Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: One for the road  (Read 5615 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7744



WWW
« on: December 02, 2006, 01:41:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Shot in 4*5 in the Japanese Northern Alps a few weeks ago:



The sky is the limit, or is it not?

Comments most welcome.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2006, 02:50:13 AM »
ReplyReply

The only petty nitpick I could offer is that there's no clouds in the sky. But overall I'd say it's something Ansel Adams could be proud of having done.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2006, 10:29:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I find this one both intriguing and unsettling. Many of the tonalities feel quite strange: The sky is "too" black (although Ansel surely got away with black skies), the tonalities in the midground feel almost solarized. I like the detail of the foreground ice patches.

Some pictures I like immediately because they represent types of scenes I like and find familiar; others I dislike immediately or find boring. This one fits in the category of images that bother me but I can't leave them alone. It forces me to face up to my preconceptions and invites me to see things differently from my usual way of seeing.

So thanks for giving me a jolt.    

-Eric

P.S. These mountains don't look especially "Japanese" to me.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5698



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2006, 11:47:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, clouds might have been interesting,but at the same time it would have broken up the 'black' sky... My first thought was that this was an IR shot - everything seemed to be the opposite of what it 'should' be.  I'll go with Eric - something about this image that doesn't let go...

Well done!

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7744



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2006, 01:24:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you gentlemen. I am not too sure myself, and it is somehow conforting to hear your comments.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
russell a
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 389


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2006, 03:51:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry, it just looks severely over-processed to me. There's no feeling of an integrated whole, just everything tuned up to maximum local "interest".  And, as noted above, several of the tonalities ring false.  BTW, if it's not a composite, it could pass for (a clumsy) one.  Although Ansel tried in some of his later prints, he never screwed one up this tight.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2006, 06:15:56 PM »
ReplyReply

What do you mean by "over-processed"? I don't see any oversharpening halos or blown highlights or blocked shadows or badly-stitched seams or lighting incongruities that indicate a compositing job. The foreground/midground tonality is obviously the result of the shadow of another mountain behind and to the left of the camera that is shadowing much of the scene.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7744



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2006, 07:52:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm sorry, it just looks severely over-processed to me. There's no feeling of an integrated whole, just everything tuned up to maximum local "interest".  And, as noted above, several of the tonalities ring false.  BTW, if it's not a composite, it could pass for (a clumsy) one.  Although Ansel tried in some of his later prints, he never screwed one up this tight.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for your feedback Russell.

The whole thing is IMHO the result of the sky being so dense. As a comparison, areas in the middle of the image for which I didn't do much processing actually appear to lack in density to some extend.

In terms of densities, the image in its present state is very close to the original transparency. Scanning on the Imacon was unable to extract the full range of details in the foreground, and I worked on that, but for the rest we are pretty close. Since I had used a grad density filter to handle the range of contrast, the sky came up very dark and the mountains slightly under-exposed. This is where the idea of the dense sky came from.

The density issue you mention is less present in the print on Matte paper as a result of the dark point being less deep.

Thanks again for your comment.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
etude
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2006, 07:23:07 AM »
ReplyReply

There is definately something about this photo that has me looking at it over and over. At first I saw the top and it looked artificial. The sky and the mountains look strange due to the high contrast. Then the bottom of the image appears almost as if it is a separate image. I was surprised that they co-exist. For a momen I wondered if it was IR, as I found myself trying to make sense of what is going on.

I like the detail in the foreground, the ice is also quite curious.

I like the way you have handled the extreme dynamic range.

I think there is a problem with computer viewing, in that it can't all be taken in without scrolling. A print would be quite different.

I wonder if you could also have tried a few alternatives, such as pulling back the dynamic range even further, perhaps even bringing together separate versions, each exposed for three regions - the sky, the mountains and the foreground in shadow. This might seem more natural. At the same time, I'm not sure if it would be an improvement or not, since the extreme dynamic range would appear to be part of what makes this image so intriguing. Another alternative would be to crop into two separate images.
Logged
larryg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2006, 09:18:38 AM »
ReplyReply

At first glance I wasn't sure if I liked it or not.  I first thought it was IR
The more I look at this, especially the detail in the foreground with the ice and snow It is beginning to grow on me.  

This is really different and interesting.

Good job
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2006, 10:13:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think there is a problem with computer viewing, in that it can't all be taken in without scrolling. A print would be quite different.
Eh?

If you're using Firefox, you can bypass this by right-clicking and selecting "view image".

If you're using Opera, you can resize the entire web page including images by using the Ctrl (control, or command on a Mac) key and the mouse wheel.

Both browsers allow you to resize the view of an image through menu choices in case you can't right click, don't have a mouse wheel, or otherwise feel more comfortable using menus.

And last but not least, you can right-click the image, save it to your hard disk, and view it in your favourite image viewer so that it does match your screen size.
Logged

Jan
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2006, 03:57:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think there is a problem with computer viewing, in that it can't all be taken in without scrolling. A print would be quite different.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88553\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have the same problem.

When I first viewed the image, I saw just the upper part.  Not bad.

Then I scrollrd down and found the bottom and another image.  Not bad either.

The two just don't come together for me.  I think the total image contains too much - at least two photographs.  I would chop the image into two pieces.  Then adjust the contrast for each.  I prefer more gray tones.

I don't mind the black sky at all, nor the lack of clouds.  You have to work with the sky the way you find it.
Logged
etude
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2006, 07:00:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Jani, I was referring to viewing it in the thread. When viewed scaled back, detail is lost and a quick resize isn't flattering. There is too much to take in that way on a typical monitor. I think a print would allow the image to be better appreciated. Seen as a print, I think it would probably work better as one image than it does on computer.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2006, 10:50:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jani, I was referring to viewing it in the thread. When viewed scaled back, detail is lost and a quick resize isn't flattering. There is too much to take in that way on a typical monitor. I think a print would allow the image to be better appreciated. Seen as a print, I think it would probably work better as one image than it does on computer.
Yes, it probably is better in print than on the computer, but then you shouldn't be complaining about having to scroll when it's on-screen; that's simply the wrong focus.  
Logged

Jan
etude
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2006, 11:11:56 AM »
ReplyReply

That's a comment not a complaint. My comment related back to another comment about taking it all in on screen. In essence I was saying that some of what I said might not be valid if we were looking at a print. Obviously this is a limitation inherent in viewing images online, I'm merely pointing it out and trying to offer balanced feedback. This is anything but a complaint.
Logged
giorussello
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2006, 12:44:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Great picture Bernard.

I like your pictures of Japan Alps and find it inspiring for myself.

gio
Logged

jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2006, 04:17:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The sky is the limit, or is it not?

Comments most welcome.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard, thanks for posting your image. For some time I haven't been quite sure about your image, but I keep coming back to it, so it must be doing something!  

It is interesting how the darkness of the sky could make the image 'top heavy', but it doesn't seem to. I think having it's 'inverse' - ie the light mountains, just below it, seems to equalise the darkness and makes the image more balanced.

The depth of field and interest created by the clarity of the ice crystals in the foreground and the clarity of the distant peaks I think is also what makes this image so fascinating.

[attachment=1298:attachment]

I had a quick play and cropped a little bit off the bottom. I was endeavouring to make a clearer entry point into the image- as if I were walking across the terrain. I now feel like I have a path on the left foreground, leading upward diagonally into the scene.

The white snow capped rocks in the foreground now give a much stronger diagonal element leading upward and into the image as well.

I am not too sure about the more square aspect of the image which has resulted though, and I miss the detail of the ice... but I just had a bit of a play with making a stronger entry into the image.

Julie
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7744



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2006, 04:21:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks a lot for the additional comments, I'll look into this.

I am still not too sure myself.

cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
etude
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2006, 06:04:12 PM »
ReplyReply

One thing is sure: it's a fascinating image. I think it's begging to be printed fairly large.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2006, 08:58:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I definitely agree with that.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad