Well... Allow me to sidle past the huge pile in the middle of floor and get to a critique. I think this is a great shot, the log in my opinion adds a sense of drama and scale to the image and in the overall I think it makes this particular image quite unique. I hike with an Rb Pro-S, gear, flashes, tripod etc in the Blue Mtns, where I live, to get shots of waterfalls and I believe I empathize with what goes on in these circumstances.
There may be those who say the cave in the background is too dark. The reality is that the cave doesn't look any different to the naked eye, while you are there setting up your shot. So why shouldn't it be dark? These kinds of shots present difficulties due to the contrasty light that we often encounter. I think you've done the right thing and exposed for the falls and allowed everything else to follow. There is a tiny bit of blown out highlight in the tree's, top left, but even that is pretty much what the naked eye observes when shooting in this environment, so why should we want it any different?
Holy cow!!! This is reality. I think 'The Tirade" should go down in history! I agree with all of you. Except the sailboat. Where did that come from. One man's treasure is another man's junk. But all critiques that are honest should be welcome. I want them all. Even though I haven't posted much yet. I want my best to go hear, so I can be critiqued and learn. Even if I don't like it. Now. To the pic. Nice image. What is it of. The log? Or the falls? My biggest rule in shooting is 'Fill the frame'. Just my philosphy. Someone pointed out that western art focuses on the person where as eastern art focuses on the people. Same house, diffrent set of walls. Or wall. You decide. Did you accomplish what you set out to shoot? Are you happy with this? I still find it a little vague, but I still like it. Not enough to put on my living room wall though. Hope I helped. Shyfox
I guess i really opened a can of worms,I really enjoy having my stuff critiqued.This way you really learn and make you to try to do better. Ever since i retired 3 years ago I am more careful about the places i climb to,not so much worried about the equipment as my self , so that is why i have the angle of falls that i showed.There were young guys standing in the middle of the river so you may see their pictures one day. Sorry about all the trouble. Dave
WOW, I thought this site was here for learning, not insulting each other. You can still make a comment on some one's work with out degading them, we all are not pro's, we all have not been schooled in photography. And if the comment is a fair one, don't get bent ot of shape because you don't like it. I don't care how good an image is, you will always find some one who finds folt with it. Encragement is the key to improvement, not insults. And Dave, keep up the good work.
geez dave you sure did spark some comments here...hell, I just like the shot. Its clear, sharp and the log adds a certain personality. Remember, "one mans junk is another mans treasure." (Or something like it)
Very nice shot! The colors and the long exposure work well. Hell this is nature! You shoot what you find. If I spent that kinda money on a camera, I couldn't afford a chain saw. Again Nice shot, too bad we had to put up with such a diatribe from someone else interputing your meaning. Keep 'em coming!
Ansel Adams said, "There is nothing worse that a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea." Feel free to disagree.
0
Marc Gougenheim{K:5398} 2/25/2003
Link to the forum thread:
Philosophy Of Photography Forum: the thread is titled "Is honest critiquing allowed ? Is it welcome ?"
0
Marc Gougenheim{K:5398} 2/25/2003
"There are, believe it or not, legions of us who perceive photography as a means of sharing a visual experience that can be very personal- and even emotional. Yes, a capturing of moment, mood and emotion stirred by a visual experience. The last thing on our minds is what dollar value some pompous photog or editor might place on that experience."
Right. I don't deny that. But if you read the above "tirade", you might at some point notice that it was about beauty and about the artistic process - NOT directly about sales. Basically, let me be clearer: it doesn't matter (to most) of course whether pictures will sell or not, but maybe it matters to them to know how nice their pictures are...? Right ? Well, it so happens - what a coincidence ! - that beautiful pictures sell, whereas others (generally) don't. Got it ?
Now, if you mean that there are people who post here to share their "visual experience" and NOT to make their pictures more beautiful, then maybe there should be 2 sections on Usefilm...? How am I going to know who is after beauty and wants advice, and who on the other hand wants to just share his pictures ? And then, you tell me... Is posting a critique on this or that page really so annoying that people need to reply with insulting posts - based on the fact that they didn't want critiques but just "to share their visual experience"...?
I've posted a forum thread on this issue, because it isa general issue and has nothing to do on Dave's page at this stage. Please continue in the appropriate forum thread.
Interesting tirade. For some reason you are under the false impression that everyone who picks up a camera is interested in making a dollar from it. I can only attribute that attitude to an ego unwilling to accept that the world does not hold the same opinions as you. There are, believe it or not, legions of us who perceive photography as a means of sharing a visual experience that can be very personal- and even emotional. Yes, a capturing of moment, mood and emotion stirred by a visual experience. The last thing on our minds is what dollar value some pompous photog or editor might place on that experience. The purpose is to CONVEY that experience to others, not to sell it. You speak of reality (fairly hazy, freshman art class stuff at that) as not being so pretty at times, well it is not. You seem to be the one who has a problem with that.
0
Marc Gougenheim{K:5398} 2/24/2003
"The next time i do this 4 mile hike I have to take a boat to get a different angle and a chain saw to cut trees out then go back after the camera equipment." - Dave
No Dave. The next time, you might just want to go 2 miles, or just 10 meters away from your house, or anywhere where you can finda subject that would result ina better picture.
"For people who do hike into place they know there are time you can not do what you want ,it is not a studio."
Dave, here's a little story for you and for those who think "THEY do hike into place". From January 1st 1990 to October 7th 1993, and then occasionally in 95 and 96, I have been "hiking" or walking "into places" like mountains where no roads lead to with 20 Kg of cameras in my bag, almost EVERY SINGLE DAY, in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, working then for SIPA PRESS. If you assume, because you have seen 25 pictures of mine, that I have never seen the sun, and if it makes you feel better about my simple critique of one of your images, well, good for you.
"I don't think most of the people on this site realize what real life is." - Lisa
Ohhhhh ! Yes... Right. Well, thanks for enlightening us a little then.
"They seem to think everything should be perfect as if a person has set up every shot and put everything in a studio."
Yeah, that's it. Absolutely correct. Now you try to take this picture to a stock library, and this is what's going to happen to you - I know, because it happened to me on similar shots I took back in 1990... They are going to tell you this: "Yeah, ok... Cute snapshots, but if your pictures don't look like master paintings, who's going to want to look at them ?!"
That's exactly what they told me. Then I asked : "Like master paintings ? What do you mean exactly ?" The answer was: "Great lighting, great composition, better subjects... Come with me..." And they took me to a drawer in which there were a few panodia sheets with 35mm slides... I looked, and said "thank you very much", and I immediately packed my bags. Then, out of maybe 3000 shots I had, I selected the best 100, and that's how the next stock library signed me up. Photography is A SELECTION PROCESS. Selecting a subject, then selecting parts of its reality, selecting an angle, selecting the best time of the day, etc - and finally selecting the best images you have and show them.
"Yes, the log may be distracting, but holy crap -- what are you going to do? Cut it down like you said? The log is there, deal with it people"
No, I won't. I have no reason to deal with it. Give me one single good reason to do so, when all I need to do to get rid of the log is to turn my head away to look at another better image in Dave's or in anybody else's portfolio ?! Get my drift ? It's not a MUST to look at Dave's shot. Nor to write a critique about it. To be plain honest, I rather look at Greg Summer's outdoor shots - and maybe you should as well... How do you think somebody like Greg achieves such amazing images in the same "imperfect" world we all live in ? I'll tell you how. He walks more than Dave. He might wake earlier than Dave to get to the right spot before sunrise. He will welcome the sun instead of hoping for the sun to welcome him. He will maybe turn arounda subject for 2 hours to get the angle right and come back to that spot another day to get the light right as well. Then he will use filters if needs to be, etc. That's why he would never have taken this picture from this angle and that way, and that's why he sells his work...
"This is a great shot nonetheless. The clarity, the sharpness is nice."
Knowing how to achieve clarity and sharpness is like knowing the alphabet, Lisa. It doesn't make you a writer or a poet. There is a bit more than that to photography - at least to some of us...
"Instead of cutting the tree down -- what about moving a little to the left or right to get a different angle. Maybe you could have even used the log as a type of frame. Who knows...."
Who knows ? Well, here's an answer for you: those who have failed thousands of time, just like Dave, and who haven't accepted their failures. Those who have tried to understand what was better for each picture they took.
"Don't listen to all that hype about cropping this out and cloning this out. Reality is beautiful and changing photos just so they look perfect to a studio photographer is ridiculous."
That's right, Dave. Just listen to Lisa. Do it, be it just because she really wants you to. And make sure not to improve, as well...
I've never asked anyone to clone anything, right ? And you know why ? Well, it's written in my previous comment. Simply because it's never going to be a nice shot, no matter what you'd do to it. "Reality is beautiful" ? Well, interesting... Is war part of this reality ? Yes, right ? So I'm sure it's beautiful to you as well...:-) What I am trying to say is that Reality is not a sacro-saint temple. There is no such thing as reality by the way... The real house has 4 walls, but you can't see them all from the same view point... So, which one is the real house ? The one you can see from where you are ? Or the one that has 4 walls ? We PERCEIVE reality from a certain place at a certain time, one mental image at a time. It is only through the maturation and the diggestion of our perceptions that reality starts to make some sense for us. The selection process called photography needs perceptions that are matured.
Photography becomes an art from the moment one decides, precisely, that NOT ALL reality is beautiful. And the whole artistic process in photography is about "CHANGING PHOTOS JUST SO THEY LOOK" simply really wonderful.
If you don't believe this. You need not post on any critique site - eventhough you may think you do.
"Art doesn't reproduce what's visible; art makes new things visible." Paul Klee.
Robert, Lisa is wrong... Your comment makes A LOT of sense to me. It tells me that you are trying to be a smart ass here - which is a lot easier than understanding photography. But unfortunately, you end up just looking like an ass - which isn't too smart. If you aren't even polite it your way to express your thoughts, that's the kind of reply you can expect from me.
Matt, the same applies to you. "I think for some strange reason he thinks this is a PS creation. Go figure." Right. Well, that was a cheap shot, my friend. Maybe you think I'm keying in from a madhouse or such...? Well, I'm not - not yet at least...:-)
I hope you two will find above a few good reasons to apologize - whether you agree or not. If my opinions are not welcome on this site, I certainly wouldn't want to impose them on you... I don't need to, and you probably don't need them anyway. So what I'm going to do is to post all this in the forum, and those who want me out of their pages will just need to write their name on it.
All the best in your quest for reality, and try to run fast enough so that Beauty doesn't ever catch you. Cheers.
Dave: I don't think most of the people on this site realize what real life is. They seem to think everything should be perfect as if a person has set up every shot and put everything in a studio. Yes, the log may be distracting, but holy crap -- what are you going to do? Cut it down like you said? The log is there, deal with it people and this is a great shot nonetheless. The clarity, the sharpness is nice.
Instead of cutting the tree down -- what about moving a little to the left or right to get a different angle. Maybe you could have even used the log as a type of frame. Who knows....but don't listen to all that hype about cropping this out and cloning this out. Reality is beautiful and changing photos just so they look perfect to a studio photographer is ridiculous.
WOW !!! The next time i do this 4 mile hike I have to take a boat to get a different angle and a chain saw to cut trees out then go back after the camera equipment. i will try to take the tree out I had thought about that before I submitted it and may crop some on the right.For people who do hike into place they know there are time you can not do what you want ,it is not a studio. Dave
0
Marc Gougenheim{K:5398} 2/24/2003
Well, I agree with the log being a distraction, but there are 2 more important things that bother me:
1) Why centralize the water ?
2) I'm not sure this was a specifically interesting location, or at least, not very photogenic to me for a 35mm. Meaning that if I look around this image, I just can't find any area that strikes me as great. If there was a great shot at all here - which I am not too sure about -, I'd say it was from a totally different angle and with an 80mm or such...
Sorry if this sounds very negative, but I feel it is maybe the post important part of photographic art to identify good subjects in the first place. Best regards.
The long exposure works well, also the film you picked, I don't care for the branch, it's very distracting, also the rocks on the right hand side, takes up to much of the image, IMO. But i do understand how hard it is to find the right angle to shoot from in limted space to work with. I would remove the branch in Photo shop.And resubmit.
I now the log is fl of texture and adds a centre of focus to the image, but i find it an abrasive imperfection against the soft, fantasy of the blurred water and think the shot would be better without it. I had the same problem myself on a shot i've uploaded of a cave with debris in it which wished wasnt there. I had the same rresponse to my pic as i do to yours, other people may think it makes it good and different...
0 
{K:716} 2/25/2003
