• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Why Resolution Isn't everything!

Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Michael Nagel said:
Last year, the evening light was wonderful when we made a walk at the lake.

Click to expand...

You're so right, Michael, one our great mistakes is a consuming quest for detail to the detriment of what feelings can be generated by the shapes and color, alone. This picture exemplifies that great value of texture and simple shape buttoned down with a classic placement of a stopping point of interest. With just gold and black, the silhouetted bird could have morphed from the darkness between the gold, giving a sense of unity between it and the gold-reflected in the waters below.

Yes it's sentimental but boldly so! I like it. :)

Asher
 
M

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Thanks Asher, yes it is sentimental, but I like the simplicity. When you look at the elements making up this picture, it is just golden lines on a black canvas.

Not sentimental at all, but the message stays the same:






Best regards,
Michael
 
Last edited:
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Michael Nagel said:
Thanks Asher, yes it is sentimental, but I like the simplicity. When you look at the elements making up this picture, it is just golden lines on a black canvas.

Not sentimental at all, but the message stays the same:










Best regards,
Michael
Click to expand...


Michael,

I added white space above and below as this deserves a light free setting as it's so gentle. What's fascinating to me, is that the lines of the trees curve inwards towards the summit and the sky. This gives the impression to me of "making an effort" as if they had some goal to reach.

Asher
 
M

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Thanks Asher - the additional space really helps.

I am thinking of continuing the series in a more general manner, so 'Landscape - Travel' would no longer be suited.

Best regards,
Michael
 
fahim mohammed

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Beautiful images Michael. Indeed high resolution is not needed in these particular instances and
presentation.

Lovely.

Thank you.
 
M

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Thanks Fahim. When I am on my 'Quest for Light', there are days when I see what I show in this thread.

Same lake, different place, half an hour later than the first one posted in this thread:


No need for more detail...

Best regards,
Michael
 
Tom dinning

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Ah! The clarity of a good idea expressed well. Who needs technical perfection, fancy gear and a head full of numbers? You might, Michael, but you can do a damn good job without them.
Please don't stop here. I'm enjoying this. Photographs for their own sake. A minor pleasure in life.
Cheers
Tom
 
M

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Asher Kelman said:
This is a marvelous technique, Michael! How did you come upon it, by planning or by chance or in another photographer's work?
Click to expand...
Hi Asher,

Thanks. I got the idea when I saw this fountain installation in the building. I do not claim being the first as this idea is not that far-fetched, but inspiration from someone else was not required here.

In order to get the desired effect for this one I had to experiment with the exposure times and longer esposure times yielded better results. Here it was 1/15 - a compromise between capturing people in a relatively stationary fashion and getting sufficient blur from the flowing water.

Best regards,
Michael
 
M

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Tom,

Thanks and sorry for the rant-y interjection in the other thread, but I could not leave it like this.
I will update this thread, but as I do not necessarily see it as a project, I will not shoot specifically
for this thread unless it becomes a project one day.

Best regards,
Michael
 
Cem_Usakligil

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Jarmo Juntunen said:
But high standards help create important pictures. No matter how you choose to twist and turn the words.
Click to expand...
Helping to create important pictures does not mean that important pictures are of high standards nor does it mean that high standard pictures are important. I can go on like this forever Jarmo, just admit that you are wrong. ;)
 
Last edited:
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Cem_Usakligil said:
Helping to create important pictures does it mean that important pictures are of high quality nor does or mean that high quality pictures are important. I can go on like this forever Jarmo, just admit that you are wrong. ;)
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, Cem,

A picture that we'd consider "high quality" has to be technically well made, designed or what? Surely, a picture could be "high quality" even with poor workmanship if the image itself turns out to be spectacular? Not recommending such a strategy, but "high quality" like getting ***ed can mean so many things.

Asher
 
Cem_Usakligil

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Hi Asher,

I have just seen that I had a couple of typos in my post to which you've reacted, I have corrected them now.

What I was saying is that high standards (not high quality) and interestingness (which I know is not an official word but bear with me) are not synonyms of each other. They are not dependent on each other but can co-exist at times.
 
M

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
I am a little flabbergasted that my simple question led to a controversy that required the intervention of the semantics police (sorry Cem - could not resist :) ).

Maybe my signature doesn't speak enough for itself.
A few explaining words (not many, don't worry):
The first line expresses two things:
1. My lack of trust (others might call it deep distrust) in the arts business that is.
2. Don't pretend - just be - photograph what you see. This is my approach.

Standards? Whatever you call it. I do not see an advantage in setting the bar (too) high in terms of an image I might try to create of myself and my work in terms of photography. The freedom for experiments is reduced and failure is just closer than usual.

Seeing is so important and as digital photgraphy enables us to experiment in so many ways I see a creative advantage in veering away from the path of technical perfection from time to time and literally play around. The results can be disappointing but also nice and even astonishing, For me the results have an impact on how I see.

Enough words - here is another picture:




Some might notice a visual relationship with this one.

Best regards,
Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top