Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: MTGFender on February 03, 2013, 03:28:01 am
-
Hasselblad H4D-40; HCD 35-90mm; Lee 0.6 GND; Lee Big Stopper
Thanks for viewing!
________________________________________________________
Pramote
http://pramotelaoprasert.zenfolio.com/
-
The motion makes it.
-
Thanks very much Scott! Pramote
-
I like the movement in the trees, grass, clouds, and water. These are the elements that have shaped the place.
-
To me, the motion in the grass and trees and clouds is a distraction which doesn't help recount the particular experience of that place.
Interesting. To me the motion effectively contrasts the ephemera of forests, grasslands, skies and photographers with the unchanging and indifferent mountains.
-
I'm not bothered at all by the motion of the trees and the grass. The big granite walls are a solid counterweight to the vegetal world.
Well done!
-
Interesting. To me the motion effectively contrasts the ephemera of forests, grasslands, skies and photographers with the unchanging and indifferent mountains.
+1
-
+1
I like the motion as well.
-
To me, the motion in the grass and trees and clouds is a distraction...
+1 (as much as it pains me to agree with Isaac :P)
There are cases where smudged parts in an image can successfully convey motion, and then there are cases where they just look like... well... smudged.
While I've seen numerous examples of Big Stoppers doing wonders on water (if you like that effect, of course), I have yet to see (or remember) cloud movements captured equally well. Or other moving parts for that matter.
-
Without the motion, it's another of the millions. This one stands out well!
-
A glacier shaped the place -- it's gone.
+1
Mountains are no more indifferent than forests, grasslands, and skies. If you've been close to a rock-fall you understand quite well that mountains are not unchanging.
+1
To me, what stands out, is the motion in the grass and trees and cloud -- and for that motion it might as well be a photo taken in a city park anywhere.
+1
However, long exposure does show something particular that wouldn't be seen with shorter exposures -- the spray across hundreds of metres below Upper Yosemite Falls; so to me the technique would been more successful on a still day, as a way to highlight the power of the falls.
+1
While I personally don't care for the knee-jerk habit of some to stop down and make every last bit of "liquid" water into a vapor - I've often thought - if it's so absolutely essential - why don't they just blur everything else in the picture too? This come close to that. I kept looking at the blurry sky and thinking that those clouds are probably extraordinary - and would balance well the rocky range - without the blur. There is one shot of El Capitan in summer by Adams where there exists this balance - and it is one his best of E.C. imo.
There nominally should be (at least for me) compelling reasons why one chooses any camera effect/equipment, whether it is a lens, a camera, a focal length, an aperture, a shutter speed etc.. Regarding stopping down in this instance, I think Isaac's points are well taken...and for me there don't seem to be compelling reasons for doing this.
-
I am a fan of long exposures. The top half of the image I really like but the bottom half seems disjointed as if it were two images pasted together? However I wouldn't argue with those who like the image as a whole. It is different.
-
Thanks very much everyone!
Are you surprised how different point of views we have on the same image? This is what I love about photography.
Best regards,
Pramote
-
It's not the motion that bothers me (at least not too much), it is the lack of some crisp near-whites and the muddy near-lifelessness of the sky and grass. My brain is saying that the spray from falls and the brightest part of the clouds should be higher in value than they appear. It's the effect I often see from students who do their developing using a black background instead of white (as in comparing the whitest white of prints to the back of the paper). Loading the jpeg into Lightroom confirms this - the highest value in the waterfall spray is 69.6% and in the brightest cloud is 81.4%. To me, they could be higher which just might serve to create a more compelling photograph.
-
It's not the motion that bothers me (at least not too much), it is the lack of some crisp near-whites and the muddy near-lifelessness of the sky and grass. My brain is saying that the spray from falls and the brightest part of the clouds should be higher in value than they appear. It's the effect I often see from students who do their developing using a black background instead of white (as in comparing the whitest white of prints to the back of the paper). Loading the jpeg into Lightroom confirms this - the highest value in the waterfall spray is 69.6% and in the brightest cloud is 81.4%. To me, they could be higher which just might serve to create a more compelling photograph.
Thank you for your sophisticated comment although I don't really understand everything you said.
I am just an amateur photographer. When I take and edit the photograph, I've used my heart more than my brain. Whatever it feels right to me.
Pramote
-
Wow, I had to look at this one a few times to appreciate it fully.
From my perspective, the clouds balance out the trees, and the mountains balance out the grass, but with some dynamic interchange going on since there aren't any perfectly horizontal delineations to separate the zones. The contrast between bands/zones probably subconsciously echoes the perceived motion of the grass, trees, clouds, water in some lucky way.
Nice.
-
I would be inclined to go for a slightly more "letterbox" format by cropping up from the bottom, almost to the bottom of the right-hand trees. All that grass detracts from the drama of the trees, mountain, waterfall and sky.
-
Thanks very much my friend Isaac, PhotoEcosse and gerafotografija! Pramote
-
To orig. poster: I saw these this morning - some very nice/interesting images using blurred/long exposure elements juxtaposed against the stationary/"solid" tree...or the dynamism of the blur against the static. (the infra-red another issue) Might be worth taking a look...
http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/27/long-exposure-infrared-photos-of-trees/
-
I saw these this morning - some very nice/interesting images using blurred/long exposure elements juxtaposed against the stationary/"solid" tree...or the dynamism of the blur against the static. Might be worth taking a look...
http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/27/long-exposure-infrared-photos-of-trees/
That is very interesting. Worth a try.
-
It would have been so easy to combine this long exposure with a fast exposure into one image, but I am glad you didn't. I think the image is far better with the motion captured and retained within it. An excellent image!
I suppose everyone knows that you can do the big stopper thing for as little as £1.20 don't you? - Go here (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welding-Glass-Replacement-lens-Shade/dp/B005PNAOLW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361998602&sr=8-1) - I think using these pieces of 10 stop glass gives you a slight colour cast on your image, but it is such a cheap option, and you can soon filter out any tints in post and of course that isn't a problem at all if you convert to mono ;D
Dave
-
I am enjoying the discussion here. It is pleasing to see a unique view of this iconic subject taken by so many. I am most intrigued by luxborealis' professional opinion. But, isn't the falls the brightest white in the image? Or is it the lowest clouds right in the center?
I wonder if you would agree with this statement from a book and is this image an example? "Cloudy days bring soft light....Soft light tends to reduce contrast because tonal differences are less sharp. Lines, shapes and textures may be less clearly defined." Lines, shapes and textures are the basis of successful B&W images.
Was this indeed a cloudy day, so there is a lack of contrast which would help to bring out more texture etc.?
Are you saying that if the clouds were whiter, and the background not dark, the photo would be "more compelling". I personally would gravitate toward dark storm clouds in the background. I thought our eyes are drawn to white or light areas of an image, and aren't the falls which appear quite white to me, more interesting than the clouds which are dark? Our attention, therefore is drawn to looking at the falls.
Hopefully, I am not over-analysing this image which I do like a lot!
Do you have an image of this scene with a faster shutter speed freezing the action? What was your thought process in showing the motion? Why did you take the image or choose this view? (I wish I had been there with you to catch this awesome scenery.)
I hope everyone goes to your link. You have some wonderful images there, MYGF. Outstanding color!
BTW brandtb, I really like the artists explanation at the bottom of the link. I like to know the reasoning behind some of the neat images we see.
-
Thank you so much friends! I've learnt a lot from your thoughtful opinions.
Pramote