Topic: Dune Footprints. Death Valley (Read 7164 times)

cmi · « **on:** July 08, 2009, 12:51:24 pm »

I like it. I can feel how Im slowly relaxing as I watch it.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2009, 03:43:17 pm »

Hi,

I'm certainly impressed. Michael has a fascinating habit of finding good subjects and render them in an astonishing way.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Christian Miersch

I like it. I can feel how Im slowly relaxing as I watch it.

Tklimek · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2009, 06:08:57 pm »

I think this is one of my personal favorites from the web site "cover" photos for quite some time.

Cheers...

Todd in Chicago

Quote from: Christian Miersch

I like it. I can feel how Im slowly relaxing as I watch it.

Rob C · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2009, 12:26:59 pm »

I think that I usually rise to the pix on the frontispiece (more or less?) but this one leaves me in a quandry.

The execution is great; even the footprints have something to say about the whole; something else troubles me: without the title it could be the Namib, any old desert anywhere. And that is a problem for me.

When is a great shot just another rock, another tree, if you see what I mean? And is it enough to be that?

Rob C

MikeM00 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2009, 01:27:02 pm »

Quote from: Rob C

I think that I usually rise to the pix on the frontispiece (more or less?) but this one leaves me in a quandry.

The execution is great; even the footprints have something to say about the whole; something else troubles me: without the title it could be the Namib, any old desert anywhere. And that is a problem for me.

When is a great shot just another rock, another tree, if you see what I mean? And is it enough to be that?

Rob C

Michael's execution is always great, from all I've seen on this site over the past couple years. I'm wonder, however, why this photo would trouble you. All photographs are, obviously, not all things to all people. This photo, which I love, btw, is simply not one which communicates "place". I.e., it doesn't say "Death Valley", but it does say many other things, such as "time to relax" as Christian mentioned, and "desert", "life by a thread" (that is green on those branches, right? my laptop monitor renders about as well as a 4th grader), as well as being a pleasing study in colors, textures, and composition. To me, that it does not communicate "place" does not detract from the art, but does mean I look at (or sense) other things from the photo.

To me, the compositional technique w/o a level horizon provides a bit of interesting tension in the work, though I wouldnt call that troubling. And I do wish I had a decent monitor (on my list) to better enjoy these great works.

Mike M.

paulbk · « **Reply #5 on:** July 17, 2009, 04:34:51 pm »

This is classic Reichmann. For me, the magic is in the eye. Seeing the photograph. I often wonder how long it takes Michael to "see it?" Or after all these years does it jump out at him?

Quote from: MiMorris

Michael's execution is always great, from all I've seen on this site over the past couple years. I'm wonder, however, why this photo would trouble you. All photographs are, obviously, not all things to all people. This photo, which I love, btw, is simply not one which communicates "place". I.e., it doesn't say "Death Valley", but it does say many other things, such as "time to relax" as Christian mentioned, and "desert", "life by a thread" (that is green on those branches, right? my laptop monitor renders about as well as a 4th grader), as well as being a pleasing study in colors, textures, and composition. To me, that it does not communicate "place" does not detract from the art, but does mean I look at (or sense) other things from the photo.

To me, the compositional technique w/o a level horizon provides a bit of interesting tension in the work, though I wouldnt call that troubling. And I do wish I had a decent monitor (on my list) to better enjoy these great works.

Mike M.

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #6 on:** July 17, 2009, 07:46:06 pm »

Quote from: Rob C

I think that I usually rise to the pix on the frontispiece (more or less?) but this one leaves me in a quandry.

The execution is great; even the footprints have something to say about the whole; something else troubles me: without the title it could be the Namib, any old desert anywhere. And that is a problem for me.

When is a great shot just another rock, another tree, if you see what I mean? And is it enough to be that?

Rob C

I agree with Paul BK that "This is classic Reichmann."

@RobC: Are you unhappy because it shows a sand dune without a naked woman on it?

Rob C · « **Reply #7 on:** July 18, 2009, 05:43:40 am »

This site, as with almost all the internet sites I visit (I have a great interest in seeing other folks´photography and some of it gives me much pleasure, too), has what can only be described as the ubiquitous fascination with the desert/rock/isolated tree or shrub idiom. Nothing wrong with that, per se, as exactly the same theme was to be found in every stock library catalogue I ever picked up: White Sands National Monument (or something close to that title) figured in every single one. The same holds with all the repeated church shots from New Mexico or thereabouts; Santorini, all the clichés from every corner of the Earth were to be found in those catalogues, beautifully shot but cliché nonetheless. Which sort of brings me to the conclusion, I´m afraid, that photography has been done to death. Not only the stock libraries are swamped with images, but the internet too is groaning with the stuff. This would be a good thing but for one problem: very little of it is amazing.

Rob C

White Sands

At the risk or turning this into parody, or at least of quoting myself: Michael, you have been listening!

;-)

Rob C

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #8 on:** July 18, 2009, 10:02:26 am »

Quote from: Rob C

Eric, you might think this is just a light-hearted comment that you´ve made, but you don´t know just how close to home your thought is.

<snip>

Let me diffuse inevitable attack and wasting of much effort at the start: in no way do I place myself on any high alter of superiority here; remember, I´m the one who admitted unease with doing landscape without people.

Hi Rob,

Yes, my comment was meant as a light-hearted jab. I think I understand where you are coming from, and it amuses me that I have just about the opposite reaction to landscapes with and without people in them. Most often, if a beautiful landscape has people in it, my reaction is a bit like encountering some boor's thoughtless litter beside the road.

IMHO, if you put a person (or persons) in a photograph, then the image immediately becomes a statement about the person (or persons) and not about the scene itself. If you love the natural scene, the way I do, people become a distraction, unless the photo really is about the person(s).

So if there were a person in Michael's lovely dune scene, I would be tempted to clone her/him out!

And, to modify your statement sightly, let me say "In no way do I place myself on any high alter of superiority here; remember, I´m the one who admitted unease with doing landscape with people."

Different strokes for different folks.

From one old geezer to another, with regards,

Eric

Jeremy Payne · « **Reply #9 on:** July 18, 2009, 10:18:24 am »

I really think people who live in the cities and urban sprawl who are surrounded by steel and concrete and people for months on end ... where, in Manhattan for example, one cannot even see the horizon without making a great effort to do so ... people respond to the 'empty' landscape in a way that people who live more spacious and rural environs do not.

I've split my time, both sequentially and concurrently between Manhattan, Boston, London and the countryside of the Northeastern US.

I find that country folk love my city work and the city folk love my landscape work and everyone goes for the good underwater stuff.

I really think people are drawn to what's out of ordinary in a way that they are not to the familiar and ordinary.

This is all, of course, a huge generalization ... but I really think there is something in it that goes a little way towards explaining "different stroke for different folks" in this case.

Ray · « **Reply #10 on:** July 18, 2009, 11:58:44 am »

I was also struck by the captivating simplicity of Michael's recent shot. It's a characteristic of many of Michael's photos which attracted me when I first came across LL many years ago.

It's sometimes said that the painter adds to a blank canvass, whereas the photographer tries to subtract from a usually complicated composition (or something to that effect).

Next time I'm in a desert, I'll go looking for something similar .

Rob C · « **Reply #11 on:** July 18, 2009, 01:23:15 pm »

Quote from: Ray

Next time I'm in a desert, I'll go looking for something similar .

Good idea, Ray; are you likely to find anything much else other than some hooded gentlemen leading patient camels? Oh yes, there are racing cars and burning men, too, I believe, and some sparse trees (sometimes complete with goat) and shrubs ;-) ?

You might, as one does, accidently stumble across some elderly German lady doing a spot of photography or filming, even, but let´s not go there - wrong desert.

Ciao - Rob C

Rob C · « **Reply #12 on:** July 18, 2009, 01:25:16 pm »

Quote from: EricM

Different strokes for different folks.

From one old geezer to another, with regards,

Eric

Eric, let´s just be grateful we can still stroke at all at this advanced stage of decay!

Rob C

Rob C · « **Reply #13 on:** July 18, 2009, 04:31:57 pm »

Re White Sands, Michael's new pic: tried to make a new post (where this one is - but only managed to edit my post No. 8 in this thread instead!)

Rob C

Author Topic: Dune Footprints. Death Valley (Read 7164 times)

Jeremy Payne