Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Yosemite Valley, CA  (Read 3143 times)
MTGFender
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« on: February 03, 2013, 02:28:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hasselblad H4D-40; HCD 35-90mm; Lee 0.6 GND; Lee Big Stopper

Thanks for viewing!
________________________________________________________
Pramote
http://pramotelaoprasert.zenfolio.com/
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 05:13:08 AM by MTGFender » Logged
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1642


« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2013, 02:34:24 AM »
ReplyReply

The motion makes it.
Logged

MTGFender
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2013, 05:11:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks very much Scott! Pramote
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2806


« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2013, 10:36:29 AM »
ReplyReply

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.

However, the spray shown below Upper Yosemite Falls, across hundreds of metres, is very much part of that experience.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 10:42:40 AM by Isaac » Logged
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2013, 03:47:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I like the movement in the trees, grass, clouds, and water. These are the elements that have shaped the place.
Logged
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1642


« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2013, 03:53:17 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6817


« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2013, 04:26:42 AM »
ReplyReply

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!
Logged

Francois
Enda Cavanagh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2013, 06:52:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting. To me the motion effectively contrasts the ephemera of forests, grasslands, skies and photographers with the unchanging and indifferent mountains.

+1
Logged

James Clark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195


« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2013, 07:24:46 AM »
ReplyReply

+1

I like the motion as well.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5854


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2013, 10:22:32 AM »
ReplyReply

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  Tongue)

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.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 01:01:17 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
langier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 633



WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2013, 11:55:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Without the motion, it's another of the millions. This one stands out well!
Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2806


« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2013, 12:58:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's hope I can restore the balance of nature by giving Slobodan sufficient excuse to disagree with me!

I like the movement in the trees, grass, clouds, and water. These are the elements that have shaped the place.
A glacier shaped the place -- it's gone.

Interesting. To me the motion effectively contrasts the ephemera of forests, grasslands, skies and photographers with the unchanging and indifferent mountains.
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.

Without the motion, it's another of the millions. This one stands out well!
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.

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.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 05:18:44 PM by Isaac » Logged
brandtb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2013, 07:12:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A glacier shaped the place -- it's gone.
+1
Quote
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
Quote
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
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 08:04:05 AM by brandtb » Logged

Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2673


« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2013, 04:13:04 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

MTGFender
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2013, 08:47:11 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
luxborealis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1096



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2013, 08:11:08 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature
- visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!
MTGFender
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2013, 06:54:28 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2806


« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2013, 12:39:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for your sophisticated comment although I don't really understand everything you said.

I fear that I may take that straightforward sentiment and misuse it sarcastically in the future ;-)

Sometimes I remember that it can be okay that an image doesn't have both a little bit of white and a little bit of black, low contrast can be okay -- and can even seem moody, unusual.
Logged
gerafotografija
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224



WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2013, 10:13:31 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 611



« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2013, 09:46:15 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad