Lonesome Trail

[seamus finn]

-

[David Eckels]

I don't know if it's just me, but this is a photograph wherein my eye cannot find any place to rest. I also can't understand the relationship between the title and the photo. There are many intriguing lines and textures, but there are also some odd things (no disrespect intended) like the grasses in the background (movement?) and that shadow (?) to the left of the post in the left part of the frame. I know some like photographs with such business, but IMHO, the shot confuses me. If that's what you intended, then you succeeded! I usually end up on the opposite side of things so it will be interesting to see what others have to say; I learn a lot from seeing their critiques so offering mine without "contamination" from others will teach me something, too.

[BobDavid]

+ 1

[seamus finn]

Thanks for that, David.

The location is a trek up steep sand dunes at a seaside resort, Strandhill, a few miles from where I live in the West of Ireland. In the old days, before coastal erosion and the wind did their work, people went up these dunes along this route (and others). I hadn't been there since I was a kid and ventured it the other week.  That's where I got the title for the image which, in retrospect, probably wouldn't make any sense to somebody who doesn't know the place.

In answer to your question about confusion: no, I certainly didn't set out to confuse - but that doesn't mean I wasn't confused myself when I posted this. When it comes to judging my own work, I am frequently confused anyway! This may be a case of me confusing nostalgia with content. I'd love to know what others think.

Incidentally, this is what the place looked like the day before, when the wind was blowing strongly and the sand was racing across the landscape. No place to bring a camera, you may think! On the left, about a third into the frame, you may be able to make out the start of 'the lonesome trail' I referred to. It meanders up the incline and eventually brings you to where I took the first shot, the next day.

Maybe I should have stayed at beach level. Maybe I should have stood in bed. Maybe I should get my head examined for going there in the first place. The good news is that the camera is intact.





 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Like the rich tonality. Not bothered by the busyness, seems organic here. Two nitpicks though: 1. the second row of posts seems slightly out of focus and 2. the post in the second row seems to grow out of the post in the first row, left corner - moving a a step left or right would have separated them, creating a better sense of depth.

[armand]

As a nitpick, any reason you are stripping off the exif data these days?

[Bruce Cox]

I tend to wonder what is beyond the dune, though it is easy to guess "the sea".  Vivid though the dune and fencing are, they seem to be hidiing something.  Which is, I think, a good way for a photograph to be.

The grasses don't bother me, the shadow does for better and worse, and the clouds should have a line in the credits too.

Then Slobodan posted; to which I say: More rational fencing might leave us just on this side of the dune with the clouds not as interesting.

[seamus finn]

Like the rich tonality. Not bothered by the busyness, seems organic here. Two nitpicks though: 1. the second row of posts seems slightly out of focus and 2. the post in the second row seems to grow out of the post in the first row, left corner - moving a a step left or right would have separated them, creating a better sense of depth.

Nitpicks accepted, Slobodan - I agree with them. I think my aperture setting was just a little shallow (I'm trying to get intimate with a new Fuji XT1 and I find it a learning curve after SLRs). As for moving a step or two left or right, after climbing up there I was lucky to be able to take a step forward! Seriously, well spotted. Otherwise, delighted that you and Bruce seem to like the image.

[David Eckels]

Now I find version 2 more "sensible" for lack of a better word. If I didn't say, I agree with Slobodan about the tonality, but don't understand what he means by organic; perhaps Professor Blagojevic will share more with us. I mean that as a compliment, BTW. As I think about this, would these work in a small series, "Along the Lonesome Trail" or something to that effect? Interesting place, obviously.

[seamus finn]

As a nitpick, any reason you are stripping off the exif data these days?

No reason, armand - I must have accidentally unticked a box in Lightroom's Export menu. I'll look into it for you.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I agree with Slobodan about the tonality, but don't understand what he means by organic; perhaps Professor Blagojevic will share more with us...

Do not know about the professor, but a dictionary offers this:

3. denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole: the organic unity of the integral work of art.
• characterized by continuous or natural development: companies expand as much by acquisition as by organic growth.

In other words, the busyness in the image appears natural, the chaotic displacement of mad-made elements reflecting natural forces of winds and decay.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

In other words, the busyness in the image appears natural, the chaotic displacement of mad-made elements reflecting natural forces of winds and decay.

That's exactly my feeling.

The fence has clearly seen better days and has been pretty much abandoned for a long time.
I find the image quite satisfying, and Slobodan's nits don't bother me.

[RSL]

In answer to your question about confusion: no, I certainly didn't set out to confuse - but that doesn't mean I wasn't confused myself when I posted this. When it comes to judging my own work, I am frequently confused anyway! This may be a case of me confusing nostalgia with content. I'd love to know what others think.

I think it's a common complaint for all of us, Seamus. I, for one, always tell myself to wait at least a week after a shoot before I try to judge anything I've shot, but of course I almost always disregard my own good advice. And nostalgia can be a powerful thing. I surrender to it more often than I should.

Maybe I should have stayed at beach level. Maybe I should have stood in bed. Maybe I should get my head examined for going there in the first place. The good news is that the camera is intact.

Hindsight usually is twenty-twenty, but in some cases, this being one of them, it's a lot less sharp. But whatever the case, the tonalities in this photograph are very fine, and I'm sure the memories are too.

[David Eckels]

Slobodan and Eric, I get what you are saying, but I guess I am hung up on that harmonious part. To me harmony means that all the parts work together and part of that leads me to understand perhaps what the photographer's vision of the subject might have been. I don't get that in the OP, but then I couldn't come up with why my eye was so restless when viewing it (I don't often have that kind of reaction). Seamus, if I was in any way offensive in my opinion, I apologize. Anyway, beautiful place; I'd like to visit sometime.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...I am hung up on that harmonious part...

There is a beauty in chaos, sometimes.

As photographers, we typically strive to reduce, eliminate, or simplify that chaos around us. Sometimes, however, chaos is the idea, the main subject of the image, and i think that is the case in the OP image.

[David Eckels]

There is a beauty in chaos, sometimes.

As photographers, we typically strive to reduce, eliminate, or simplify that chaos around us. Sometimes, however, chaos is the idea, the main subject of the image, and i think that is the case in the OP image.

Absolutely agree and that is why I was asking in my own inept way if that might have been Seamus' intention. I thought about asking, "Did you intend it to be confusing?" but that seemed a little crass, even for me

[RSL]

Seems strange that nobody has suggested cloning out the wires in this picture.

[seamus finn]

There is a beauty in chaos, sometimes.

As photographers, we typically strive to reduce, eliminate, or simplify that chaos around us. Sometimes, however, chaos is the idea, the main subject of the image, and i think that is the case in the OP image.

Exactly, Slobodan. The idea here was not to confuse but rather to try to show the destruction wrought by elemental forces of nature. I'm not too worried about any shortcomings in the technical precision department on this occasion.

[seamus finn]

Slobodan and Eric, I get what you are saying, but I guess I am hung up on that harmonious part. To me harmony means that all the parts work together and part of that leads me to understand perhaps what the photographer's vision of the subject might have been. I don't get that in the OP, but then I couldn't come up with why my eye was so restless when viewing it (I don't often have that kind of reaction). Seamus, if I was in any way offensive in my opinion, I apologize. Anyway, beautiful place; I'd like to visit sometime.

David,

You were in no way offensive, nor was any offence taken. In fact, your critique was far more valuable than the ubiquitous +1 seen around here from time to time. And you'd be very welcome here.

[seamus finn]

Seems strange that nobody has suggested cloning out the wires in this picture.

They're not wires, Russ - they're ropes, attached to the posts to help people haul themselves up the path. They're in good condition and seem to have been put there recently enough, perhaps to help inspectors to have a look at the terrible environmental damage being caused - not just here but all along the west coast. Of course the wires leading in from the bottom right are part of the original fencing  - a far cry from power lines!