Sunrise at Zabriskie Point

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Sunrise at Zabriskie Point, a 4 minutes exposure taken during one of my Workshops in Death Valley last January with the Leica SL, Voigtlander 15mm v. III and Formatt-Hitech Firecrest filters.



Thanks for viewing, best regards

Vieri

[KMRennie]

Love the land but the, I assume long exposure, moving clouds just look blurred to me and this takes away the beauty of the colours. Ken

[Peter McLennan]

Love the land but the, I assume long exposure, moving clouds just look blurred to me and this takes away the beauty of the colours. Ken

Agreed.  The clouds are distracting.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Agreed.  The clouds are distracting.

I know you are going to hate me for saying this Vieri, but I can't even look at those upper clouds for more than a few seconds without starting to feel seasick.

So congratulations Vieri, you have certainly created a unique image there mate. 

Dave

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As usual, I'll dissent

I too am not fan of blurred clouds due to long exposure. When I saw this one, I thought: "Hmmm, there is something different about it." What's different is that there is a sense of movement, not blurriness (ok, to be precise, the sense of movement, in this and any other image of that kind, is actually achieved through blurriness, though directional blurriness).

I am also always asking myself (as someone who sells pictures to the public): "Who would want to put this picture on their wall and why." In this particular case, and having seen gazillion images from and of Zabriskie Point, what I see, and why I personally would put it on my wall, is the dichotomy of permanence and change; the gazillion years old rocks, immovable, versus fast moving, freshly-made, soon-to-disappear clouds; stability and movement. Just like life itself. Plenty of allegories there. And yet, there is a harmony: the color palette unites the polar opposites.

One more thing: the radial nature of the movements seems to point toward the lower third, where the distant mountain range and the foreground rocks are, which is a nice compositional touch.

[farbschlurf]

Although in first place I also somewhat stumbled over the "almost blurred" clouds, I think Slobodan pretty much said it all. Possibly another photo with soft clouds would be not as interesting. I'm surprised it's 4 minutes, the clouds moved really slow!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

As usual, I'll dissent

I too am not fan of blurred clouds due to long exposure. When I saw this one, I thought: "Hmmm, there is something different about it." What's different is that there is a sense of movement, not blurriness (ok, to be precise, the sense of movement, in this and any other image of that kind, is actually achieved through blurriness, though directional blurriness).

I am also always asking myself (as someone who sells pictures to the public): "Who would want to put this picture on their wall and why." In this particular case, and having seen gazillion images from and of Zabriskie Point, what I see, and why I personally would put it on my wall, is the dichotomy of permanence and change; the gazillion years old rocks, immovable, versus fast moving, freshly-made, soon-to-disappear clouds; stability and movement. Just like life itself. Plenty of allegories there. And yet, there is a harmony: the color palette unites the polar opposites.

One more thing: the radial nature of the movements seems to point toward the lower third, where the distant mountain range and the foreground rocks are, which is a nice compositions touch.

You nailed it, Slobodan! Bravo!

[maddogmurph]

Bottom feels blurred for me? Maybe that's just because of the clouds... ? Since I doubt the actual shot is blurry.

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Love the land but the, I assume long exposure, moving clouds just look blurred to me and this takes away the beauty of the colours. Ken

Hello Ken, yes it was a long exposure - 4 minutes, as mentioned in the original post. Thank you for your comment, I appreciate it that everyone can feel different about moving clouds

Agreed.  The clouds are distracting.

Thank you for your comment Peter, see above - I appreciate it that everyone can feel different about moving clouds!

I know you are going to hate me for saying this Vieri, but I can't even look at those upper clouds for more than a few seconds without starting to feel seasick.

So congratulations Vieri, you have certainly created a unique image there mate. 

Dave

Dave, I am not hating you, I am just a bit sorry to see your snappy, sarcastic and overall not-so-gentlemanly comment. Pity.

As usual, I'll dissent

I too am not fan of blurred clouds due to long exposure. When I saw this one, I thought: "Hmmm, there is something different about it." What's different is that there is a sense of movement, not blurriness (ok, to be precise, the sense of movement, in this and any other image of that kind, is actually achieved through blurriness, though directional blurriness).

I am also always asking myself (as someone who sells pictures to the public): "Who would want to put this picture on their wall and why." In this particular case, and having seen gazillion images from and of Zabriskie Point, what I see, and why I personally would put it on my wall, is the dichotomy of permanence and change; the gazillion years old rocks, immovable, versus fast moving, freshly-made, soon-to-disappear clouds; stability and movement. Just like life itself. Plenty of allegories there. And yet, there is a harmony: the color palette unites the polar opposites.

One more thing: the radial nature of the movements seems to point toward the lower third, where the distant mountain range and the foreground rocks are, which is a nice compositional touch.

Although in first place I also somewhat stumbled over the "almost blurred" clouds, I think Slobodan pretty much said it all. Possibly another photo with soft clouds would be not as interesting. I'm surprised it's 4 minutes, the clouds moved really slow!

You nailed it, Slobodan! Bravo!

Slobodan expressed my thoughts perfectly, much better than I could with words. Thank you!

I am always very happy when a photograph (mine or anyone else's) provokes different reactions and stimulates a discussion such as this, resulting in something like Slobodan's well argued, to-the-point, deep analysis. I have no problem with different people feeling different about my work, of course, being different is a richness; when such differences can be explained and argued, I think we all learn something whether we end up agreeing or not.

Bottom feels blurred for me? Maybe that's just because of the clouds... ? Since I doubt the actual shot is blurry.

Hello Murph, the foreground is actually as sharp as the rest of the image (plus, with a 15mm at f/11 and at that distance it would be difficult to keep anything out of focus anyway). I don't see it blurred, but if you do I think it might be either the nature of the rocks themselves, they are sort of sandy/crumbling, or perhaps as you said an effect of the moving clouds?

Thanks again everyone, best regards

Vieri

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Dave, I am not hating you, I am just a bit sorry to see your snappy, sarcastic and overall not-so-gentlemanly comment. Pity.

No I wasn't being "snappy", "sarcastic" or trying to give you an "overall not-so-gentlemanly comment", so the pity is on you Vieri for even thinking that I would be like that with you, or with anyone else on this forum for that matter. 

So I am sorry to discover that your ego appears to be so fragile, that you find any comment that does not heap praise on your work to be "snappy", "sarcastic" or an "overall not-so-gentlemanly comment". 

If you want to post images on here Vieri for other landscape photographers to look at and discuss and who are just as enthused about photography and the art of photography as you are, then expect comments that are given back to you through that enthusiastic viewpoint.

I mean you can't have it both ways Vieri, if you post pictures here then the forum members will comment and usually those comments for your work are really good, as are your images usually, but if you post something that people think has issues including me and the other forum members that have taken the time to comment on this picture (albeit negatively and not all of them I agree), then surely you must expect your fellow photographers to say so, or are you unable to accept criticism?

So I will repeat, I was not being "snappy", "sarcastic" or trying to give you an "overall not-so-gentlemanly comment" by telling you that the blurry sky in your Zabriske Point shot is so difficult for me to look at, it makes me feel seasick. So please tell me how I should have phrased that genuine reaction to your shot in any words that you would not find "snappy", "sarcastic" or trying to give you an "overall not-so-gentlemanly comment"?

In fact I even congratulated you on creating such a unique image that had such a dramatic effect on me. although a negative one and a reaction that I have never had before to an image.

Or is it because I referred to you as "Mate" or something that has upset you? Which I used in the context as defined by the Oxford dictionary which means: A fellow member or joint occupant of a specified thing. Go and look it up yourself if you don't believe me...

If you could see me now Vieri, I am still rolling up my eyes at your over the top reaction "Mate".

Dave

[Vieri Bottazzini]

No I wasn't being "snappy", "sarcastic" or trying to give you an "overall not-so-gentlemanly comment", so the pity is on you Vieri for even thinking that I would be like that with you, or with anyone else on this forum for that matter. 

So I am sorry to discover that your ego appears to be so fragile, that you find any comment that does not heap praise on your work to be "snappy", "sarcastic" or an "overall not-so-gentlemanly comment". 

If you want to post images on here Vieri for other landscape photographers to look at and discuss and who are just as enthused about photography and the art of photography as you are, then expect comments that are given back to you through that enthusiastic viewpoint.

I mean you can't have it both ways Vieri, if you post pictures here then the forum members will comment and usually those comments for your work are really good, as are your images usually, but if you post something that people think has issues including me and the other forum members that have taken the time to comment (albeit negatively) on this picture, then surely you must expect your fellow photographers to say so, or are you unable to accept criticism?

So I will repeat, I was not being "snappy", "sarcastic" or trying to give you an "overall not-so-gentlemanly comment" by telling you that the blurry sky in your Zabriske Point shot is so difficult for me to look at, it makes me feel seasick. So please tell me how I should have phrased that genuine reaction to your shot in any words that you would not find "snappy", "sarcastic" or trying to give you an "overall not-so-gentlemanly comment"?

Dave

Whatever Dave. I think that:

"So congratulations Vieri, you have certainly created a unique image there mate."

After telling that it makes you throw up, basically, would feel sarcastic and not-so-gentlemanly to most. Have a great evening. Best,

Vieri

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Whatever Dave. I think that:

"So congratulations Vieri, you have certainly created a unique image there mate."

After telling that it makes you throw up, basically, would feel sarcastic and not-so-gentlemanly to most. Have a great evening. Best,

Vieri

Please cut and paste the bit out of my original reply where I said your image made me throw up?

Or is that how you have decided to read it?

As my eyes tried to focus on your blurred long exposure sky, they couldn't and I had to look away as it started to make me feel seasick, but you are reading that genuine felt reaction and deciding that I am having a dig at you and telling you that your image(s) make me throw up - oh dear...

Dave

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Please cut and paste the bit out of my original reply where I said your image made me throw up?

Or is that how you have decided to read it?

As my eyes tried to focus on your blurred sky, they couldn't and I had to look away as it started to make me feel seasick, but you are reading that genuine felt reaction and deciding that I am having a dig at you and telling you that your image(s) make me throw up - oh dear...

Dave

Dave, people here can read. Let's leave it at that, and stop insulting my intelligence and that of others as well. Best regards,

Vieri

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Dave, people here can read. Let's leave it at that, and stop insulting my intelligence and that of others as well. Best regards,

Vieri

Oh how wrong you are Vieri, I treat Lula like a photo club where we are all equals and where we all try to get along and enjoy each others company and differences, but you are obviously not willing to accept that without trying to have a last dig and telling me that I am now trying to "insult your intelligence".

That's it Vieri, I am out of this thread 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Oh how wrong you are Vieri, I treat Lula like a photo club where we are all equals and where we all try to get along and enjoy each others company and differences, but you are obviously not willing to accept that without trying to have a last dig and telling me that I am now trying to "insult your intelligence".

That's it Vieri, I am out of this thread 

Again, people can read. Ironically, that goes for finding out who is trying to have the last dig as well. Have a great evening, best regards

Vieri

[Paulo Bizarro]

I like the image, Slobodan "interpreted" it already for me:) What he said is what I see also. The sense of movement in the clouds perfectly expresses the nature of "changing landscape". I guess a much longer exposure time would be required to see the passing of time in the rocks:)

If I may only add that I think it is a tad overexposed? Just a little bit.

[Vieri Bottazzini]

I like the image, Slobodan "interpreted" it already for me:) What he said is what I see also. The sense of movement in the clouds perfectly expresses the nature of "changing landscape". I guess a much longer exposure time would be required to see the passing of time in the rocks:)

If I may only add that I think it is a tad overexposed? Just a little bit.

Hello Paulo, thank you for your comment, much appreciated About exposure, the histogram tells me that all is well, but I appreciate it that it might "feel" a little bright, I think it the luminosity of the sky and of the clouds perhaps (?). Best regards,

Vieri