House, Lofoten

[sdwilsonsct]

Thanks for looking.

[RSL]

Very good, Scott. The contrast between shapes and tones is powerful --  striking. Bravo!

[RedwoodGuy]

Thanks for looking.

This is really enjoyable. The detail in the rock, and it's tones is FANTASTIC. Looks like it is made of coal. The composition is great, the subject matter is interesting and the execution is first rate. I had to look for a long time to understand the framing of the rock to close to the top/ My first reaction was 'too close.' But after looking a bit more, it works perfectly - maybe because the top of the rock is flat? I am not sure. The bald sky creates a beautiful negative space.  I keep thinking how beautiful the prints must be for this.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Yes. I'll bet it makes a fantastic print.

[amolitor]

Is it just me, or is there a fair bit of softness along the upper edges of the rock?

I think this might become a problem printing this big. Generally I like it, though. It's very appealing, picturesque!

[Rob C]

Thanks for looking.

It is a damned nice and simple shot.

However, since this is a space where second-guesses are welcome, I'll offer mine: kinetically, it looks uncomfortably out of balance. No idea what was available to camera left, but had there been space and had you gone there, the framing would have achieved peace: the building needs to be fractionally to the right of the peak, not slap bang below it. Possibly a good reason for a lens that shifts sideways... Cropping what's there doesn't do it: you're better off with what you have.

;-)

Rob C

[churly]

Nice shot Scott.  You caught the essence of Lofoten and resisted lightening the rock - I'm not sure that I could have.
Your shot makes me want to drag out my old, dusty and scratched slides from Lofoten.

[sdwilsonsct]

Many thanks for all of the feedback. Churly gets some credit for posting the magazine article on Chuck Kimmerle, which resulted in this image.

the building needs to be fractionally to the right of the peak, not slap bang below it. Possibly a good reason for a lens that shifts sideways...

Yes, Rob, I really liked the symmetry in Chrisc's recent Florida church. I think that the asymmetry in the Lofoten house is realistic for the location: the mountains tend to be lop-sided, perhaps because the glaciers chewed more on one side than the other.

Funny you should mention a shift lens as I have been looking longingly at these, even though I do not want another whack of gear.

[Rob C]

Many thanks for all of the feedback. Churly gets some credit for posting the magazine article on Chuck Kimmerle, which resulted in this image.

Yes, Rob, I really liked the symmetry in Chrisc's recent Florida church. I think that the asymmetry in the Lofoten house is realistic for the location: the mountains tend to be lop-sided, perhaps because the glaciers chewed more on one side than the other.

Funny you should mention a shift lens as I have been looking longingly at these, even though I do not want another whack of gear.

Me too! Trouble is, I used to have a Nikkor 35mm PC which was excellent, but it always felt a bit too tight; have wondered about buying a used 28mm PC but it appears that these old lenses are very poor with digi as they react with sensors by giving lots of CA that wasn't visible on film. Unfortunately, the excellent 35mm that I had was traded away along with all the rest of my Nikon stuff in a bid for greater stock glory by going Pentax 67. It turned out not to be one of my better ideas, so I went back to Nikon, and find it difficult to buy again what I sold - it upsets my sense of self-respect! I see this idiot in the mental mirror every time I feel the inclination to quote a credit card number... The current 24mm tilter/shifter gets such a bad press that I just know that were I to splash out and buy one, it would unavoidably turn out to be another lemon. Or nail in the coffin.

;-)

Rob C