Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on August 20, 2013, 01:03:24 pm
-
Schwabacher Landing - been photographed a million times I know, but that doesn't mean it is any less beautiful or anything other than a great place to take pictures, so here is my version of this particular iconic location.
Dave
-
Enjoyed it. Brings back memories of the time my wife and I spent there.
Thanks.
Les
-
Beautiful, Dave. It's no wonder the thing's iconic.
-
Sorry, don't like the colours.
-
Sorry, don't like the colours.
I can only take them as nature paints them ;D
But thanks as always everyone ;)
Dave
-
I can only take them as nature paints them ;D
You can choose to do so, or choose not to do so.
I hope you chose colours you like.
-
You can choose to do so, or choose not to do so.
I hope you chose colours you like.
Erm no actually, I choose the scene and the composition I like and that I think will work well and that's it, I let nature take care of the colours. If the colour is jarring or not what I want, then I try black and white.
Dave
-
Even I can't be bothered squabbling about this :-)
-
Even I can't be bothered squabbling about this :-)
Sorry Isaac, but I didn't even realise we were squabbliing - am I missing something here?
Please explain :)
Dave
-
I think what he was alluding to is it is very difficult, or impossible, to show in print or on the web what the eye actually saw and it is fruitless trying to do so. Three photographers stand shoulder to shoulder framing the scene you posted click the shutter at the same time. The same composition has been taken but the contrast, hue and saturation will be different. Different cameras and lenses - though the chosen focal length is the same - will mean that there are differences in the image. Now which one is the "correct" one. Obviously I can't recreate the scenario just in case someone asks me. ;)
-
Stamper's right. And even more important is what your monitor does. Most folks don't have calibrated monitors, and color and tone values can vary widely from monitor to monitor.
-
Even I can't be bothered squabbling about this :-)
Hallelujah! ;D
-
If it is the colours that Isaac is perhaps finding questionable in this shot and I am just being slow on the uptake at realising his intent, then maybe I should explain the shot in a little more detail - this was taken at the height of the autumn foliage colours in that area and also just after dawn, the light you see on the mountains and their reflection is Alpenglow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpenglow), whereby the pinkish/red colours from the dawn that is happening directly behind me, is then being reflected by the sky (or rather particles of moisture higher up in the air) onto the mountains in front of me and then mixing with the colour of the rock of the mountains. They were also burning lots of trees at the time I was there, so the lighter wispy hues on the mountains lower down in the middle background, are due to the effects of the smoke wafting through valley, which was annoying to say the least, but as I was there on holiday, I had to work with what was available to me at the time.
So as I say, these are the colours that nature (and the park rangers with their fires) were being presented to me at the time and so that is how I took the shot. I know it is not a great shot, or anything I would ever intend printing or hanging on my wall, it is just my version of this iconic location as it looked that cold bright October morning. I thought it may also act as an opener for a general discussion about the futility or otherwise, of re-photographing a scene that has been photographed many millions of times before, with my thoughts for this particular location and my version of it being, that the reason it has been over-photographed in the first place, is just because it is so beautiful and so why not have a go at it, but just don't expect anyone to look at it and go Wow! I have never seen anything like that before :)
Dave
-
If it is the colours that Isaac is perhaps finding questionable...
I don't find the colours "questionable". I dislike them.
People like some colour combinations but not others; tastes vary.
So as I say, these are the colours that nature (and the park rangers with their fires) were being presented to me at the time and so that is how I took the shot.
And those are the colours that you chose to present.
As you said, you could have chosen black&white. You could have chosen other colours - for example, you could have pushed the WB around - but your choice was to stick was those colours, and that is your choice to make.
-
Even I can't be bothered squabbling about this :-)
Why not, Isaac? Because you're out shooting pictures? If not, you should be. Try it. It's a lot more fun than laying down airy verbiage.
-
Why not, Isaac?
Because I'm willing to let Dave (Isle of Skye) think he doesn't choose the colours, if that's how it seems to him.
-
So what we've all learned from this educational thread is that there are some colors that Isaac doesn't like.
-
Because I'm willing to let Dave (Isle of Skye) think he doesn't choose the colours, if that's how it seems to him.
So what you are saying to me is, that I have actively chosen the colours of the scene, by not changing the colours of the scene from those that were actually there, to some other colours that weren't?
Now I am confused ???
Dave
-
You think you're confused? Look at Isaac!
-
I don't pretend to know what Isaac's point is, but I find the colors here a bit insipid myself. Interestingly, the reflection has fairly nice colors. Some sort of polarization something something?
The intent here, I assume, is to show us the delicate pastel tones? They're just a little too delicate for my taste..
-
With all due respect, that's about the most fake looking photo I have seen in a long time (and on LuLa, that's saying a lot). It looks like a cheap watercolor. Nature never - NEVER - looked like that.
But, you can probably sell hundreds.
-
Ouch!
-
Peter, nature may never have looked like that in North Carolina, but I've seen the Grand Tetons look a lot like that in that kind of light.
-
I don't pretend to know what Isaac's point is, but I find the colors here a bit insipid myself. Interestingly, the reflection has fairly nice colors. Some sort of polarization something something?The intent here, I assume, is to show us the delicate pastel tones? They're just a little too delicate for my taste..
I have to agree with amolitor. Isaac stating "I don't like the colours" is a bit confusing. Who knows what anyone else sees on their monitor? On my monitor the scene looks unrealistic. No contrast, too bright and the pastels too harsh. The actual view is very worth while.
-
Quote Tonysx.
On my monitor the scene looks unrealistic. No contrast, too bright and the pastels too harsh. The actual view is very worth while.
Unquote
I think the statement sums it up. Another poster states it is what you choose to present is what matters. What it looked like in reality is what Dave saw and tried to represent but it doesn't look "realistic". Isaac has been a bit ham fisted in what he stated but I can see where he is coming from in this instance. Whether he chooses to be provocative in his postings or if it is his nature I don't know.
-
...but I find the colors here a bit insipid myself. Interestingly, the reflection has fairly nice colors.
+1, and nice observation about the reflection. With the usual provisos about monitors, profiles, color spaces, JPGs, subjective reactions,etc. I have no idea whether what I am looking at looks anything like what Dave looks at on his monitor. But "a bit insipid" works for what I am looking at, and I find myself wishing for a different treatment.
Isaac's point I (perhaps presumptuously) take to be that the digital photographer chooses how the colors will look in the image he produces, having available software that can change them in all sorts of ways. Making them look like his recollection of the scene he photographed was Dave's approach, but I am not sure whether that guarantees that they will look pleasing, as nature is capable of looking insipid. Or is it?
-
With all due respect, that's about the most fake looking photo I have seen in a long time (and on LuLa, that's saying a lot). It looks like a cheap watercolor. Nature never - NEVER - looked like that.
But, you can probably sell hundreds.
Thank you Peter, that is quite an accolade you have bestowed upon me there and is something I know I will cherish for many years to come. :D
So I think what this is all boiling down to is, whether you/we/I as photographers like the colours within an image, without regard for the reality of the colours within the scene, even if they might be as near to the actual colours at the time of capture and under those particular lighting conditions?
I don't hold this image up as any great piece of art or will ever try to print it or sell it (not much call for shots of the Grand Tetons up here on Skye you know ;D), I only held it up as a representation of an over photographed iconic location, but I do find it odd that capturing the reality of the scene is apparently no longer seen as preferable to shifting the colours around later on the PC, because we can and it so easy to do so, to the point where it has become the norm and we always feel that we should - have we really gone this far into this digital age, that reality is no longer good enough and only some kind of super reality will suffice? - No need to answer that, I already know the answer and am also just as guilty of doing this because, well, I can. ;)
There are colour anomalies in this image I agree and Andrew points out something I also found odd, that the reflection colours and contrast are so much different from the non reflection - but why this is so I do not know, some kind of natural polarising effect from within the water I imagine, but who knows? All I really know is that I am good enough with PS not to randomly introduce such anomalies into this image for no good reason and indeed, why would I ever want to.
I am enjoying this by the way and finding this very interesting, but as always, I am more than willing to do all I can to try and please you the viewer, so if the sight of this image offend thee, then say as much below and I will pluck it out from the forum and cast it from thee ;D
Dave
-
Looks like a painting!
-
... - have we really gone this far into this digital age, that reality is no longer good enough ...
Reality is overrated, my friend ;)
Reality can be, and often is, bland, insipid, boring... Isn't that the very reason we get up at ungodly hours, freeze or sweat waiting, fight insects or reptiles, drive hundreds of miles, etc., just to catch that rare fleeting moment when it is not?
Photographing the icons, as you rightly titled it, carries an additional risk. The risk of being compared to the numerous attempts before you who were luckier in catching that fleeting moment.
Sometimes, nature's moments are so spectacular that any snapshot would do it justice. That's when "reality is good enough." And sometimes, certain places, the icons in particular, are grand by themselves, no matter time of day, season or lighting. Grand Teton is grand for a reason.
Then there is that whole issue of fine art landscape photography vs. documentary. Interpreting vs. recording. Recreating not just what we saw, but how we felt. Even how we wanted to see it.
Having said the above, I personally do not find your OP photograph too objectionable. I was there too and left with a much more mundane, mid-day record (the perils of family and friends travel). In other words, I consider you way luckier than I was, getting the light and color that you did.
It is a fine personal memento. Printed big, I am sure it would "speak" differently than a postage-stamp jpeg. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing it on my wall. As I am sure many Brits who visited it (or dream doing so) wouldn't mind either. And Americans, for that matter.
Speaking about water reflection... it is simple: reflections are always darker. If you (and others) find it more pleasing than the reflecting object itself, it simply means that the whole image is (slightly) overexposed. Bring it down a third or half a stop and you'll have a winner.
-
Looks like a painting!
Comments like this (and I get them often too) leave me wondering what exactly that phrase means. A compliment? Criticism? What exactly makes it "like a painting"? When photography mimics paintings, is it good or bad (for photography)?
-
Depends on your attitude toward Pictorialism!
-
So what we've all learned from this educational thread is that there are some colors that Isaac doesn't like.
And some colour combinations.
And that kind of basic preference is enough to overwhelm whatever other qualities a photograph may present.
And apparently some people think that colour is a property of a scene rather than a subjective experience locked inside our skulls.
And apparently the point of landscape photography is to record a scene ;-)
Who knows what anyone else sees on their monitor?
Well at least the monitor is calibrated, and the viewing conditions darkened, and I looked at the image with several different programs.
What it looked like in reality is what Dave saw and tried to represent but it doesn't look "realistic".
I haven't said - but it doesn't look "realistic" - so maybe that's your opinion.
the digital photographer chooses how the colors will look in the image he produces
Of course.
... but I do find it odd that capturing the reality of the scene is apparently no longer seen as preferable to shifting the colours around later on the PC...
Previously you wrote "If the colour is jarring or not what I want, then I try black and white."
Doesn't that involve "shifting the colours around later on the PC" -- making the blues lighter in the mix and darkening reds, ...?
-
Previously you wrote "If the colour is jarring or not what I want, then I try black and white."
Doesn't that involve "shifting the colours around later on the PC" -- making the blues lighter in the mix and darkening reds, ...?
Well to be honest, no. I just don't do B/W like that, I use various methods, but mostly I use blended and overlaid greyscale calculation layers for each of the RGB channels, which I may have also pushed the colours apart prior to beginning, with the Dan Margulis inspired Man from Mars curve, which can help to separate the tonalities and increase apparent contrast in each channel, but this doesn't move the colours around independently, it just pushes them apart from each other.
I am not actively trying to disagree with everything you say Isaac, honestly I am not, it is just that I don't seem to do any of what you are suggesting that I do, so far at least. ;)
So anyway, back to the worst picture that has ever been posted on Lula in the history of the forum - if the colours are jarring (as I said previously and as Isaac has so kindly reminded me of), then I try black and white, so here's a mono version of the original image, produced through the application of a gradient map (http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/black-and-white/gradient-map-adjustment/) and also a mid tone contrast boost via the unsharp mask (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml) - and also a much larger version.
Dave
-
Here's what could have happened with the picture: pure fiction of course and with due respect to all concerned -a bit of verbal fun for a change:
His finger hovering over the button ready to trip the shutter, Dave glanced up seeking last-minute divine intervention
‘Where else on earth would you want to be at this moment?’, he asked himself, noting the pink-fringed clouds.
Well, he could have stood in bed but no - after all, this was a magical, mysterious location, where anything could happen and often did if you were lucky enough to be there at the time. And Dave was often in places like this - fair dues.
Then he noticed a mysterious pendulum dangling invitingly over his head. It emitted a strange, blue, light and it swung back and forth in the breeze, enticingly touching his wool cap as it passed. There was a faint, glittering legend inscribed on its face which read: creative cloud.
Dave was puzzled. This artefact definitely hadn’t been there when he’d so carefully set up his tripod in the early hours, when he’d examined every element of the scene, above, below and beyond; when he’d clinically anticipated every artistic potential, and when he’d waited so patiently for the right light. He would have noticed something like that.
And now this aberration!
‘Creative cloud my arse!’ he muttered, adjusting an f-stop. ‘This is a catastrophe, this is worse than a human person walking into a landscape.’
Dave did his best to ignore the apparition, but he couldn’t. Eventually, he slowly reached up and gently tugged on the chord, thinking that the bizarre hallucination was due to his lack of sleep and that it would soon disappear. He was wrong.
Every time he chucked on the chord, the colour in the landscape changed and became dramatically more spectacular and lighter in tone - just the way he'd wanted it in the first place. Now, all he had to do was imagine the perfect picture and, hey presto, it appeared.
‘Oh my God, Reichmann and Schewe are dead in the water. I have seen the future’, he stammered, arms outstretched to the sky. ‘It’s up there - it’s in the clouds.’
Every time he pulled the chord, a more arresting image appeared. He couldn’t decide. He twiddled with the chord. He found a small knob. He pressed it. The previous image came up. He pressed again. A better one emerged. He went back and forth, unable to choose.
Then a rare light began to spread on the landscape - a possible masterpiece, in Fred’s humble opinion, but still he hesitated. Too many choices, and too many know-it-alls on a place called LuLa where he submitted work for appraisal. To him, the term LuLa conjured up an image of an open-air lunatic asylum, but he kept that to himself. No point in making more enemies than he had already.
Privately, he regarded its denizens with loathing (he wasn't alone in that) - a gallery of sneering loudmouth misfits, making excoriating comments just to show how clever they were with a keyboard and a limited vocabulary. Many of them never took a decent picture in their miserable lives and if asked, would say that depth of field was an important element of agriculture. Some of them were retired from godforsaken jobs and never got out of bed. At least that was his private opinion, but he didn't share it with anybody, certainly not on LuLa itself. After all, does a turkey vote for Christmas?
As for Isaac - a class of his own.
Fred’s finger hovered over the button. He couldn’t decide - so many choices, so many critics to please, Isaac lurking, what to do? The more he delayed, the more Isaac preyed on his mind.
Suddenly, a deep voice reverberated around the whole landscape, the tripod tilted and fell to the ground, the very earth shivered, thunder rolled in the distant hills and lightening streaked the heavens. A mighty voice commanded:
‘TAKE THE FUCKING SHOT.'
So Dave did what he was told and experienced great joy.
‘I have a keeper - I’m confident’, he proclaimed to the valley in a sudden rush of contentment to the head. He was at peace with himself and the wider world and as far as LuLa was concerned - two fingers.
'They can't take this from me', he whispered, fists clenched. 'It's inspired.'
Wisely, he didn't look to the clouds or try to engage the mysterious force that had made him into a great photographer and a prophet. He simply folded his tripod and set his face towards home, but as he progressed, a thought slowly began to gnaw at his mind and eventually it crystallised into a single dread:
‘I saw the future up at the lake, I saw the end of the world as we know it, I am part of the new order, I took a great image on the word of a god, but no matter, I feel in my bones that those bastards on LuLa will start knit-picking and pointing the finger. Where am I going wrong? Especially with Isaac!'
In his new wisdom, he found no answer to that.
-
Brilliant, Seamus!
-
Brilliant, Seamus!
Indeed. Nicely done, Seamus.
-
Wonderful, Seamus. You nailed it! Several of us are crawling out from under the wreckage, and Isaac's still back there, mumbling.
Why aren't you writing fiction?
-
Thanks guys,
You might want to re-read it. I was re-writing it live on LuLa in the modify box while you were posting. An old time hack up against a deadline, so to speak. Please read it again!
-
Superb, seamus. We're whacked by clever prose.
-
Best post on Lula in a long while Seamus.
-
Best post on Lula in a long while Seamus.
The first version was the best post on Lula in a long time, but the second version is even better.
Bravo!!!
I'm going to bookmark this one so I can come back to it whenever I need it to cleanse my soul.
-
...I thought it may also act as an opener for a general discussion about the futility or otherwise, of re-photographing a scene that has been photographed many millions of times before, with my thoughts for this particular location and my version of it being, that the reason it has been over-photographed in the first place, is just because it is so beautiful and so why not have a go at it, but just don't expect anyone to look at it and go Wow! I have never seen anything like that before :)
Accepting that interesting invitation, I think that faced with an amazing scene, few photographers will be able to resist the temptation to "have a go at it", but would be naive not to realise that many of the people looking at their image will have seen too many other images of the same scene, and also that they may feel that if the scene is exceptionally beautiful, any image will fall short of the reality. Consequently, you have to expect that however well you have done your job as a photographer, people looking at your image will be to some degree disappointed with the result. I get the latter feeling with almost any image of the Grand Canyon or of Mount Everest. Links to suggested exceptions would be interesting. Gigapixels which you can zoom into are perhaps tempting because they seem to provide a way out of that dilemma - also maybe high saturation and very large prints. Or you could think that these are all versions of photographic shouting and that a more promising approach would be to go highly stylised, so that the image draws attention to itself as an image and not to the scene of which it is a poor imitation. It occurs to me that I tend to prefer old photographs of the Grand Canyon and Mount Everest to new ones, perhaps for that reason.
On Dave's image, I came back to the thread on a different and better monitor and liked it much better - but still preferred the b&w version, maybe for the same reason I prefer old shots of the Grand Canyon etc.
-
Hallelujah! ;D
+1!
-
Looks like a painting!
Comments like this (and I get them often too) leave me wondering what exactly that phrase means. A compliment? Criticism? What exactly makes it "like a painting"? When photography mimics paintings, is it good or bad (for photography)?
Good questions. A search on "painterly" in LuLa forums provides seven pages of results. I didn't find anyone defining their term, but reading the uses in context it seems to have a range of meanings including "a bit blurry", "not representing anything", "mimicking a particular style of painting", "containing a controlled range of colours", "highly abstracted", "formally interesting and containing nothing extraneous to the composition", and so on. When I use the term myself I mean something close to the last of these, so it is a term of praise. Historically, painting and photography have been in dialogue and competition since photography was invented, with each mimicking the other in different ways. I am not keen on some of the results - eg, photographs of historic scenes with characters in fancy dress - and enjoy others - eg photographs using a lot of negative space or photorealistic portraits. In the end surely the dialogue isn't necessarily good or bad for photography or painting, but particular examples can be more or less interesting.
-
...."formally interesting and containing nothing extraneous to the composition"......When I use the term myself I mean something close to the last of these, so it is a term of praise.
I've used 'painterly' as praise as well, meaning (to me), "so carefully composed as to seem like the natural world was rearranged for this picture", something a painter does every time, but only a few photographs manage to do.
-
Thanks guys,
You might want to re-read it. I was re-writing it live on LuLa in the modify box while you were posting. An old time hack up against a deadline, so to speak. Please read it again!
I read it again and it was, as Eric said, even better the second time around. LuLa inside-joke elements aside, Seamus, why aren't you at least writing short stories, if not novels?
-
Thanks all. Russ, I wrote a few short stories in my time and got them published too. I might give it another go!
-
Do! I used to enjoy writing, very much . Never had any of my short stories published, but that might be because I never submitted any of them; at least I'd like to believe that's the reason. Instead, I put the ones I mentioned to you on my personal web, mainly for the folks who shared with me the absurdities of Udorn and the end of that war. Publication came early with the poetry, but of course, anybody living on his poetry is, by definition, a starving poet. Anyone who doesn't believe that should check with banker Tom Eliot.
-
Here's what...
Scorn illuminates
your talents wasted for now
to silence others.
-
;D Poetry vs. prose! And haiku at that.
-
Still not out shooting pictures Isaac? You really ought to give it a try.
Thunderstorms gather
over the distant mountains:
rumors of lightning.
-
My only contribution to the Poetry Corner (written about 58 or so years ago):
Why would anyone
want to write
a seventeen-syllable poem?
;)
-
'Cause it's fun?
-
Still not out shooting pictures Isaac? You really ought to give it a try.
Thunderstorms gather
over the distant mountains:
rumors of lightning.
Cheap shot comment. Lovely haiku.
-
Sorry, Isaac. I'll try more expensive shots if that'll get you to post some photography on this photography forum.
-
Sorry, Isaac. I'll try more expensive shots if that'll get you to post some photography on this photography forum.
Enough Isaac crits....
He offered an opinion..
Now let bygones be.......
Oh sh*t , Ive run out of syllables
But maybe Isaac could contribute more than an overlying dislike of the colour.
-
But maybe Isaac could ...
My guess is that Dave (Isle of Skye) is no longer "enjoying this ... and finding this very interesting" - a pestilence drove him away.
-
... pestilence...
At least you can't accuse Isaac of a "limited vocabulary" ;D
-
Here's what could have happened with the picture: pure fiction of course and with due respect to all concerned -a bit of verbal fun for a change:
His finger hovering over the button ready to trip the shutter, Dave glanced up seeking last-minute divine intervention
‘Where else on earth would you want to be at this moment?’, he asked himself, noting the pink-fringed clouds.
Well, he could have stayed in bed but no - after all, this was a magical, mysterious location, where anything could happen and often did if you were lucky enough to be there at the time. And Dave was often in places like this - fair dues.
Then he noticed a mysterious pendulum dangling invitingly over his head. It emitted a strange, blue, light and it swung back and forth in the breeze, enticingly touching his wool cap as it passed. There was a faint, glittering legend inscribed on its face which read: creative cloud.
Dave was puzzled. This artefact definitely hadn’t been there when he’d so carefully set up his tripod in the early hours, when he’d examined every element of the scene, above, below and beyond; when he’d clinically anticipated every artistic potential, and when he’d waited so patiently for the right light. He would have noticed something like that.
And now this aberration!
‘Creative cloud my arse!’ he muttered, adjusting an f-stop. ‘This is a catastrophe, this is worse than a human person walking into a landscape.’
Dave did his best to ignore the apparition, but he couldn’t. Eventually, he slowly reached up and gently tugged on the chord, thinking that the bizarre hallucination was due to his lack of sleep and that it would soon disappear. He was wrong.
Every time he chucked on the chord, the colour in the landscape changed and became dramatically more spectacular and lighter in tone - just the way he'd wanted it in the first place. Now, all he had to do was imagine the perfect picture and, hey presto, it appeared.
‘Oh my God, Reichmann and Schewe are dead in the water. I have seen the future’, he stammered, arms outstretched to the sky. ‘It’s up there - it’s in the clouds.’
Every time he pulled the chord, a more arresting image appeared. He couldn’t decide. He twiddled with the chord. He found a small knob. He pressed it. The previous image came up. He pressed again. A better one emerged. He went back and forth, unable to choose.
Then a rare light began to spread on the landscape - a possible masterpiece, in Dave’s humble opinion, but still he hesitated. Too many choices, and too many know-it-alls on a place called LuLa where he submitted work for appraisal. To him, the term LuLa conjured up an image of an open-air lunatic asylum, but he kept that to himself. No point in making more enemies than he had already.
Privately, he regarded its denizens with loathing (he wasn't alone in that) - a gallery of sneering loudmouth misfits, making excoriating comments just to show how clever they were with a keyboard and a limited vocabulary. Many of them never took a decent picture in their miserable lives and if asked, would say that depth of field was an important element of agriculture. Some of them were retired from godforsaken jobs and never got out of bed. At least that was his private opinion, but he didn't share it with anybody, certainly not on LuLa itself. After all, does a turkey vote for Christmas?
As for Isaac - a class of his own.
Dave’s finger hovered over the button. He couldn’t decide - so many choices, so many critics to please, Isaac lurking, what to do? The more he delayed, the more Isaac preyed on his mind.
Suddenly, a deep voice reverberated around the whole landscape, the tripod tilted and fell to the ground, the very earth shivered, thunder rolled in the distant hills and lightening streaked the heavens. A mighty voice commanded:
‘TAKE THE FUCKING SHOT.'
So Dave did what he was told and experienced great joy.
‘I have a keeper - I’m confident’, he proclaimed to the valley in a sudden rush of contentment to the head. He was at peace with himself and the wider world and as far as LuLa was concerned - two fingers.
'They can't take this from me', he whispered, fists clenched. 'It's inspired.'
Wisely, he didn't look to the clouds or try to engage the mysterious force that had made him into a great photographer and a prophet. He simply folded his tripod and set his face towards home, but as he progressed, a thought slowly began to gnaw at his mind and eventually it crystallised into a single dread:
‘I saw the future up at the lake, I saw the end of the world as we know it, I am part of the new order, I took a great image on the word of a god, but no matter, I feel in my bones that those bastards on LuLa will start nit-picking and pointing the finger. Where am I going wrong? Especially with Isaac!'
In his new wisdom, he found no answer to that.
Wow!!!!
Seamus you have done me proud, now this is something I really will cherish ;D
I also see from your beautifully written text, that you make reference to quite a few of my recent postings on Lula, and here's me thinking that no one ever listened...
Thank you Seamus, you have warmed the cockles of this old photographers heart and put a big smile on my face - and please forgive me for slightly editing your text on this reply, but I assume (correctly I hope) that you meant to write Dave when writing Fred.
I think I will print this and hang it on my wall for all to see :D
Yes Isaac, I am still here and enjoying this thread, so no, I have't gone away. ;D
Dave
-
I must say, I find Seamus's responses to Dave much more interesting than those of Isaac. Or those of mine, either, for that matter.
-
Thank you Seamus, you have warmed the cockles of this old photographers heart and put a big smile on my face - and please forgive me for slightly editing your text on this reply, but I assume (correctly I hope) that you meant to write Dave when writing Fred.
Dave, I did, I did. My apologies. That kind of thing happens when you get a rush of blood to the brain late at night.
Jeez, if I'd known it was going up on your wall, I'd have tightened up a few bits but anyway, I'm glad you like it. I have a feeling Isaac won't be putting it in a frame any time soon though.
-
I have a feeling Isaac won't be putting it in a frame any time soon though.
Fred doesn't merit ridicule.
As a response to "Sorry, don't like the colours", it's way beyond.