Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: shadowblade on April 15, 2012, 08:23:28 pm
-
45-minute exposure of star trails over Manaslu, the Earth's 8th highest peak, in Nepal. The onset of moonrise at the end of the exposure illuminates the mountain from the southeast.
EDIT: Again, the JPEG compression kind of kills it...
-
Great photo! Thanks for sharing. :)
I even clicked on it a second time to enjoy it again.
-
Beautiful image!
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Stunning image. Everything is "right", star trails and Manaslu well lit.
Congrats!
-
Absolutely stunning. Oh how I wish for a long exposure capability on the Hasselblad. Longer than the measly minute (or ninety seconds or so when used the view camera)
-
It took three attempts on three consecutive nights to get the exposure and timing exactly right, lying in the snow at 4500m and -32 degrees centigrade for an hour each time!
-
Almost too many stars there... ;D Great picture and worth the effort.
Where was the viewpoint, we tried to do the Manaslu circuit in -09 but had to turn back form Samagaon as the pass was blocked by snow. Continued back to Arughat, took a bus to AC and went to Naar-Phu.
-
Freaking awesome! I know, such an educated response...but really, it's freaking awesome. ;D
-
I agree. The correct technical term is "freaking awesome!"
-
I agree. The correct technical term is "freaking awesome!"
Only in polite online company, Eric. In less genteel environs, the first word may be strengthened a tad.
Jeremy
-
Ok, time for a little rain on this parade (or would "meteor shower" be more appropriate?)
I must be the only one who finds it cliche and mildly annoying, thus ruining perfectly good photographs. I mean it was really cool to see it, like, 30-40 years ago, when it was a rare sight, but after a gazillion versions in the digital and internet age, it lost its luster. It is on the path to become as ubiquitous, cliche and kitsch as orange sunsets. I also find the sheer amounts of it in this particular photo rather excessive.
But again, it must be just me.
-
Ok, time for a little rain on this parade (or would "meteor shower" be more appropriate?)
I must be the only one who finds it cliche and mildly annoying, thus ruining perfectly good photographs. I mean it was really cool to see it, like, 30-40 years ago, when it was a rare sight, but after a gazillion versions in the digital and internet age, it lost its luster. It is on the path to become as ubiquitous, cliche and kitsch as orange sunsets. I also find the sheer amounts of it in this particular photo rather excessive.
Orange sunsets, kitsch? You know, I'm almost inclined to agree with you.
But wow, where does that leave the photographer?
And would sunrises fit into the same basket?
I do agree that this photo is ... not special? The star trails are over done.
-
So, what then would constitute a "freaking awesome" shot for you? I am not being snotty in my response, but part of my awe lies with the knowledge he laid in snow for three hours making the shot...and, while it may well be an overdone shot, what really hasn't been a copy of something someone else has already done? Photography is very much like movies, once you've hit the Seven Deadly Sins in plot structure, everything else is a remake. Hopefully or perhaps thankfully a better cliche, some producers do it quite well. Oh well, I would be proud to call that shot my own.
-
These forums aren't threaded so please get into the habit of using the quote button and showing the most relevant bit of the comment that you're replying to - that way the rest of us can see exactly who and what you're responding to :-)
Primarily to Slobodan Blagojevic, but as well to some of the others who felt the image was too glitzy. This is one of those agreeing to disagree moments. I certainly respect all people's opinions, but I don't always agree.
-
Thanks for that clarification (it would have been even clearer if you'd named more names rather than "some of the others").
But you did seem to agree with dreed, you said - "while it may well be an overdone shot".
What if you hadn't been told about the effort required to make the photograph? What would the photograph mean to you?
Overdone was an incorrect term on my part. I should have said it was a shot recreated many times over. I am not sure anything would change in my initial response as it is still an extremely well crafted shot. Had the moon not risen..who knows, had there been less stars, again, who knows. I like the combination of everything and how it all seems to tie together. Hey, but I am just a bit of a newbie hack in the digital world, so ask me again in a year.
-
I'm sad to hear how this thread has ended up. The OP made a stunning photo and others agree. But then Slobodan rained on the parade, which although is unfortunate, is not entirely without precedence on these forums. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I thinks it's great that people share what they see and photograph. In this case, it wasn't posted in "User Critiques" but in a more general forum. Yes, we've seen star trails before, but we've also seen the Big Sur Coast, Yosemite, the Mittens, rainbows and a whole host of sunsets in these forums without anyone saying "Oh, we've seen that a million times before." In fact, it would be difficult to post a photo on this forum that people haven't seen before. One of the steps in growing as a photographer is being able to achieve a certain, difficult technique - even if it's been done before. Shadowblade did that and did it well enough for a number of excellent photographers on this forum to say so. It's called encouragement.
And...
Slobodan: "I also find the sheer amounts of it [star trails] in this particular photo rather excessive."
dreed: "The star trails are over done."
...to criticize the number of stars!! Give me a break - you guys need to get out more often! That's what the sky looks like in true wilderness away from noise polluted cities! How can you criticize Mother Nature for having too many stars!! Or perhaps you want the photographer to brush a few out!
Thanks for sharing Shadowblade - don't let the turkeys get you down! Keep shooting what you like shooting. If others find it "ubiquitous, cliche and kitsch" - ignore them. Perhaps they think they are try to help you by pointing this out. I dunno?!?
I, for one, would like Shadowblade to tell us how he managed a 45-minute exposure (I assume, on a digital camera, but may have been with film – he doesn't say) without a level of noise that overwhelms the photo. As well, how is it that your batteries didn't give out at that temperature? On a manual, mechanical film camera, I can understand, but on a digital??
-
Terry
Slobodan was completely entitled to have a different view from others, and to say so. This is not, or should not be, a place where one posts a picture and everyone replies "great shot" or "+1" (or though that seems to be the case these days).
I thought shadowblade's Dune picture was terrific, and said so, even though we have all seen a thousand dune shots already. That one was special - and I did say why I thought so, in some detail. In this case, even if the photographer did have to endure extreme discomfort in a remote location, this picture - as a picture - does nothing for me. It simply relies on a gimmick to grab our attention, a gimmick which has been so overdone (just like sunsets, sunrises, long exposures and misty water, foreground anchors -oh, and Yosemite from that particular viewpoint) that I have no interest in it.
Thank you, Slobodan, for having the courage of your convictions.
John
-
Terry, I will not engage in a spitting match with you, i.e., will not comment on your assessment of my postings, nor the fact that you just called me "a stupid and inept person" (a.k.a. turkey), I think all that should be between you and your mother, or whoever raised you.
But I do want to address two points:
How can you criticize Mother Nature for having too many stars!!
I do not... I was referring to recording that many stars as star trails. I would definitely prefer to see them without the trails.
Another point is that I already expressed my admiration for two other Shadowblade's photographs on this forum. Thus my post was not a criticism of his photography, and not even of this particular photograph in general, but of one single element of it (I did say it "ruined a perfectly good photograph").
-
Slobodan was completely entitled to have a different view from others, and to say so.
That's what I said in my post: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion." I just chose to disagree with him and take him to task for it.
No, these forums shouldn't turn into a forum where everyone replies "great shot" or "+1". I just find that it too easy to simply criticize rather than provide critical input towards improvement. It is so easy to say "Yep, it's been done before" that even that comment is now "ubiquitous, cliche and kitsch".
My feeling is that we, as a community, would be better served by having constructive criticism, not criticism for the sake of criticism.
-
Here is a similar shot without as many star trails from a photographer I greatly admire, Yan Zhang.
(http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=15729&d=1311245684)
-
Here is a similar shot without as many star trails from a photographer I greatly admire, Yan Zhang.
Hmmm.
So now we've got the foreground anchor, long exposure with the misty water, and the star trails . . .
Sorry, Chris, I just couldn't resist it ;)
It is rather a nice picture.
John
-
And...
Slobodan: "I also find the sheer amounts of it [star trails] in this particular photo rather excessive."
dreed: "The star trails are over done."
...to criticize the number of stars!! Give me a break - you guys need to get out more often! That's what the sky looks like in true wilderness away from noise polluted cities! How can you criticize Mother Nature for having too many stars!! Or perhaps you want the photographer to brush a few out!
This reminds me of the part in the movie Amadeus where the King tells Mozart that the piece has too many notes. Amadeus asks, "which ones would the King have me take out?"
I personally like the shot and can imagine the cold biting places that shouldn't be bitten!! :o
-
In this case, it wasn't posted in "User Critiques" but in a more general forum.
Well, if we're going to start taking the forum names and descriptions seriously - exactly which "technical and aesthetic issues" of "Landscape & Nature Photography" were discussed in the original posting? :-)
afaict some of the forum names and descriptions are not a good indication of what goes on in the discussion forum; so, as it seems to be what you'd really like to see, by all means campaign to have this forum renamed:
- User Encouragement - A "safe house" where user submitted photographs are approved and admired.
No, I'm not being sarcastic - so something less kindergarten:
- Landscape & Nature Photography - A "safe house" where user submitted photographs may be admired.
-
I, for one, would like Shadowblade to tell us how he managed a 45-minute exposure (I assume, on a digital camera, but may have been with film – he doesn't say) without a level of noise that overwhelms the photo. As well, how is it that your batteries didn't give out at that temperature? On a manual, mechanical film camera, I can understand, but on a digital??
I was running at the extreme end of battery life in that temperature. I had a heat pack over the lens (to prevent fogging) while leaving the body in the cold, to minimise noise from heat. I also performed a dark frame subtraction on the final image.
-
I would have liked to take a photo with just the stars (no trails) and moonlit mountain, but, with the short exposure time required to avoid motion blurring of the stars at 100mm, this just wasn't possible. Also, a shot of the Milky Way at 100mm is somewhat less impressive than a wider vista taken at, say, 21mm.
In any case, the shot was never about the star trails - it was about the moonlit mountain. The trails, running in the direction that they are, were intended as a tool to help frame the mountain and provide balance to the shot (instead of a more-or-less detailless sky, as would have been the case if I had skipped the first 44 minutes prior to moonrise, then just exposed the moonlit mountain), rather than being the subject of the shot in their own right.
Also, this shot was taken in early 2009 - there seems to have been a proliferation of star trails shots since then, often with no point of interest other than the trails themselves, which has made star trails rather 'cliche' since then...
-
fwiw on a small screen if I try to look just at the mountain, my eyes are pulled back to the star trails again and again - they're high-contrast high-attention. Maybe that's different with a large print, maybe there's more space between the individual star trails.
Not so much on a 20x30" or 40x60" print - if I may say so, it looks fairly spectacular printed large on Bay Photo's MetalPrints.
The JPEG compression and inevitable sharpening associated with downsizing doesn't help the web image.
-
Hmmm, wait a minute, have you shown your work at "Palo Alto Festival of the Arts" or "Mountain View Art & Wine Festival"?
No - why?
I'm Australia-based, so never heard of those festivals.
-
I, for one, would like Shadowblade to tell us how he managed a 45-minute exposure (I assume, on a digital camera, but may have been with film – he doesn't say) without a level of noise that overwhelms the photo. As well, how is it that your batteries didn't give out at that temperature? On a manual, mechanical film camera, I can understand, but on a digital??
Same here, I think my digital cameras have a 30 sec B limit, and the batteries usually run out in less than an hour when doing time-lapse. Even in normal temperatures.
-
And...
Slobodan: "I also find the sheer amounts of it [star trails] in this particular photo rather excessive."
dreed: "The star trails are over done."
...to criticize the number of stars!! Give me a break - you guys need to get out more often! That's what the sky looks like in true wilderness away from noise polluted cities! How can you criticize Mother Nature for having too many stars!! Or perhaps you want the photographer to brush a few out!
Ah, you've misread what I was criticising.
I wasn't taking issue with the number of stars but the length of the star trails. When I'm in the wilderness and I look up at a dark sky, I don't see star trails, I see stars.
I suppose I'm increasingly less impressed with star trails and more impressed by star fields.
-
Hmmm, wait a minute, have you shown your work at "Palo Alto Festival of the Arts" or "Mountain View Art & Wine Festival"?
The same group of stalls are at both and at different cities on other weekends...
They're both in the San Francisco Bay Area and are neighbouring cities/neighbourhoods.
Think of them as being like a large Sunday market but only held one weekend a year (because the group of people that do them can't be at every location, every weekend.)
-
In any case, the shot was never about the star trails - it was about the moonlit mountain. The trails, running in the direction that they are, were intended as a tool to help frame the mountain and provide balance to the shot (instead of a more-or-less detailless sky, as would have been the case if I had skipped the first 44 minutes prior to moonrise, then just exposed the moonlit mountain), rather than being the subject of the shot in their own right.
IMHO, the length of the star trails tip the balance away from the mountain... I don't think that it is a good mix.
I would have liked to have seen this with a 5 minute or shorter exposure time around the time of or just after the moonrise.
Or in other words, you should have done more experimentation with shutter time and how much detail you got from 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 minute shots around the time of moon rise.
-
IMHO, the length of the star trails tip the balance away from the mountain... I don't think that it is a good mix.
I would have liked to have seen this with a 5 minute or shorter exposure time around the time of or just after the moonrise.
Or in other words, you should have done more experimentation with shutter time and how much detail you got from 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 minute shots around the time of moon rise.
I've never been a fan of short trails - they look like an unintentional mistake, rather than an intentional exposure.
For me, it's either long trails, or no trails at all.
-
FWIW I am with shadowblade on the points he has raised.
Short startrails don't look right.
Startrails are bit like an interesting cloudy sky at sunset - an essential backdrop to the real subject of the image.
Also as much as one likes to post good pics assuming that a large print at full resolution will look the same as the massively downresed images posted on LuLa doesn't stand scrutiny.
All of the images I have posted look much better, sometimes spectacularly so, as large prints.
Dare I say it - as much as shadowblade rattles my cage I look forward to seeing his next image post.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I've never been a fan of short trails - they look like an unintentional mistake, rather than an intentional exposure.
For me, it's either long trails, or no trails at all.
Right, no trails would have been my preference for this shot and to have seen you attempt to see what you could get away with in terms of exposure time vs trail length. When there are long star trails then it is usually the star trails that are the subject of the image. In this case, that's not the case.
Also, what could you have done with some masking and merging a short exposure of the sky with a longer one to get the mountains?
-
Right, no trails would have been my preference for this shot and to have seen you attempt to see what you could get away with in terms of exposure time vs trail length. When there are long star trails then it is usually the star trails that are the subject of the image. In this case, that's not the case.
Since I was using a fairly long lens (105mm) the frame actually looked quite empty and devoid of stars - it's not like when you're shooting with a wide-angle lens and have a large section of the sky in view.
Also, what could you have done with some masking and merging a short exposure of the sky with a longer one to get the mountains?
Capturing the mountain wasn't the problem - I could have done that with a few seconds of exposure around the start of moonrise. But, to capture the stars, I would have needed a longer exposure (shooting at ISO 100) - at 100mm, you can't have more than a few seconds of exposure without developing short trails, which is why most night sky photos which don't have trails and aren't taken using a tracking mount (which would make it impossible to have any non-celestial features in the photo) are taken at wide angles. Not to mention, as I said earlier, there just weren't all that many stars in that small patch of sky covered by the lens.
-
Thanks for sharing Shadowblade - don't let the turkeys get you down! Keep shooting what you like shooting. If others find it "ubiquitous, cliche and kitsch" - ignore them.
So aren't you saying in essence that you only consider responses to a C&C request (albeit in the wrong forum) to be acceptable if they respond with banal, bland approval?
Seriously Terry, what's the point of that?
There are any number of places on the 'Net where gushing approbation of anything is almost guaranteed, so isn't it a good thing that some people here are prepared to risk the wrath of the Nice Police by being honest about their reservations?
-
Well, excuse me - but -
There is nothing in the title of this Forum sub-section to suggest that nobody is allowed to voice an opinion about the merits or demerits of a posted photograph. It says -
Landscape & Nature Photography (and underneath) Nature Photography - technical and aesthetic issues
One would imagine that such a heading invites debate, particularly debate regarding "technical and aesthetic issues". Which would seem to be the case in this particular thread.
John
-
I think there have been half-a-dozen occasions over the last few months when someone's expectations have been upset because a photo was criticised rather than admired (or ignored).
Is there a reason not to have a place where user photos are submitted for admiration as well as a place where user photos are submitted for critique? If not then let's have the title and description changed to match how this forum is actually being used.
So - just to get this quite clear - you are asking for this section to be a place where photos are posted, and the replies to them may only be ones of approval or approbation? That is the ground rule? And if, as a viewer, you do not like the photograph or feel that certain aspects of it are weak and could be improved, you may think this but you are not allowed to say so?
John
-
It does get a bit confusing to know here who the Hell is arguing with who.!! ;D
-
Well, Isaac, I have to say that I am jolly pleased that you and Terry have got everything really well sorted out here. It's always much more reassuring to know exactly where you stand when posting on a forum like this. And I'm sure that everybody else who posts here is very grateful to you too. Now just remember, chaps - no nasty criticism! You can think it, but you musn't say it!
;) John
-
It does get a bit confusing to know here who the Hell is arguing with who.!! ;D
Ah, I see you already met Isaac! ;)
-
Another day, another taunt.
Oh, pardon me! My bad.
You were actually seriously proposing whatever it is that you were proposing?
-
Isaac
I'm sure the vast majority of photographers here want a critique whether it be positive or negative and not to have their egos inflated. The problem for many it seems has nothing do do with negative critique. What people seem to have a problem with is that some members post repeated condescending comments about images and in a very arrogant way. The condescending way the message is relayed ends up time and time again where the thread completely deviates off the post to where everyone ends up bloody bickering to the point where every word is hyper analyzed and quoted in an effort to prove that one is right and where the original poster probably sits bemused on the sidelines :D I also am now not writing about the image which I do believe to be a very strong one. I actually believe the photographer has made something quite strong and unique from something that may be a cliche. But is it more of a cliche than a photo of a bird on a twig or a photo of a rock or a photo of a tree or a photo of a lake or a photo of a flower closeup up. You work with the cards that you are dealt with.
There are different ways of saying the same thing. I for one have absolutely no problem with honest constructive criticisms. I of course can also counter a comment good or bad. I personally have greatly benefited from some comments about mistakes on my photos regarding post production. I also have received comments well that in my opinion are not accurate and I will make my point. That is debate. That is good. Yet again what has resulted here is not debate. In relation to yourself for example to be honest I enjoy your comments because they humor me but I'm afraid I don't take you seriously. That is a pity because occasionally believe it or not I actually agree with you initially but more often than not the thread ends up in some sort of slagging match.
As ye say that's just my 2 cents.
-
I think when Terry says
No, these forums shouldn't turn into a forum where everyone replies "great shot" or "+1". I just find that it too easy to simply criticize rather than provide critical input towards improvement. It is so easy to say "Yep, it's been done before" that even that comment is now "ubiquitous, cliche and kitsch".
than it's fair to say that he wants *constructive criticism (now you've got me quoting)
* Meaning. criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions.
Constructive criticism could point out a bucket of mistakes and that's fair enough. I think Terry is just looking for shall we say a wee bit more diplomacy.
PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE ME ISSAC. SPARE ME THAT. ;D
-
Well assuming there was any point at all in posting up the image in the first place, presumably it was to elicit a response, even though this isn't a C&C forum, and no C&C was requested.
On the basis of that assumption - and seriously, why else? - then mission accomplished, I'd say: in which case, what's the problem with any reaction to the image so far contributed?
For the record, while I agree that it's cliché and overdone as a style ( something that's unavoidable for most of us, regardless of our chosen genre(s)), my first reaction to the image was "Mmmm... I'd like that on my wall".
-
I'm sure the vast majority of photographers here want a critique whether it be positive or negative and not to have their egos inflated.
Yeah but Enda, this isn't a critique forum in the first place - the forum that fulfils that purpose is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=26.0.
So - given that any image presented here without a specific stated purpose that accords with the purpose of the forum seems fundamentally to subvert the intent of the forum (which according to its description is discussion of "technical and aesthetic issues" relating to landscape and nature photography) - surely it shouldn't really be posted at all, much less that the forum be used as an individual's personal showcase.
-
... The problem for many it seems has nothing do do with negative critique. What people seem to have a problem with is that some members post repeated condescending comments about images and in a very arrogant way...
Enda,
Given that I started this "storm in a teacup" on this thread, I assume you are referring to my posts as "arrogant and condescending"? I respect your right to have (and express it freely) whatever opinion of me or my posts. If that is what you think, I will not "take you to task" for it, but it would be interesting to know what made my specific post on this thread "arrogant and condescending"?
-
Hi Slobodan.
I wasn't specifically talking about yourself to be honest. I was talking about the way a lot of posts seems to be going these days where the whole point of the post gets lost in a maze of quotes and arraogance. ;)
-
Hi Slobodan.
I wasn't specifically talking about yourself to be honest. I was talking about the way a lot of posts seems to be going these days where the whole point of the post gets lost in a maze of quotes and arraogance. ;)
I came over this this site from D.P. Review hoping to enjoy a truly "Professional" forum. But I have to agree people on this site get way off topic way too often.
-
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!!" -President Merkin Muffley
-
Keith
What exactly do you call it when someone comments on the technical or aesthetic aspect of an image if it's not a critique? A critique is a detailed analysis and assessment of something. What do you think one discusses in a critique that is not primarily the technical or aesthetic aspect of an image. A critique can be positive and negative. That is what Shadowblade has received here. Some positive and some negative. I don't think Terry meant that the discussion should be just positive. I think his point has been lost by many. If you don't know what the point is well.... ::)
And why do you suggest it was posted here without a specific purpose? The fact that it IS posted here does mean that is open to comments about it's technical and aesthetic aspect. Shadowblade has not sated anything to the contrary. Shadowblade countered the comments made to him. I might be missing something but that is a discussion about the technical and aesthetic aspect of the image.
Yeah but Enda, this isn't a critique forum in the first place - the forum that fulfils that purpose is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=26.0.
So - given that any image presented here without a specific stated purpose that accords with the purpose of the forum seems fundamentally to subvert the intent of the forum (which according to its description is discussion of "technical and aesthetic issues" relating to landscape and nature photography) - surely it shouldn't really be posted at all, much less that the forum be used as an individual's personal showcase.
-
The OP simply posted a picture, Enda - there was no direction of travel indicated for the ensuing discussion - no "What could I have done better here?" or "Are the star trails too long? Too short?", nothing.
This is not a gallery/showcase forum, Enda, and if he wanted a critique, there's a specific, dedicated forum for that.
While I take your point about the semantics, it's still clear enough that whatever this forum is for, it's not for C&C, nor is it a showcase, and yet that's clearly what it is being used as.
-
Keith
Just because he posted the photo without any indication of possible technical or aesthetic issues does not mean he did not want comments on the photos in that regard. The fact he posted in this forum one would assume that that is why he put it here. Keith not every photographer is a beginner with obvious weaknesses. Just because he himself might not have felt or noticed there are some "issues" does not mean he was not open to comments. At no point did he indicate that people should do anything of the contrary.
I have posted numerous photos on LL in this forum. I usually post them just after uploading them to my site. Sometimes it's to illustrate a technique and always it is open to discussion about the aesthetic or technical aspect of the photo. Sometimes I had a few things pointed out that I have simply missed. Halos for example. This is partly due to the fact that I got used the photo after a while and I simply missed it. That was also in a post where my technique was discussed. Are you saying that people should just comment on how the photo was taken and if someone sees a possible error that they have to keep schtum because of people like you. Give us a break. The 2 are intertwined. The fact that he countered arguments about star trails and exposures has actually educated some people on night photography.
The OP simply posted a picture, Enda - there was no direction of travel indicated for the ensuing discussion - no "What could I have done better here?" or "Are the star trails too long? Too short?", nothing.
This is not a gallery/showcase forum, Enda, and if he wanted a critique, there's a specific, dedicated forum for that.
While I take your point about the semantics, it's still clear enough that whatever this forum is for, it's not for C&C, nor is it a showcase, and yet that's clearly what it is being used as.
-
But would you call these (Yan Zhang's photo) long trails or are they medium? ;-)
I'd consider them medium. They're actually not much shorter than mine - just that I captured a lot more of them.
-
Well assuming there was any point at all in posting up the image in the first place, presumably it was to elicit a response, even though this isn't a C&C forum, and no C&C was requested.
On the basis of that assumption - and seriously, why else? - then mission accomplished, I'd say: in which case, what's the problem with any reaction to the image so far contributed?
For the record, while I agree that it's cliché and overdone as a style ( something that's unavoidable for most of us, regardless of our chosen genre(s)), my first reaction to the image was "Mmmm... I'd like that on my wall".
Which is what I like to aim for in a lot of my photos.
After all, cliches are cliche for a reason - because they work, and because they look good. Sure, the sun setting over the sea may be cliche (the interest is really in the foreground detail) but that's because same scene at midday is probably flat, dull and boring.
-
A Few Random Thoughts on The Purpose of This Forum
As usual, this debate ended up polarized: personal gallery vs. C&C. Binary world, yes/no, black/white. I like mine in shades of gray (an while we are at it, in 16-bit at least, please). In other words, and in my opinion, it should neither be a personal gallery nor C&C as expected in the other forum (User Critique). It should be all of that and something in between. So, what would be the difference then?
First, a simple and obvious one: this is a landscape-only forum, while the other is a more general one (street, portrait, etc., including landscape).
But the real difference should be, again in my humble opinion, in how the integrity of the posted photo is treated, i.e., whether alterations of it are allowed as part of comments.
It is assumed that a post in the User Critique forum implicitly asks, or often quite explicitly, "how can I improve this?", "is my post-processing o.k.?", "what would you suggest?", etc. In that spirit, some critiques would go beyond a verbal recommendation and into a reprocessing of the originally posted photograph, often suggesting different crops, conversion to b&w, color corrections, etc.
In this forum, however, it's been assumed that such alterations should not take place. It is assumed that, when landscape posters are choosing between the two forums, they select this one because they are more knowledgable and more confident in their final result and are not looking for a critique that would be more suitable for beginners. What they are looking for, allow me to assume further, is the esthetic or other impact their image might have on the audience. In that respect, opinions will inevitably vary, thus no one in his sane mind (and healthy ego) should expect acclamations only.
Another aspect of posting in this forum is that many advanced posters are quite sensitive, rightly or wrongly, when it comes to the integrity of their work, i.e., they do not like to see their work "mutilated". Fair enough and that should be respected.
On a personal note, I made at least in one instance a transgression of the above guideline, by simply overlooking in which forum the post was placed, and proceeded with a detailed and graphical demonstration of my comments, including a reworked photo. I belatedly realized what I did, edited my original post with an explanation and offered to delete the post if the OP found it objectionable. He did, I apologized and removed it.
And that is how I see the difference between the two forums, folks.
-
So in other words, Enda, you're happy with your own interpretation of what discussion of "technical and aesthetic issues" (my emphasis) means, and you won't brook any alternative interpretation.
Frankly there's little ambiguity in the stated purpose of the forum - but you're obviously quite happy to twist it in whichever way suits your mood. That doesn't make you right - "technical and aesthetic issues" does not, not matter how much you twist it, equal "say something nice about my picture..."
And "people like me"?
I'll overlook the sweeping, uninformed and inaccurate nature of that cheap dig, and simply say that I make no apology for being able to read, Enda...
-
First, a simple and obvious one: this is a landscape-only forum
No it ain't - it's Landscape and Nature. Maybe I should start posting some completely contextless bird images, eh?
-
Having been a high school teacher for longer than I would like to admit to, I learned two important things when it came to arguments or disagreements among students, or among students and faculty. The first and foremost lesson was:
“When you pee in the wind, everyone gets wet.”
No one can win a disagreement. One can either accept or reject the tents of another. In either case, once one has made their statement, listened to the view of another and countered one additional time (sort of like a real debate), their moment should be finished.
Beating the proverbial dead horse does nothing more than create animosity, cause unintended ill-feelings, and/or, causing the cessation of friendly discussions among those who once were friends.
I do not know anyone on here well enough to comment on the current issue as to whether the image at hand is worthy of an art critique, is overly cliché-ish, trite, or a very well-produced photograph by this forum’s standards. I’ve seen similar on 500px which were highly lauded. Who knows? As to whether this is a place for critique as opposed to the section lower down in the forum menu, for me the description is too ambiguous to make a clear-cut decision. I’d say yes and no.
Was I the moderator/originator of this forum, I’d clarify the parameters of what should take place in this section and go from there. For those already deeply entrenched in a “he said, she said” dialogue, shake hands, agree to disagree and let the squabbling go to the wayside. This is far too good a forum to lose membership over something which no one will ever agree on…I only offer my simple words because it was my comment of “Simply freakin’ awesome,” which seemed to start this avalanche of badly applied discourse.
-
I have an idea, and while it is a cliché, it has a history of being productive: Rather than trying to re-define what up until now has been a completely functional forum, perhaps the participants can agree to disagree and try to behave in a civil and respectful manner. . .
-
Hi all
I'm in agreement with a lot of what you say Slobodan. My "interpretation" is like you said all of the above. I hope I'm not regarded as a beginner but I am also very open to comments positive and critical. You mentioned that the images shouldn't be improved or altered but sometimes for example I missed some haloing so for obvious reasons that wasn't something subjective and I made the change. It was an emphatic error on my part and I tweaked the image. I would rather that someone point it out to me rather than sit there and say nothing just so as not to piss off the few, irrespective of what the rules are. :)
I think some people are pissed off here that they now think they are not allowed to say what they feel is wrong with the photo. I think the point on the other side of the fence was that some felt that some comments were a bit cut throat in delivery rather than that they were comments criticizing the photos. Of course that's also subjective!!
Keith I don't think anyone here just wants nice things said about a photo. Heaven forbid if that is the case. I never said that and you seem to be very upset because you seem to think that is what I feel. I don't know why you feel that way. Shadowblade also didn't say anything to that affect. He countered arguments but he doesn't have to agree with anyone. Just because someone feels there is something wrong with the photo doesn't mean they are right.
And I can confirm that pissing in the wind does make me wet :D
-
Why do people keep wanting to claim credit? ;-)
Because we all want our own 15 seconds of fame... ;D
-
Isn't it clear by now that no support is being voiced for trying to change this discussion forum? If there is support for trying to re-define this forum, it's silent.
Terry has repeatedly voiced his wish for more encouragement and less criticism, but Terry hasn't shown up to push for that.
I'm here and do check back from time to time to see where this endless bickering is going. I made my point earlier and don't feel it necessary to show up again to push it. However, rather than being mis-quoted, I would like to point out that I originally said that this forum should not become a mutual admiration society, but rather one which encourages photographers with constructive criticism.
-
I made my point earlier and don't feel it necessary to show up again to push it.
You're right, there's no need to show up and push it, if your concern was simply to repeat the same academic point about what you think this forum should be.
However, if your concern is that this forum becomes one which encourages photographers with constructive criticism, then I think you need to push.
Of course, there'd be the risk that you might discover too many other people place a higher value on their freedom to say whatever they like (within the "civilized" but not necessarily polite bounds) than on encouragement.
-
I'm rather amazed at the squabbling and bickering over the type of comment that may or may not be appropriate in relation to Shadowblade's clearly spectacular photo of the moonrise over Manaslu. Well done, Shadowblade! That shows real dedication lying in the snow for an hour or more in freezing temperatures.
Perhaps I should attempt to lead some of you out of this morass of confusion you've descended into. (On the other hand, perhaps I shouldn't. ;D )
The subtitle of this section of the forum clearly states, "Nature Photography - technical and esthetic issues".
I see no reason why it would not be in order for someone to comment that they would prefer to see stationary stars, just as the eye sees them in the natural environment, rather than this exaggerated movement of the earth in relation to the stars. This is a legitimate esthetic issue.
On the other hand, that apparent movement of the stars, which is really a movement of the earth, is fascinating in its own right. Galileo would have been delighted to see such an image. It's also very eye-catching from an esthetic point of view.
On the technical side, it's also appropriate to ask why Shadowblade did not bracket exposures in order to capture the stars as the eye sees them, with a shorter exposure.
His reply was, that this wouldn't have been possible because of the short exposure time required, which would presumably have generated an awful lot of noise. Now I'm not sure if that is the case, but I'm no expert in photographing the starry night. Perhaps using a camera with a high DR like the Nikon D7000 or D800, it might be possible to take an exposure of, say, 5 seconds, which would freeze the stars as the eye sees them, without generating too much background noise.
I searched my data base for an example of any shot I'd taken of a starry night, and found a shot also taken in Nepal, but in a different region of Nepal, at the Machapuchare Base Camp (or MBC). This is a 30 second exposure taken with the Nikon D700 and 14-24/2.8 zoom at 14mm.
It was a moonlit night and I was scheduled to get up early to begin the trek to the ABC camp. I got up earlier than the others to take a few shots about 3.30am. The lodge is eerily deserted as you can see. Unfortunately, the stars look a bit pathetic. They have lost their twinkle and look a bit smudged. The fainter ones have got lost entirely.
I would have preferred the effect that Shadowblade has achieved with his 45 minute exposure.
-
Hi Ray
No criticism of shadowblade's work (see my earlier post).
It is possible to take shortish (eg 2min) exposures as close together as possible for as long as ones battery lasts or memory card can hold.
Stacking the images in PS will give an excellent star trail - with no discernable gaps - and no noise.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Hi Ray
No criticism of shadowblade's work (see my earlier post).
It is possible to take shortish (eg 2min) exposures as close together as possible for as long as ones battery lasts or memory card can hold.
Stacking the images in PS will give an excellent star trail - with no discernable gaps - and no noise.
Regards
Tony Jay
I must try it some time. No stars tonight though, in Brisbane. However, I was really addressing the difficulty of capturing the stars as the eye sees them, twinkling and bright.
-
I must try it some time. No stars tonight though, in Brisbane. However, I was really addressing the difficulty of capturing the stars as the eye sees them, twinkling and bright.
Don't I know it - spent the day in D'Aguilar National Park in the mist and drizzle today.
Apologies about missing the point though.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Don't I know it - spent the day in D'Aguilar National Park in the mist and drizzle today.
Apologies about missing the point though.
Regards
Tony Jay
I don't believe I've ever been there, unless I've forgotten about it. Perhaps I should have, since it's not too far from Brisbane. I've been to O'Reilly's, or Lamington National Park a few times. That's quite impressive, especially the Antarctic Beach Trees that are still growing in the same location, on the same patch of earth, as they did in Gondwanaland about 200 million years ago.
Cheers!
-
Yup, those Antarctic Beeches are still on my list - yet to get a really good image of them.
Rainforest photography in general has proven to be much more difficult than I thought.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I mean it was really cool to see it, like, 30-40 years ago, when it was a rare sight, but after a gazillion versions in the digital and internet age, it lost its luster.
There also many photographs taken on a sunny day. Should we now ban them?
Although, there are many star trail photographs which should be safely stored in the nearest drawer, and shouldn't be displayed on public forum, this one is a rare and beautifully lit capture of a seldom seen Himalayan peak. I don't think I'll ever climb there but wouldn't hesitate to hang it on my wall. The star trails add nice background.
-
I'm sad to hear how this thread has ended up. The OP made a stunning photo and others agree. But then Slobodan rained on the parade, which although is unfortunate, is not entirely without precedence on these forums. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Good for you lux....... I have been avoiding or perhaps I should say that I don't participate in these forums because of all the negativism. And as you point out it does seem that it comes from certaim quarters.
-
Time to close this thread.
Cheers,
-
Time to close this thread.
Cheers,
Why? Someone may come up with a technique of capturing twinkling stars. Why so negative?