Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on May 19, 2015, 12:51:01 pm
-
I keep coming across this one in my archives from late March, and I keep liking it even though it strikes me as being merely pretty.
-
For me, it lacks a clear subject. I would have, instead of shooting the fence, walked closer and shot over the fence.
-
Then you'd have lost the little tree camera left that gives it some balance.
-
Then you'd have lose the little tree camera left that gives it some balance.
I understand your point, but you have there 3 main objects fighting each for being the main object in the image.
My eyes are wandering from the tree to the silo, to the barn and so on and they never stop. I call images like this nervous, I do not find a point where to rest my eyes.
Nice natural colours.
Did you make more shots from different positions of this scene ?
-
My eyes are wandering from the tree to the silo, to the barn and so on. . .
Exactly what they're supposed to do.
-
Exactly what they're supposed to do.
Russ, you posted this in Critiques and then reject the one you received from two different people.
My (and Ranier SLP's, too, apparently) eyes aren't wandering appreciably about the image concentrating on details, they're flitting about looking for something to rest on. It is indeed a 'nervous' image because it has no clear subject...as in...fence? Yuk; that ugly thing can't be the subject.
The barn? Ya, the barn...but I can't see much of that. Must be the silos. Nope...can't see much of those hiding behind the fence and that tree.
Obviously, I wasn't there, and it's not MY pic. But I suggest you read and think about, instead of reject, the critiques YOU ask for. :)
-
Hi Jeffrey,
How did you come to the conclusion I'm "rejecting" critiques. As I said when I posted the picture, I keep passing by this picture in my archives because it strikes me as merely pretty, "merely" being the operative word. But I still like it. Since I've been a pretty serious photographer and enthusiastic visual art aficionado for about 72 years it seems to me I ought to be able to understand why I like it. I don't really, but I still like it
If I shoot over the fence I lose the balancing tree on the left. Pointing that out isn't "rejecting" your critique. It's commenting on it. Actually, what you're suggesting is that there HAS to be a specifically selected, tight point of focus in a picture for it to hang together. In street photography I'd agree with you. In landscape I don't. In this picture your eye goes almost immediately to the barn and then follows the leading line of the trees to the silos. Rainer has a problem with that and evidently doesn't want his eyes to move away from some fixed point. He should check out, say, Constable's "The Hay Wain." If you're an "obsessed landscape fotografer" as you claim to be, you should be familiar with it. It's a hell of a lot better picture than this one ever will be, but your eye flits from the guy with the white shirt in the water to the house, to the dog, and to the trees and sky. Your eye tends to come back to the farmer, but that's because he's human. (Which is one reason street photography is so much more effective than landscape photography.) Oh, by the way, for some reason I rather like the fence, though, again I can't say why.
But having said all that, I'd also encourage you to continue being critical. Blunted critiques to avoid hurt feelings are a problem I've been seeing in User Critiques since I first jumped into it.
-
I'm no expert at this, but the fence is what creates tension in the scene for me. I remember many a hot dry day in OK retreating to the cool darkness of the miking barn.
Frank
-
Rainer has a problem with that and evidently doesn't want his eyes to move away from some fixed point. He should check out, say, Constable's "The Hay Wain."
Hi RSL,
Followed your advice, because I want to learn and not because I should !, and did take a look at the " The Hay Wain " and found it quite interesting in composition
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02603/haywainnorm_2603036b.jpg)
and found some differences to your " The Hidden Barn "
BTW way the title " Landscape " makes me expect something else and perhaps that led us to have a different view of the image from the very beginning on. A title like " The Old Barn " " 3 Brothers " " The Great Fence " would have influenced us before seeing the image and maybe we would have seen it in another context ?
First in " The Hay Wain " there are only 2 interesting objects and the one which draws the most attention is, as the title says, " The Hay Wain " because there IS the action accentuated by the smaller tree pointing right down onto it, the Wain. The barn is by far in the second plane just as a complement in that rural landscape.
Now coming to your Landscape
Yes, the eye goes directly into the center of the image, sees the barn and immediately goes away from it because there is no WOW,
Next, I see is the lonely tree on the left side shining out becasue the contrast between tree and sky is strong, but, yes but, the tree is boring
So my eye wanders to the next possible WOW omitting the barn and I see the 3 silos standing there, but no WOW due to the fact that there is a half bold tree with some yellow flowers covering up the silos, so far so good, my eyes have scanned the wholw image, again, again and again and nowhere found a WOW.
The fence, well is a fence.
That is the way I see yout Landscape image,
Now, never been there and never will go there, but that little piece of Landscape has amazing possibilities to shoot an outstanding image, IMHO ( In My Humble Opinion )
for example
Go near to the fence and shoot over the fence and put the barn in an interesting position
Go near the fence and shoot the 3 silos in a vertical format avoiding the tree with the yellow flowers
Go near the fence, use a wide open aperture and shoot the yellow flowering tree and keep the silos with a tremendous unsharp bokeh as a background.
Stand near the fence (test different distances ) and shoot towards that little tree on the left side and use the fence as a eye guiding line to the tree
Just a few ideas which came to my mind. ;D
saludos Rainer
We all have different ways to see things
-
... Pointing that out isn't "rejecting" your critique. It's commenting on it...
+1
Btw, nothing wrong with "rejecting" a critique. That is called a debate, a difference of opinion. Which is not the same as rejecting someone's right to critique.
-
... there is no WOW
... no WOW
...nowhere found a WOW.
WOW!
That's the problem with a lot of modern landscape photography: the tyranny of spectacular. As if our goal has become to out-WOW each other. Impress the viewer. Shock and awe him. The problem with the WOW-factor is that it works the first couple of times, than we become desensitized, and need even greater spectacle next time.
-
Slobodan,
...the problem with a lot of modern landscape photography: the tyranny of spectacular. As if our goal has become to out-WOW each other. Impress the viewer. Shock and awe him.
Shoot for you. Problem solved.
-
WOW!
That's the problem with a lot of modern landscape photography: the tyranny of spectacular. As if our goal has become to out-WOW each other. Impress the viewer. Shock and awe him. The problem with the WOW-factor is that it works the first couple of times, than we become desensitized, and need even greater spectacle next time.
;D
-
Slobodan,
Shoot for you. Problem solved.
Now I have to adopt your forum style ( :)):
Robert,
What do you mean by "shoot for you"? Or is it just my English that is lacking?
EDIT: Oh, you probably mean to shoot (photograph) only for myself, not others? That is ok, it is just that art (like sex) is meant to be shared.
-
Hi Rainer,
Wow. That's quite an analysis. Good for you. I have some problems with your explication, but I'm happy to see you take the trouble to analyze the pictures. If more of the people who post on LuLa would do that kind of thing, the quality of the postings might improve.
First off, I've never claimed my picture is a success. I've been passing by it in my archives for months, though it always stopped me for a moment before I moved on. From the standpoint of formal, rule based, composition it's a loser. But I still like it, probably because of the colors, especially the bright phlox on this side of the fence.
Let's take a look at your analysis. Your problem with the word "landscape" makes me suspect you see landscape exclusively as nature in the raw. In other words, if man or the hand of man shows in the picture it's not "landscape." That would explain your problem with the lack of a title that would have "influenced" you to see it in "another context." Fair enough. Let's change the title to "Rural Spring in All its Glory." That better? That lets us leave in the fence and doesn't require us to select a particular object as the center of focus.
Regarding "The Hay Wain," I'd disagree about the number of "interesting" objects in the picture. There are several. Your eye jumps immediately to the guy in the white shirt -- for two reasons: he's human and his shirt is the brightest spot in the picture. The fact that he's located near the center of the picture doesn't hurt either. I question whether or not the tree behind him has much to do with it. Yes, it's a leading line, but it's too soft and dark to be very effective. Then your eye moves to the dog on the bank of the river. Why? Because he's alive and because he has a large patch of white. Next your eye jumps to the spot where the sun is hitting the house -- the hand of man. After that your eye sweeps the trees, the fields and the sky. When you stand back and look at the whole scene it grabs you -- because of the colors, the composition, especially the disposition of tones -- bright and dark.
"The Hay Wain" is a magnificent example of landscape. It's infinitely more effective than landscape that avoids the hand of man (Ansel?), because for humans the hand of man always is the most interesting thing in any picture. It may be different if you're a deer or a bear.
Now on to my own not-so-great great picture. Whether or not the barn is a "WOW" is a matter of opinion. I agree with you, but the point is a "so what" because the barn isn't the point of the picture. That poor little tree on the left doesn't think it's "boring. But boring or not it does tend to balance the composition. In fact the layout is almost exactly the reverse of the layout in "The Hay Wain." At least I got that right. I'd agree that the silos aren't a "WOW," though they are quite beautiful and made even more so by the lacy, flowery tree that subdues their sharpness. As you say, the fence is a fence. I like it, and you're welcome to dislike it. I suspect most people would agree with you.
I'd be interested to see some of your own work, Rainer. I just went through a bit more than a year of your posts and the only picture I found was a tourist shot from Arches National Park. I'd like to see more. It would help me understand where you're coming from. Evidently you think effective landscape requires a looming "WOW" center of interest like the arch in your picture and should avoid the hand of man. I'd argue with both ideas and I suspect most experienced photographers of landscape or of any other genre would agree with me. I see that Slobodan rejects the "WOW" idea, and I certainly agree with him.
But on to your suggestions. When you tell a photographer what he "should have done" you always need to understand that the only thing you know about the scene is what you see in the picture. You can't really have what you call "ideas which came to my mind" that are valid unless you're there. Without beating the point to death I'll tell you that that's the case here. If you'd like to go there and try your own approaches I'll be happy to tell you exactly where this spot is.
-
Hi Rainer,
Wow. That's quite an analysis. Good for you. I have some problems with your explication, but I'm happy to see you take the trouble to analyze the pictures. If more of the people who post on LuLa would do that kind of thing, the quality of the postings might improve.
First off, I've never claimed my picture is a success. I've been passing by it in my archives for months, though it always stopped me for a moment before I moved on. From the standpoint of formal, rule based, composition it's a loser. But I still like it, probably because of the colors, especially the bright phlox on this side of the fence.
Let's take a look at your analysis. Your problem with the word "landscape" makes me suspect you see landscape exclusively as nature in the raw. In other words, if man or the hand of man shows in the picture it's not "landscape." That would explain your problem with the lack of a title that would have "influenced" you to see it in "another context." Fair enough. Let's change the title to "Rural Spring in All its Glory." That better? That lets us leave in the fence and doesn't require us to select a particular object as the center of focus.
Regarding "The Hay Wain," I'd disagree about the number of "interesting" objects in the picture. There are several. Your eye jumps immediately to the guy in the white shirt -- for two reasons: he's human and his shirt is the brightest spot in the picture. The fact that he's located near the center of the picture doesn't hurt either. I question whether or not the tree behind him has much to do with it. Yes, it's a leading line, but it's too soft and dark to be very effective. Then your eye moves to the dog on the bank of the river. Why? Because he's alive and because he has a large patch of white. Next your eye jumps to the spot where the sun is hitting the house -- the hand of man. After that your eye sweeps the trees, the fields and the sky. When you stand back and look at the whole scene it grabs you -- because of the colors, the composition, especially the disposition of tones -- bright and dark.
"The Hay Wain" is a magnificent example of landscape. It's infinitely more effective than landscape that avoids the hand of man (Ansel?), because for humans the hand of man always is the most interesting thing in any picture. It may be different if you're a deer or a bear.
Now on to my own not-so-great great picture. Whether or not the barn is a "WOW" is a matter of opinion. I agree with you, but the point is a "so what" because the barn isn't the point of the picture. That poor little tree on the left doesn't think it's "boring. But boring or not it does tend to balance the composition. In fact the layout is almost exactly the reverse of the layout in "The Hay Wain." At least I got that right. I'd agree that the silos aren't a "WOW," though they are quite beautiful and made even more so by the lacy, flowery tree that subdues their sharpness. As you say, the fence is a fence. I like it, and you're welcome to dislike it. I suspect most people would agree with you.
I'd be interested to see some of your own work, Rainer. I just went through a bit more than a year of your posts and the only picture I found was a tourist shot from Arches National Park. I'd like to see more. It would help me understand where you're coming from. Evidently you think effective landscape requires a looming "WOW" center of interest like the arch in your picture and should avoid the hand of man. I'd argue with both ideas and I suspect most experienced photographers of landscape or of any other genre would agree with me. I see that Slobodan rejects the "WOW" idea, and I certainly agree with him.
But on to your suggestions. When you tell a photographer what he "should have done" you always need to understand that the only thing you know about the scene is what you see in the picture. You can't really have what you call "ideas which came to my mind" that are valid unless you're there. Without beating the point to death I'll tell you that that's the case here. If you'd like to go there and try your own approaches I'll be happy to tell you exactly where this spot is.
WOW ;D
-
Hi RSL,
When I read yout post there is one thing that attracts my attention ...
You always write ...
Your eye and there I understand my Eye ... (maybe misundertanding from my side and you are writing of yourself in third person)
Everybody sees things different and my posting, at least I think, explained what I see in your image. In my analysis I used My eye wanders from here to there and I see ... etc. etc. etc. I explained you what I see in your image and what I see in " The Hay Wain "
Interesting you are writing that your eye sees the white shirt of the man on the wain. Until now that you mentioned it draw my attention ... before that that was not a point of interest I saw ...
As you see the way of seeing things from person to person are very different.
Now quoting you First off, I've never claimed my picture is a success.
OK, you made ir clear, but there must be something in that image that you like a lot, because if that would not be the case, you would have presented a different image ¿?
Now, ¿ where do I come from ? I come from taking images from about 45 years ago and after moving to Mexico in 1994 I started very serious while travelling around many parts of Mexico. From the crop of this imaging I set up here in Mexico about 9 photography exhibitions in different cities here in Mexico. Some general themes and dome thematic exhibitions. Sold in that time around 500 photographies. Also participated in a collective exhibition in Germany. So you know a bit about me now.
I joined Lula in August 2002 just a bit before getting my first digital camera.
¿ You want to see some of my work ? Go here www.rsfotografia.com , the images are bit small, as when I started that webpage, now abandoned due to personal reasons, the existinhg monitors were not as big as nowadays :-\
9 years ago I dropped out of terrestrial imaging and spent a lot of time doing Astrophotography with telescopes and dedicated special cameras for astrophotography. Cooled chips, big pixel size, etc. built an Observatory beside my house and imaged the past to about 400 million light years back ;D etc.
A few months ago I started again with terrestrial photography.
OK for everything written above, but I do not see the point in what helps you that, unless you want to judge my expertise in criticising images here. Expertise or no expertise, I think does not matter. I see this User Critique more of expressing what does one like and what not. Throw in points of view.
I know there are rules but there are also there for to be broken. I do not care much about rules.
When I see something, either I like it or not and in this case I did not like it, Sorry, but I see a lot of Potential in this "Rural Spring in All its Glory"
By the way. The message in which you saw the arch of the National Park is not my image and the whole message talks about something totally different topic
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100155.msg820124#msg820124
I asked there ¿ Why do you use a title for your photograph ?
no more no less ::)
Coming now to my suggestions. Looking at your image, one can see that you can move. You are not nailed down onto that point from where you took the picture, but your answer for me is not rational, because you are nailing me down to a point and telling me that I have to go there to see more. I have some imagination and seeing your image I can see that there are possibilities to walk around or drive around.
If you want to go there again or not, is your decision.
Thanks and saludos
-
Slobodan,
Now I have to adopt your forum style...
You did not succeed - I would have italicised "your".
Robert
Rob.
...you probably mean to shoot (photograph) only for myself, not others?
Yes.
...art...is meant to be shared.
There is nothing to stop you sharing a photograph that you shot for you.
-
I keep liking it even though it strikes me as being merely pretty.
I know exactly what you mean - I have many like that and when I try to 'see' what there is there for a neutral observer I am left thinking that I like the image because I was there and it was a 'whole immersion' thing that just seeing an image cannot replicate. This is what makes it difficult for the neutral observer and I think this is where many of the "CSI-Miami landscapes" come from - you are no longer there to 'experience' it as a whole so the temptation is to ramp up the saturation etc to re-create the 'WOW' by other means.
So where does that leave me? Your image is clearly of a very enjoyable day, pastel colours everywhere, blue sky and a wonderful morning(?). I understand what Rainer is saying but for some reason the composition gels more than a mere random snapshot so there must be something there even if I find it hard to put into words what it is. I think it is one that would work very well as part of a photoessay better than it does as a standalone image.
Too many times I see scenes like this and over-analyse it (sort of pre-empting the sort of comments Rainer made) and end up talking myself out of taking it - and I usually end up regretting the decision. I wish I could loosen up a bit and go with my instincts more and your photo is a reminder that I have to, and that not all images have to be of a quality that gets my peers fawning over my porfolio.
-
Russ,
"The Hay Wain" is...infinitely more effective than landscape that avoids the hand of man (Ansel?)...
Perhaps Ansel Adams sought to maximise the strength of the landscape by removing non-landscape features.
-
... Rob...
Can't use it... it's been trademarked. ;)
-
Slobodan,
Can't use it... it's been trademarked.
As the trademark owner I hereby grant you permission to use "Rob" in perpetuity.
-
I know exactly what you mean - I have many like that and when I try to 'see' what there is there for a neutral observer I am left thinking that I like the image because I was there and it was a 'whole immersion' thing that just seeing an image cannot replicate. This is what makes it difficult for the neutral observer and I think this is where many of the "CSI-Miami landscapes" come from - you are no longer there to 'experience' it as a whole so the temptation is to ramp up the saturation etc to re-create the 'WOW' by other means.
So where does that leave me? Your image is clearly of a very enjoyable day, pastel colours everywhere, blue sky and a wonderful morning(?). I understand what Rainer is saying but for some reason the composition gels more than a mere random snapshot so there must be something there even if I find it hard to put into words what it is. I think it is one that would work very well as part of a photoessay better than it does as a standalone image.
Too many times I see scenes like this and over-analyse it (sort of pre-empting the sort of comments Rainer made) and end up talking myself out of taking it - and I usually end up regretting the decision. I wish I could loosen up a bit and go with my instincts more and your photo is a reminder that I have to, and that not all images have to be of a quality that gets my peers fawning over my porfolio.
Hi Spidermike,
(sort of pre-empting the sort of comments Rainer made)
Please explain in simple english words what does that mean so I do not misunderstand it :)
-
Hi Spidermike,
Please explain in simple english words what does that mean so I do not misunderstand it :)
I see a scene like that, I realise it has "no WOW" [your phrase] so do not take it. Instead what I should do is take it because it appeals to me for whatever reason and at least I have the shot in the bag and can decide later if I want to keep it.
-
I see a scene like that, I realise it has "no WOW" [your phrase] so do not take it. Instead what I should do is take it because it appeals to me for whatever reason and at least I have the shot in the bag and can decide later if I want to keep it.
Ah, OK, I have a lot of such shots ;D and sometimes post them for critiques in order to learn ...
... or I post them here http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?board=1.0
::)
-
Russ,
Perhaps Ansel Adams sought to maximise the strength of the landscape by removing non-landscape features.
But when the hand of man is there, it's part of the landscape, Rob. And without man, landscape is nothing. Landscape is beautiful in our eyes, but only in our eyes. Including man or the hand of man in a landscape is to complete the picture and give it meaning.
-
Too many times I see scenes like this and over-analyse it (sort of pre-empting the sort of comments Rainer made) and end up talking myself out of taking it - and I usually end up regretting the decision. I wish I could loosen up a bit and go with my instincts more and your photo is a reminder that I have to, and that not all images have to be of a quality that gets my peers fawning over my porfolio.
Hi Mike,
I can understanding bypassing something if you're shooting with a view camera and sheet film. I used to do it fairly often. After the visual analysis too much trouble to make the shot to justify all the hassle. But with digital, never, never, never fail to make the shot. It's basically free, and you don't need to unload the film, process it, and contact print it to make your final decision.
-
Russ,
...when the hand of man is there, it's part of the landscape... And without man, landscape is nothing...Including man or the hand of man in a landscape is to complete the picture and give it meaning.
Q1. Do you consider that every photo of a landscape unaffected by the hand of man should feature a human?
Q2. What "meaning" do you consider that including the hand of man or a human gives a picture?
-
Hi RobTM,
Obviously I didn't make myself clear. I think that without man to observe it, nature, landscape in this case, from the point of view of man, doesn't exist. Oh, yes, as far as physics are concerned it exists, as do galaxies beyond the range of our sensing devices, but at that level it's an abstraction. I think the relationship between man and nature is what's important, and from the standpoint of visual art if you take man out of the picture you essentially have nothing very interesting.
-
... from the standpoint of visual art if you take man out of the picture you essentially have nothing very interesting.
Couldn't disagree more, Russ. Nature and landscapes are far better off without the hand of man, woman or anything else human (okay, maybe Neolithic man). There are some stunning and compelling landscapes wrought by the hand of man, but natural landscapes without the hand of man are just as important - if not more so, as they remind us of how much we've done to diminish this poor old planet. The nice thing is, Earth will recover, once we are gone.
-
but natural landscapes without the hand of man are just as important - if not more so, as they remind us of how much we've done to diminish this poor old planet.
So man is also an important part of an untouched landscape because the fact we are screwing the planet up makes us appreciate the untouched ones even more. Man is always there...even when he isn't.
Part ;D and part ??? and part :-\
-
¿ You want to see some of my work ? Go here www.rsfotografia.com , the images are bit small, as when I started that webpage, now abandoned due to personal reasons, the existinhg monitors were not as big as nowadays :-\
The size of the images doesn't bother me. It seems to be technically competent work of a very formal and static variety. How about going out and doing some current shooting and posting it on LuLa so we can see what you're able to do now.
I know there are rules but there are also tere for to be broken. I do not care much about rules.
Rainer, I can't begin to tell you how many times I heard that statement from callow youths who brought "art" into my wife's gallery during the ten years she owned it. If you're serious you probably ought to consider dropping that line.
Coming now to my suggestions. Looking at your image, one can see that you can move. You are not nailed down onto that point from where you took the picture, but your answer for me is not rational, because you are nailing me down to a point and telling me that I have to go there to see more. I have some imagination and seeing your image I can see that there are possibilities to walk around or drive around.
Actually, Rainer, you have no idea how much I walked around the subject or how many frames I shot, or what any of the problems were/are with that particular subject. I see this kind of thing far too often on LuLa: "Here's what you should have done." -- always coming from people whose only knowledge of the subject is what's visible in the crop of the photograph. There's no way you can even guess what was possible.
-
Couldn't disagree more, Russ. Nature and landscapes are far better off without the hand of man, woman or anything else human (okay, maybe Neolithic man). There are some stunning and compelling landscapes wrought by the hand of man, but natural landscapes without the hand of man are just as important - if not more so, as they remind us of how much we've done to diminish this poor old planet. The nice thing is, Earth will recover, once we are gone.
Easy, Terry. You're talking politics now, not art, and I see Mike has gone off on the same tangent. "Once we're gone" what the hell difference is any of it going to make? No landscape is stunning or compelling to anybody other than man.
-
How about going out and doing some current shooting ...
It is raining quite strong right now ...
-
Good lord! Comments that it's not a landscape to "now you're talking politics"! It's an image! Rainer's second post offered several decent alternative angles of view. None including yours can be described as exciting. Any philosophical or physical comments can be shrugged aside as totally immaterial. It's an image. Not bad. Certainly not great. Nice image.
-
As they say in Canada, "Eh?"
-
Terry,
Nature and landscapes are far better off without the hand of man, woman or anything else human...
The presence of a human in a landscape photo can provide a sense of scale that otherwise would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
-
Russ,
...what you're suggesting is that there HAS to be a specifically selected, tight point of focus in a picture for it to hang together. In street photography I'd agree with you. In landscape I don't.
By what means did you place focus? Feature specific? Hyperfocal? Other alternative?
-
I'm not talking about camera focus, Rob. I'm talking about a prime emotional focus for the scene. As far as the camera is concerned I was shooting with the D800. I probably focused on the fence, but at f/8 everything's in proper focus. As far as the emotional focus point is concerned, Rainer's right. There really isn't one.
-
Russ,
Jeffrey and Rainer both consider the subject of your photo to be ambiguous:
For me, it lacks a clear subject.
...you have there 3 main objects fighting each for being the main object in the image.
I wondered on what basis you decided where to locate the focus plane, given that you do not consider it mandatory for a landscape photo to have a principal subject:
...what you're suggesting is that there HAS to be a specifically selected, tight point of focus in a picture for it to hang together. In street photography I'd agree with you. In landscape I don't.
I considered that your response may indicate what you subconsciously consider the subject of the photo to be, potentially helping you to understand why you like it:
I keep passing by this picture in my archives because it strikes me as merely pretty, "merely" being the operative word. But I still like it. Since I've been a pretty serious photographer and enthusiastic visual art aficionado for about 72 years it seems to me I ought to be able to understand why I like it. I don't really, but I still like it
However:
I probably focused on the fence...
Apparently you either do not recall where focus was placed, or you considered placement of the focus plane unimportant.
-
Rob, Not only do I not recall exactly where focus was placed, I couldn't care less. For a scene like this one, at f/8 it doesn't matter where the camera was focused unless you're pointing it at your feet or at a distant cloud. The D800 with a 24-120 f/4 set at f/8, zoomed to about 60mm and focused at roughly 50 feet, which is what's going on here is going to give you good focus from about 30 feet to infinity. Minimal sharpening will raise those limits. I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.
-
Terry,
The presence of a human in a landscape photo can provide a sense of scale that otherwise would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Yes, and I was born yesterday. For those who appreciate "the presence of a human in a landscape" - fine. But I, for one, don't. That age-old adage has been around as long as there have been landscapes in any medium - and for people like me, it's just as invalid today as it was when it was first stated. If you're making documentaries, fine, you need a scale. But not everyone is making documentaries when they trip the shutter.
-
Terry,
That age-old adage has been around as long as there have been landscapes in any medium - and for people like me, it's just as invalid today as it was when it was first stated.
Please can you explain why you consider invalid my statement that "the presence of a human in a landscape photo can provide a sense of scale that otherwise would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."?
-
As they say in Canada, "Eh?"
I'm sure you can manage the same monosyllabic response in America since you claim Colorado/Florida as your home.
I'm fairly certain that you don't need a dictionary but just in case....
Nope - as they say in Canada/America - can't be bothered. Since you've been taking images for 72 years you would do well to accept any criticisms with a "Thanks, I'll bear that in mind" type of response.
-
That would be nice, Tony, but the fact is, I haven't the remotest clue what it is you want me to keep in mind.
-
But not everyone is making documentaries when they trip the shutter.
True. Some use the presence of people in a landscape to provoke an emotional response -- the awesome immensity of a mountainside overwhelming tiny figures. Some use the absence of people (absence of scale) in a landscape to puzzle -- after a sequence of closeups, a long distance image of canyon side (http://www.cartermuseum.org/collections/porter/images/details/P1990-51-5573-1.jpg).
-
The presence of a human in a landscape photo can provide a sense of scale that otherwise would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
But it's not just a sense of scale that makes landscape that includes a human blow away landscape that's nothing but "nature." People are always interested in people, and people are the ones who look at visual art. Dogs couldn't care less, nor could horses or cows. I'll go out on a long limb and say that when a human is in a picture the human always is the center of the picture's focus (emotional focus, Rob, not camera focus).
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I love nature as much as anyone loves it, and there's a lot of it in Colorado and in Florida, as there was in Michigan where I grew up. But what's striking and wonderful about nature is what's in it. You need to be there to appreciate it properly. Landscapes without humans or the hand of man make nice wallpaper.
-
I think that without man to observe it, nature, landscape in this case, from the point of view of man, doesn't exist.
Bishop Berkeley lives again!
Jeremy
-
Terry,
Please can you explain why you consider invalid my statement that "the presence of a human in a landscape photo can provide a sense of scale that otherwise would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."?
In my forties, I took advantage of a teaching opportunity, moved to England and promptly joined a very dedicated local "photo club" - a great group who placed far more value on the photograph than the equipment used to make it (a nice change from what I'do experienced in my "home" country, Canada). After showing a few times and becoming despondent about the lack of enthusiastic response to my landscapes, I asked a few members and a couple of judges about it. Invariably the response came back regarding the lack of people in my landscapes. Well, I thought, I can add people to my landscapes as well as the next person, but it's not the way I, personally, like landscapes.
About a year later it finally came to me why I prefer not to have people in landscapes and why my English friends seem to feel differently (perhaps not all, but certainly the ones in the circles I got to know). It all has to do with context....
I grew up in Canada enjoying the great outdoors and near wilderness experiences of canoeing and backpacking and camping in places that were basically empty of people. In fact, to hear people from another campsite on the same lake somehow diminished the experience. Even our family cottage is situated on a relatively busy lake, but with almost no human presence on the opposite shore. I revel in the absence of humanity. I crave the moments when I can look out on a landscape and enjoy nature as it exists naturally - romantic as it sounds!
While fell walking through the immensely beautiful and relatively barren Yorkshire Dales, it struck me that we saw people regularly throughout the day. Every 15 to 30 minutes we either passed other hikers or were passed by hikers, as I stopped to photograph the landscape. The same thing was true EVERYWHERE we went hiking in Britain. Bingo - now I know why my English friends want people in there landscapes. (Really, it's just an untested theory.)
And, perhaps, long-winded as it seems, this is your answer. It's not "right" or "wrong" to have people in landscapes, it all depends on what your personal experience has been. I know that to many people, even many here in Canada, my landscapes are generally more "accepted" if there is a person or people in them - but then, that's not me. I'm not about to add people just to satisfy those who "need" a person.
It might just be worth a study - why do people feel the need for people in landscapes?
-
Bishop Berkeley lives again!
Hi Jeremy,
Not quite. As I understand Berkeley he believed things exist only in the minds of their observers. That's not what I'm saying. I believe things exist independently of their observers but that without observers their existence is meaningless. Maybe I misunderstand what Berkeley's saying but I don't think so.
-
That's a fascinating tale, Terry. Based on what you're saying I can understand why you prefer nature without people. But my background isn't all that different from yours. I grew up in Michigan and spent summers in a quite empty northern part of the state, in a cottage with a hand pump, outhouse, and a lake for a bathtub. At 14 and for three years following I'd occasionally spend a couple days in the woods with a bedroll and a 22 rifle, loving every minute of it. In the late 1950's I lived in Beausejour Manitoba for nearly three years, and, again enjoyed the outdoors as often as I could. Since 1965 I've spent a lot of days in the Colorado mountains and enjoyed those days too.
But nature without people is not a photograph of nature without people. I enjoyed nature without people (I say "enjoyed" because now I'm old enough that I can't reasonably go off alone into a landscape without people.) To me a photograph of nature showing the hand of man wins hands-down over a photograph of nature without people. A work of art is not the experience upon which it's based. It's a work of art.
-
Russ,
...nature without people is not a photograph of nature without people.
Nature would continue to go about her business if people ceased to exist. People are but a part of nature.
By your rationale every nature photograph should feature all living things.
-
Nature would continue to go about her business if people ceased to exist
So what?
-
That's a fascinating tale, Terry. Based on what you're saying I can understand why you prefer nature without people. But my background isn't all that different from yours. I grew up in Michigan and spent summers in a quite empty northern part of the state, in a cottage with a hand pump, outhouse, and a lake for a bathtub. At 14 and for three years following I'd occasionally spend a couple days in the woods with a bedroll and a 22 rifle, loving every minute of it. In the late 1950's I lived in Beausejour Manitoba for nearly three years, and, again enjoyed the outdoors as often as I could. Since 1965 I've spent a lot of days in the Colorado mountains and enjoyed those days too.
But nature without people is not a photograph of nature without people. I enjoyed nature without people (I say "enjoyed" because now I'm old enough that I can't reasonably go off alone into a landscape without people.) To me a photograph of nature showing the hand of man wins hands-down over a photograph of nature without people. A work of art is not the experience upon which it's based. It's a work of art.
Good point, Russ, but I just can't agree with the your perspective of "a photograph of nature showing the hand of man wins hands-down over a photograph of nature without people". My story certainly has validity for me, but I understand that everyone's experiences are different and many may feel the need for the hand of man in natural landscapes. But we'll have to agree to disagree as I strongly feel the hand of man does not elevate landscapes to a higher plain; it might work for some landscapes and some people, perhaps even for many, but not for all.
Where we do agree is your final point: "A work of art is not the experience upon which it's based. It's a work of art", which, to me makes the hand of man in any work of art is irrelevant. Your point of view and my point of view on this topic differs and that's a good thing!
-
Fair enough, Terry. We agree to disagree. Without rancor.
-
Not quite. As I understand Berkeley he believed things exist only in the minds of their observers. That's not what I'm saying. I believe things exist independently of their observers but that without observers their existence is meaningless. Maybe I misunderstand what Berkeley's saying but I don't think so.
That's not quite the observation to which I responded, is it?
I think that without man to observe it, nature, landscape in this case, from the point of view of man, doesn't exist.
I'm content that your current formulation differs from Berkeley's, anyway.
There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
If the juniper tree
Discontinues to be
When there's no-one around in the quad."
Jeremy
-
That's not quite the observation to which I responded, is it?
I think that without man to observe it, nature, landscape in this case, from the point of view of man, doesn't exist.
I don't think Berkeley included that modifying phrase in his philosophy.
-
+1
Btw, nothing wrong with "rejecting" a critique. That is called a debate, a difference of opinion. Which is not the same as rejecting someone's right to critique.
+1
-
Hi Russ.
The photo dosen´t speak to me. There is to many things going on. But it could be my current mood, what I just looked at or something else that makes me say that.
Any way there is as many opinions on photos as there is people. Well almost ;-)
But the colors and contrast in the shot me like.
David
-
I have a strong visceral reaction to this: vertigo. I like the figure--she ads to the drama. When I was a kid in college, my buddies and I would go rock climbing in Minnesota--lots of cool places along Lake Superior and up along the boundary waters. Height didn't bother me then. Over the past fifteen years, since my early 40s, I've gotten progressively more fearful of heights. When my eye focuses on the woman in the frame, I imagine I am seeing the view from her point of view. And that is when the queasiness sets in. I also find her mysteriously attractive, which further draws me into the story.
-
I don't think Berkeley included that modifying phrase in his philosophy.
I think it was implied. His philosophy is even more meaningless without it.
Jeremy