My brain is saying that the spray from falls and the brightest part of the clouds should be higher in value than they appear. It's the effect I often see from students who do their developing using a black background instead of white (as in comparing the whitest white of prints to the back of the paper). Loading the jpeg into Lightroom confirms this - the highest value in the waterfall spray is 69.6% and in the brightest cloud is 81.4%. To me, they could be higher which just might serve to create a more compelling photograph.
Logged
Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature - visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!

MTGFender

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 709
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2013, 07:54:28 AM »

It's not the motion that bothers me (at least not too much), it is the lack of some crisp near-whites and the muddy near-lifelessness of the sky and grass. My brain is saying that the spray from falls and the brightest part of the clouds should be higher in value than they appear. It's the effect I often see from students who do their developing using a black background instead of white (as in comparing the whitest white of prints to the back of the paper). Loading the jpeg into Lightroom confirms this - the highest value in the waterfall spray is 69.6% and in the brightest cloud is 81.4%. To me, they could be higher which just might serve to create a more compelling photograph.

Thank you for your sophisticated comment although I don't really understand everything you said.
 I am just an amateur photographer. When I take and edit the photograph, I've used my heart more than my brain. Whatever it feels right to me.
Pramote
Logged

gerafotografija

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 224
    • gerafotografija.wordpress.com
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2013, 11:13:31 PM »

Wow, I had to look at this one a few times to appreciate it fully.
From my perspective, the clouds balance out the trees, and the mountains balance out the grass, but with some dynamic interchange going on since there aren't any perfectly horizontal delineations to separate the zones. The contrast between bands/zones probably subconsciously echoes the perceived motion of the grass, trees, clouds, water in some lucky way.
Nice.
Logged

PhotoEcosse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 712
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2013, 10:46:15 AM »

I would be inclined to go for a slightly more "letterbox" format by cropping up from the bottom, almost to the bottom of the right-hand trees. All that grass detracts from the drama of the trees, mountain, waterfall and sky.
Logged
************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."

MTGFender

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 709
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2013, 10:25:13 AM »

Thanks very much my friend Isaac, PhotoEcosse and gerafotografija! Pramote
Logged

brandtb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 624
    • http://www.brandtbolding.com
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2013, 12:14:05 PM »

To orig. poster:  I saw these this morning - some very nice/interesting images using blurred/long exposure elements juxtaposed against the stationary/"solid" tree...or the dynamism of the blur against the static. (the infra-red another issue)  Might be worth taking a look...

http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/27/long-exposure-infrared-photos-of-trees/
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 02:59:11 PM by brandtb »
Logged
Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com

fcarucci

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
    • Portfolio
Re: Yosemite Valley, CA
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2013, 02:41:23 PM »

I saw these this morning - some very nice/interesting images using blurred/long exposure elements juxtaposed against the stationary/"solid" tree...or the dynamism of the blur against the static.  Might be worth taking a look...

http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/27/long-exposure-infrared-photos-of-trees/

That is very interesting. Worth a try.
Logged
Senior iOS Software Engineer at Apple
Freelance Photographer at Spaces Images
Facebook|Portfolio|Blog
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up