Arch and Cloud

[Mike Spinak]

Some of you may enjoy this picture, Arch and Cloud, Alabama Hills:

© Mike Spinak

Taken with a Canon 1Ds Mark II, with a 15mm fisheye lens.

I took this almost two years ago, but it got thrown into that ever-growing backlog of pictures to be processed, sorted, put online, printed, etc. I've finally just gotten around to it. Many other pictures from the same outing, also consigned to the backlog for the last two years, were also successful.

I hope you enjoy.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Mike,

How I would have loved to have been there with you! What an impressive subject. You must have many images on this one subject as there are so many ways of seeing it.

I so much would love to see more if they are processed or is this the one that represents the shoot. I certainly like the choice of rendering it in B&W for you have a great range of tonality in the clouds that many might have lost by aggressive "exposing to the right".

I enjoy the textured arch stretching across the mountainous landscape. The cutting of the cloud creates a tension because most would not do this. It's almost an argument. The arch demands to be seen in its grandeur but the cloud odes too.

Thanks for sharing and keep up on that backlog. I have the same issue. What are you using to print with?

Asher

I'd love to see a wider view if you have one.

 

[nicolas claris]

Nice shot! Though I'd like to see it with sweet colors…

I wouldn't try to walk on this bridge! I'd rather stay in my helicopter!

 

[Mike Spinak]

How I would have loved to have been there with you!

Next time, come join me!

What an impressive subject. You must have many images on this one subject as there are so many ways of seeing it.

I so much would love to see more if they are processed or is this the one that represents the shoot.

I think this was my only shot of that cloud. I do have another shot of the arch. I'll include it at the bottom.

I certainly like the choice of rendering it in B&W...

Yes; in my opinion, B&W is important for this shot.

I enjoy the textured arch stretching across the mountainous landscape. The cutting of the cloud creates a tension because most would not do this. It's almost an argument. The arch demands to be seen in its grandeur but the cloud odes too.

Yes.

Thanks for sharing and keep up on that backlog. I have the same issue.

LOL... A common problem, these days. I'm trying to catch up.

I guess this is the 1DsII with a long lens?

Asher

I'd love to see a wider view if you have one.

This was taken with a 15mm fisheye, on a full frame camera. It has a 180 degree diagonal angle of view. With a normal 35 mm camera, that's as wide as it goes!

Nice shot! ToughI'd like to see it with sweet colors…

Sorry, no. I'm making the pronouncement that this is a B&W.

I wouldn't try to walk on this bridge! I'd rather stay in my helicopter!

To clarify: This bridge is ~2 or 3 feet tall and ~6 or 7 feet wide, as I recall. I took this while squished into a small trench, immediately behind the arch. (It wasn't possible to get farther back, for this shot... thus the wide angle lens for getting the entire span in the frame, from so close up.)

Here's another shot of it:

© Mike Spinak

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks for showing this second image.
Mike,

One thing I have discovered about you and your own photographs is that there are hardly any accidents as you are so thoughtful. This second angle shows how you have used the existing natural materials to your subjective purpose but not in fact change it. You are not photographing the scene, for it is not there. Rather you are using your athletic ability and the particularly special lens to write on to a physical medium your own "created vision".

This is an example of where, using the lens, one escapes the limitations of our own eyes.

Yes, these are both different views, but that you created by your own creative way of looking and allowing us to see as you see.

Thanks,

Asher

 

[Mike Spinak]

You are welcome; and thank you for your considered words. I'm glad you found worth within these frames. I'll try to post more, soon.

 

[Deleted member 55]

Arch and Cloud, Alabama Hills

Taken with a Canon 1Ds Mark II, with a 15mm fisheye lens.

I love this shot! The B&W gives it that extra punch so you see the detail. And due to the subject no apparent Fish Eye distortion.

WOW!

 

[Mike Spinak]

Thank you, Will.

 

[janet Smith]

Hi Mike

Best landscape shot I've seen in ages, I just love the last one here, everything about it is just perfect to my eye, B & W definitely works for me......

 

[Nathaniel Alpert]

Hi Mike,

May I join the chorus of praise for these photos? I keep looking at them. Each has elements that I like but I am not sure that either quite brings it totally off.

In the first one, the "arch" appears as a horizontal band dividing the image plane. It is rather stark, the texture of the arch is not particularly interesting to my eye. The sky and background are the stronger elements for me.

In the second one, the arch and shadow are stronger elements and the midfield boulders add interest. I can't seem to figure out what the dark mass is above the arch and that is a distraction. Is the horizon tilted? Could a crop off of the sky add more focus to this composition?

-Nat

 

[Mike Spinak]

Janet, Nathaniel,

Thank you.

Nathaniel,

Nothing pleases everybody, and I'm fine with that. If my pictures don't quite work for your aesthetic, I'm comfortable that they're right for me and some others, but wrong for you.

The dark mass is flare, oddly. It is a perfect hexagon of flare, which would be more apparent on a larger view, and thus, perhaps less distracting.

While I am reluctant to change elements of the scene, I am some somewhat less reluctant to change in-camera artifacts. I don't find the flare bothersome, but, if I change my mind, I may remove it. By the way, the tonality of this picture appears different, online, than it does, in Photoshop and in print. The tones of the sky and of the flare are more similar than they appear here, and thus less distracting. Try loading this picture into Photoshop, and you'll see what I mean.

No, the horizon is not particularly tilted.

Cropping off the sky, and thereby removing the rays of flare would be unnecessary, in regard to adding focus, and would be a disastrous compositional error, removing the juxtaposition which makes the shot. That suggestion is like looking at a portrait of a person and suggesting that perhaps the shot would be improved by cropping off the person's head with the distracting expression on the face.

All that said, the second picture is only shown at Asher's request, to give more information about the first.

 

[Andrew Stannard]

Hi Mike,

Just wanted to add my thoughts to your pictures.

It is always interesting how differently people can view the same images. For me, the first picture is fantastic and I could well imagine a large print of it hanging on a wall. Unusually for images that I like, I find my eye constantly wandering and never really settling on a focal point. It often seems to rest a moment on the top join of cloud and arch, but then quickly moves off again.

Normally I find this a bit unsettling in an image, but in this case not so. In my mind the image seems to encourage exploration - from the rough texture of the arch to the peaks of the distant mountains. Congrats on a great image!

The 2nd doesn't really work for me. I agree that the flare makes the image stronger, but I find myself focussing on the gap between the arch and never quite leaving it. Am finding it hard to pin down why, but I don't find enough balance in the image.

Which do you prefer of the two? Can we presume the first since it was the orginal post?


Cheers,

 

[Mike Spinak]

Andy,

Excuse my brevity. I am replying by cell phone while a baby sleeps in my arms. The first is the shot I was after, not the second.

 

[nicolas claris]

Andy,

Excuse my brevity. I am replying by cell phone while a baby sleeps in my arms.

LoL! can you shoot an auto portrait in the same time !