Topic: Mono Lake (Read 4573 times)

JeffKohn · « **on:** August 31, 2009, 11:58:33 am »

Speaking of subjects that have been done to death, I recently shot sunrise at Mono Lake. I didn't decide until the end of our trip if I would actually bother with this location, precisely because it's so heavily photographed; and the photographic potential is very dependent on weather conditions, as well. On the other hand, every photographer who's been there seems to highly recommend the experience. By our last day my ankle was bothering me quite a bit (recurring injury that often gets aggravated by hiking), so I wanted a shooting spot that didn't require any real hiking and the South Tufa area seemed to fit the bill. Fortunately the weather was exactly what you hope for at a location like this: nice skies and calm winds. What struck me was the complete and utter stillness of the place, emphasized not only by the rock formatations but also the mirror-like reflections.

Critique and feedback appreciated. There are some more images in the gallery here.

South Tufa Sunrise #3

South Tufa Sunrise #5
Pano, click here or on image for larger version

wolfnowl · « **Reply #1 on:** August 31, 2009, 12:07:33 pm »

Hi Jeff:

In the first one the horizon seems to be slightly tilted down to the right, but that might just be my eyes. Also, I like the silhouette of the rocks in the middle back, but to me the foreground is too dark - not dark enough to be silhouetted, but not light enough to show much detail. That may just be the small jpg.

The second one I think is much better. Not only does it show great symmetry top to bottom with the reflection, but it's almost symmetrical left to right as well.

Mike.

jasonrandolph · « **Reply #2 on:** August 31, 2009, 12:40:14 pm »

Jeff, I like both. I agree with Mike that the horizon seems to be tilted to the right, but that may be the salt formation "weighing down" the eye. I too would like to see a little more foreground lighting in the first shot, but otherwise both woul look outstanding as large prints mounted on a gallery wall. I don't care if it's done to death, it was well worth your time!

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #3 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:15:02 pm »

Jeff,

They are lovely just as they are. I suspect a good print of the first would show the detail that Mike and Jason are missing.

I enjoyed the rest of your gallery, too.

Jeremy Roussak · « **Reply #4 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:21:35 pm »

Jeff,

I too like them both, but in contrast to Mike, I prefer the first. There's more going on: it's not just a picture of the rocks and so it's more of a scene.

I did feel that the horizon slopes down to the right, though.

I like the two b&w shots on your site, particularly #9.

Jeremy

Jeremy Payne · « **Reply #5 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:23:51 pm »

I like the first a lot ... I especially like how the texture of the clouds plays off the structure of the rocks ... but I also see what Mike sees - horizon seems to tilt a bit down to the right.

Paul Sumi · « **Reply #6 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:27:44 pm »

Mono Lake is a favorite location for me, too, even if it is "photographed to death."

We all think tend to think of natural features like lakes or canyons as being eternal, changeless. However, one thing I learned recently is that the rate of water flowing into Mono Lake now exceeds the amount flowing out, evaporating, etc.

This means that in 20-30 years, the tufa will be back under water, so hurry up and get your photographs now!

Paul

cmi · « **Reply #7 on:** August 31, 2009, 04:23:57 pm »

I love both exactly as they are, and also the others in the gallery. Interestingly, the 2 images shown here are also my favourites from the whole set. (Plus the b/w repetition of the second one.) Not sure if I had noticed the visual slight tilt to the right in the first - it seems it is just the way the shoreline is going. Given this, it is a non-issue for me.

Christian

JeffKohn · « **Reply #8 on:** August 31, 2009, 05:30:01 pm »

Thanks for the feedback everybody. Good insights as usual. I think you may be right about a slight tilt on the first image. I was careful to level the camera when shooting, but during editing I thought it looked slightly off so I 'corrected' it - and may have gone to far. Sometimes what's truly level in reality won't look level in a photo, so it can be hard to judge at times.

As far as the foreground brightness, I wanted to preserve the impression of twilight. Whether it's too dark will depend on personal tastes, but I have a feeling that different displays (even calibrated) could also come into play here. I think displays vary more in the shadow tones than elsewhere, and what's blocked up on one LCD may not be on another. The real test will be in printing; it may be that I need to open up the shadows just a bit, but I'll have to reserve judgment until I do a test print.

Quote

This means that in 20-30 years, the tufa will be back under water, so hurry up and get your photographs now!

This is a good point. Since the water rights disputes over the sources that feed Mono Lake have been settled (for now), the level of the lake is slowly rising. The court ruling specified a target level, but I don't know if the tufas will be completely submerged when/if that level is reached. But the lake is definitely changing over time.

cmi · « **Reply #9 on:** August 31, 2009, 05:58:12 pm »

Yes some images can be tricky or impossible to get perfectly visual leveled without warping, wich I personally would tend not to do here. If however you are able to rotate it a bit more ideal, fine. Else yes, maybe a slight disturbance, but, so what. It's a photo.

And regarding the toning of #1: I find it exactly fitting with that dark FG.

RSL · « **Reply #10 on:** September 01, 2009, 12:45:20 pm »

I agree with both Jeremys that number one is the better of the two. But I'm not sure the horizon isn't level. We can't actually see the horizon. What we see is the treeline, and it comes closer as it sweeps toward the right side of the picture. I shoot with a D3, which has an internal level. I sometimes find that if I level the camera, what appears to be the horizon doesn't look level. That's especially true in the Rocky Mountain region where there's very little that's actually level. I'd be willing to bet you've all seen the same thing if you use a level either in or on the camera.

Jeremy Roussak · « **Reply #11 on:** September 01, 2009, 03:01:28 pm »

Quote from: RSL

I agree with both Jeremys that number one is the better of the two. But I'm not sure the horizon isn't level. We can't actually see the horizon. What we see is the treeline, and it comes closer as it sweeps toward the right side of the picture. I shoot with a D3, which has an internal level. I sometimes find that if I level the camera, what appears to be the horizon doesn't look level. That's especially true in the Rocky Mountain region where there's very little that's actually level. I'd be willing to bet you've all seen the same thing if you use a level either in or on the camera.

Philosophical question: if it doesn't look level in the photo, and makes people somehow feel that it isn't level, does it matter that it really was level?

Jeremy

RSL · « **Reply #12 on:** September 01, 2009, 03:28:29 pm »

Quote from: kikashi

Philosophical question: if it doesn't look level in the photo, and makes people somehow feel that it isn't level, does it matter that it really was level?

Jeremy

No. Sometimes I deliberately throw it off level because it doesn't look right when it IS level. How's that for philosophy?

JeffKohn · « **Reply #13 on:** September 01, 2009, 04:39:35 pm »

I agree that what looks level in the picture is more important that what is truly level. When you're there, you have plenty of visual indicators/context to know what level is but in a photo all you have to go by is what's pictured. The worst images are the ones that not only have no true indicator of what's level, but have multiple "false" indicators that conflict with each other, so that no matter what you do some part of the image looks uneven.

In this instance, I think it's the curving shoreline as well as the tufa formation in the mid-ground that make the image appear slightly slanted.

Jeremy Roussak · « **Reply #14 on:** September 01, 2009, 06:29:57 pm »

Quote from: JeffKohn

In this instance, I think it's the curving shoreline as well as the tufa formation in the mid-ground that make the image appear slightly slanted.

Having looked very closely at it, I think you're right. So, my earlier philosophical question remains: do you "correct" it, so that people looking don't feel uncomfortable, or do you adopt a purist approach and keep it as it is?

[blockquote]Here lies the body of Jonathan Day
Who died defending his right of way.
His way was clear, his right was strong
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
[/blockquote]
Sometimes principles must give way to pragmatism!

Jeremy

RSL · « **Reply #15 on:** September 01, 2009, 08:19:42 pm »

I think what Jeff ought to do is put a level on his camera, go back and shoot the picture again, making sure the camera is level, and then post the result next to this one so we can have an extended discussion about which is best.

JeffKohn · « **Reply #16 on:** September 01, 2009, 08:24:28 pm »

Quote from: RSL

I think what Jeff ought to do is put a level on his camera, go back and shoot the picture again, making sure the camera is level, and then post the result next to this one so we can have an extended discussion about which is best.

If you guys want to pay for the transportation and lodging costs, I'd be happy to carry out this experiment.

MikePike · « **Reply #17 on:** September 01, 2009, 09:49:22 pm »

I think they're both superb Jeff. The mixing 'milky-ness' of the colours is great in the second one and I love the fact the moon is present also. Very good work.

John R · « **Reply #18 on:** September 01, 2009, 09:49:48 pm »

Quote from: JeffKohn

If you guys want to pay for the transportation and lodging costs, I'd be happy to carry out this experiment.

I know you all must be kidding, but the inordinate amount of discussion on what is or is not level around what are essentially two very good images, is too much for me. I think I will retire for the night and see if I can determine how many angels fit on the head of a pin. I always tilt my lens up or down to render the composition as best I can and consider levelling minor. I have seen many pros do this. Just eyeball the horizon and do your best to level. It is not achitecture, which is much more critical and even there, most people accept tilting and curving lines if the composition and photo is good.

JMR

Author Topic: Mono Lake (Read 4573 times)

Jeremy Payne