Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Landscape Showcase => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 13, 2019, 03:12:16 pm
-
Went yesterday to Naples, on the west coast of Florida, to shoot remnants of an old pier, a spot known as Old Pilings, at sunset. In spite of a persistent drizzling throughout, we were ultimately rewarded with a riot of colors.
-
As I mentioned, the drizzle was persistent and annoying. As I was shooting bracketed, I found that I quite like the +2 frames. Adds to the perceived bleakness of the landscape in the cloudy, rainy afternoon:
-
Nice, first and last are pretty wild, pushing it in terms of saturation but still on my acceptable side (barely ;)). After all we are supposed to interpret and not record.
-
Nice, first and last are pretty wild, pushing it in terms of saturation but still on my acceptable side (barely ;)). After all we are supposed to interpret and not record.
Well, there was some processing, of course, but not much added in terms of color or saturation to the out-of-camera shot. Surprising how how the camera "interpreted" the colors (iphone shot):
-
Great set, Slobodan.
How much did you have to pay the pelicans to pose so nicely for you?
-
Eric, I paid with numerous insect bites on my legs. Not sure pelicans accept such a currency, though.
-
Eric, I paid with numerous insect bites on my legs. ...
I forgot it's prime time now. What I hate about South Florida mosquitoes is that many are silent, if you don't see them you'll feel them.
You can say you paid with blood to take these.
-
As I mentioned, the drizzle was persistent and annoying. As I was shooting bracketed, I found that I quite like the +2 frames. Adds to the perceived bleakness of the landscape in the cloudy, rainy afternoon:
Nice feeling here.
-
Good set. #2 is my favourite.
-
As I mentioned, the drizzle was persistent and annoying. As I was shooting bracketed, I found that I quite like the +2 frames. Adds to the perceived bleakness of the landscape in the cloudy, rainy afternoon:
Best of a good set, I think.
Jeremy
-
As I mentioned, the drizzle was persistent and annoying. As I was shooting bracketed, I found that I quite like the +2 frames. Adds to the perceived bleakness of the landscape in the cloudy, rainy afternoon:
Nice image and great composition, Slobodan. And your signature logo is another pretty element, exceptionally well placed.
-
Masterful !
-
Wow, very good Slobodan!! I even like the +2 one. I expect to make it to the family's place in West Palm come the colder weather. We should hook up with Russ and try those variations on The Manhattan that were were talking about ;)
-
Some nice colours here and a very enjoyable scene that looks well exposed, but its the old 'Touching Edges Problem' that kills the sunset shots for me I am afraid.
I used to tell photographers (if they were willing to listen of course), that I have found that any landscape or seascape scene usually works better, if I shoot it from an angle that avoids any touching edges anywhere along the horizon line wherever possible.
I used to also then tell them that if they couldn't get high enough to lower the edges of the foreground objects beneath the horizon line, then they should try to get lower so that the objects then appeared to intentionally break trough the horizon line.
So not trying to have a needless pop at your work here Slobodan, as I know you are a really good, published photographer, that none the less still appreciates a genuine and considered critique of your work and so even though I would probably not dare to offer this type of feedback to many other photographers on this site, I believe I have come to know you well enough over the years to hope that you will accept what I am saying, albeit based solely on my point of view on such matters and even though you might not agree with me.
But as always, I can only be honest (to the point of becoming really annoying my wife often tells me) and say that the sunset shots you are showing here Slobodan just don't work for me, because all I can see is the top edges of the pilings touching the horizon line.
Perhaps I have become more OCD than I realised and so this in no way troubles anyone else ???
Sorry :)
Dave
-
Perhaps I have become more OCD than I realised and so this in no way troubles anyone else ???
Dave
I agree with your opinion, Dave.
I just didn't say. Sorry about that.
-
I agree with your opinion, Dave.
I just didn't say...
Minion.
-
breaking the horizon line
On the other hand, breaking this "rule" creates a tension that draws attention :D to the pelicans on the pilings, at least in my view. When I first looked at these, the "horizon rule" flitted through my mind, but then I realized that Slobodan had to be composing this way deliberately. I can say this, however, my intellectual/visual/emotional response is significantly less conflicted with image #3 where the pilings are just below the horizon; that's probably why I would choose that as my favorite. Haven't seen sunsets like that since SLC, Slobodan!
-
Minion.
Maybe, yes.
I was a little ashamed to say anything because the first thing that struck my eye was not the bad composition but the ugly "ornaments" in the sky which are worse than anything.
The bad composition is only secondary.
-
The tops of the posts are so close to perfectly aligned with the horizon that I just assumed it was a purposeful act of being different.
-
...it's the old 'Touching Edges Problem' that kills the sunset shots for me...
That's it, you are not my friend anymore!
Just kidding, of course. It is a fair point.
I have a short and a long response. The short one: it is what it is. The long one (although it appears even shorter): it depends.
It depends on who is looking at (or dare I say buying?) the image. I've come to realize that photographers, in general, are a) very picky, sticklers for "rules," and are bothered by things that others simply do not notice or pay attention to and b) not (my) buyers. This isn't directed at you in particular, Dave, as I am probably the same when I look at other people's work with my photographer's hat on.
First, a bit of a background. Let's start with a list of excuses ;)
- the drizzle was annoying
- it was hot and humid
- even hotter when I had to put my rain jacket on
- sandflies were biting me (that night I couldn't fall asleep till 6am, as I had about more than two dozen painful and itching bite marks on my legs, and for the whole week since I have been walking around Florida with my long trousers on, trying to avoid the impression of a drug user's skin lesions)
- I am lazy
As you might have noticed, in the high-key shot, the pilings are well below the horizon. That's just because I am lazy, as I said, and prefer to shoot from tripod without having to bend down or squat (age, damn it!). But then, when the sun finally started to show up, and the colors exploded, I realized I need to have the leftmost bird framed between the two clouds and silhouetted against the brighter area in-between. For that, I had to pick up the tripod and move to the left, and closer to the water line. At that point, I realized I am too high and the bird would not be against the sky, but against the much darker water. So, I battled my laziness and decided to shorten the legs (the tripod ones, obviously; I'd prefer mine extended, if possible). Since I was shooting vertical panoramas at the same time, I also had to readjust the leveling base, between the ball head and tripod. At that point, I got what I wanted: the leftmost bird nicely framed and fully above the horizon, and all the other birds as well. To get there, I had to push tripod legs into the sand as far as it would go. Lowering the legs any further would have required untigheting and retightening all three, and then re-adjusting the leveling base. Given how quickly the light changes at sunset, especially so south (it ain't Iceland, when the sunset can last for hours), I started shooting with that setting. My main focus, literally and figuratively, was on the birds at that moment, not pilings.
Now, a bit of retroactive justifications:
As I said, pilings were not my main concern at the time of shooting. However, had I thought that the shot is unusable because of that, I would have sent it to the bin already in Lightroom. Why not? In general, I agree with you about the horizon touching problem. Have I had the pilings as the main and only element in the picture, I would have agreed with you that the shot should be killed. But they are not. It's the birds. Pilings are there, but not dominant. Birds are. In retrospect, have I had the pilings protrude above the horizon, I have a feeling it would actually "pierce" the horizon in such a way to break the sense of tranquility that a long, uninterrupted horizon creates, especially in the panorama version.
If only we could see versions with different height levels, to compare. Oh, wait, we can! I was shooting with two other photographer friends, Noel de Christian and Santos López. They posted their pictures publicly in the meantime, on Instagram, so I can share them here. Santos even has both versions, above and below the horizon.
And finally, touching the horizon may not be such an anathema after all, as the Grand Master Pete Turner can attest to that ;)
Ultimately, if it annoys you - I take the blame
If it doesn't - I take the credit :)
In any case, we can have a lovely discussion about it.
P.S. For some reason, the attached images lost their authors in the description. The first one is Noel de Christian, the next two Santos López, and the last one Pete Turner
-
...the next two Santos López...
For me the first one by Santos is more akin to how I would have composed it and therefore I have an automatic bias towards that image and would select it as being above the rest.
So after now reading your long and detailed reply (thanks for that BTW), are you saying that in retrospect you still prefer your composition over Santos's version? And if we can imagine for a moment that you could go back in time and retake it, would you now go for Santos's type of composition over your previous composition?
I know what it is like Slobodan to get carried away and to focus on the part of the scene, that at the time of shooting I think is the most important detail (the birds in this instance) and without too much consideration for the rest of the scene - we all do it. But isn't it good practice and arguably more satisfying artistically, if we can also take everything else into account within the frame, so that all parts of the image are then composed deliberately and harmoniously wherever possible? If I have an image that has a problem to my eye, or that is pointed out to me, then being the pedant that I am, I know I will be unable to ignore it and so I will go back armed with this knowledge and re-shoot it and if I can't re-shoot it, then I will abandon that location for a while or even perhaps for ever.
However, I do whole heartedly agree with you about what your customers will be happy with and how that is invariably not going to be other photographers who are a very picky bunch indeed. ;)
Dave
-
... I will abandon that location for a while or even perhaps for ever...
I surely won't go back to the scene of the sand flies crime ;)
-
I'm with Pete. Best of the crop.
-
I'm with Pete. Best of the crop.
Pete Turner? :)
-
... I used to tell photographers (if they were willing to listen of course), that I have found that any landscape or seascape scene usually works better, if I shoot it from an angle that avoids any touching edges anywhere along the horizon line wherever possible...
Let me turn the table, Dave, and ask you: why? Why do you consider that rule so critical? What is the esthetic reason for that? What happens when there is touching? (When did you become a supporter of the #MeToo movement, by the way? 😉 )
I have provided an opposite example, Pete Turner’s image, which deliberately breaks that rule, if there is any. I remember that image from my photographic bible, Perception and Imaging, where the author specifically addresses the issue and why it works. That image is even on the cover:
-
I have provided an opposite example, Pete Turner’s image, which deliberately breaks that rule, if there is any. I remember that image from my photographic bible, Perception and Imaging, where the author specifically addresses the issue and why it works. That image is even on the cover:
Your book states that the image plays tricks with the eye that viewers are not aware at a conscious level.
It emphasizes the beautiful simmetry and simplicity and the clever use of red, yellow and blue.
No pelicans in sight. Nor scratches in the sky ;)
And, if you look attentively, there is a small distance (one pixel between the red and the black lines in the pic). That probably completes the trick,
Just my humble opinion
-
Let me turn the table, Dave, and ask you: why? Why do you consider that rule so critical? What is the esthetic reason for that? What happens when there is touching? (When did you become a supporter of the #MeToo movement, by the way? 😉 )
You know what Slobodan if I am truly honest, I don't really know why I find it a problem, other than I know it jars with my feeling of a 'comfortable' composition, as it draws my eyes straight to it - although thinking about it now, I think it just might simply come down to creating a sort of clean separation of objects and so allowing the viewer to develop a feeling of completeness in what they are seeing.
And it is not only horizon lines, I try to find a composition of wherever I am and whatever I am photographing, where as many edge lines as possible do not touch, because, well it just feels right and comfortable. See the first attached image as an example of this thought process, whereby I didn't just try to choose the best composition I could find for the standing stones shot (although that certainly helps), it also had to be from an angle that provided me with as many none touching edges as I could find. In other words, with this shot there could only ever be one exact place I could stand and setup my camera, at just one height on the tripod and using only one focal length, that would allow me to capture this image in the way that I wanted to and with as much separation as I could find. Composition selection for me just isn't a loose or random process anymore (if I can help it), because it has now evolved into a whole lot more anally retentive process than that and I was doing it well before it became a 'thing' :)
I have provided an opposite example, Pete Turner’s image, which deliberately breaks that rule, if there is any. I remember that image from my photographic bible, Perception and Imaging, where the author specifically addresses the issue and why it works. That image is even on the cover:
I think Pete's shot is actually a good example of what I have just been saying above, whereby he has identified this touching line as a deliberate compositional choice, because he wanted to base the composition of his image on what I can only assume to be a 'Mondrian' design, which would then require that the lines did indeed touch and the image can then be seen as a two dimensional construct containing a series of blocks of colour etc, see second image.
So being aware of touching lines and the interaction of all object edges within the scene, allows me to make such choices, so my none touching lines rule (if you wish to call it that), means that by identifying such interactions and tensions, I can also choose to make lines touch if I want to, albeit not very often, see third image.
Dave :) :D ;D
-
... he has identified this touching line as a deliberate compositional choice... and the image can then be seen as a two dimensional construct containing a series of blocks of colour etc...
Exactly, Dave.
So is my choice deliberate, and for the same reason: it compresses the natural 3D scene into a graphic 2D blocks of colors (purple/blue and yellow/orange) where the uninterrupted horizon serves as a clear delineation between the blocks, with only the main focus (birds, not pilings) stand out (without piercing/interrupting the horizon line) You might have noticed that I have a penchant for graphics; I even have a section of my portfolio devoted to it: https://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/p631768190. Silhouettes, by default, are a 2D instrument just as well.
So, if one wants to create a sense of depth in a landscape, by all means separate the elements (as you nicely did in your first and second example). If you go for a graphic representation, however... (as your third example equally nicely demonstrates).
P.S. I've always been dreaming about coming to Scotland and shooting with you. Given you a-retentive approach, I'll have to reconsider ;)
-
Pete Turner? :)
Yes.
-
Let me turn the table, Dave, and ask you: why? Why do you consider that rule so critical? What is the esthetic reason for that? What happens when there is touching? (When did you become a supporter of the #MeToo movement, by the way? 😉 )
I have provided an opposite example, Pete Turner’s image, which deliberately breaks that rule, if there is any. I remember that image from my photographic bible, Perception and Imaging, where the author specifically addresses the issue and why it works. That image is even on the cover:
That book was in my student's library (6 copies) because it gave far more insight into "seeing" rather than just "looking."