Cape Blanco light

[Winston Rockwell]

took me three trips to Cape Blanco to get decent weather - the first two times i went, it was either socked in with fog, or heavy clouds and 40mph winds - and that was in July! third time's a charm, though, and i came away with some nice shots of the lighthouse... including this one.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Excellent picture for discussion.

Asher

 

[Winston Rockwell]

thanks, Asher. this is one i'm a bit unsure of. on its own, i think it's a very good photo of the Cape Blanco light, the sort of thing one sees on post cards, etc. i purposely took it from a low angle, using a wide-angle lens to accentuate the height of the lighthouse tower, and to make it look as if the viewer is looking up at the structure, but i'm not sure i like so much foreground. i've had folks tell me it's a "money shot" - perhaps, but there's some little niggling part of my brain that says it could be better with a bit less grass. i can always crop the foreground, of course, but i'm not sure if i should...

 

[KrisCarnmarker]

Hi Winston,

I like the shot, but like you, I think maybe there's a bit too much foreground. Maybe as an alternative to cropping, or maybe as well as cropping, you could try some blurring of the grass? Ideally, some motion blur on the grass, but perhaps a bit of artificial blur in PS could do it.

Just to give you an idea...cropping and amount/type of blur to be adjusted to taste

 

[Andrew Stannard]

Hi Winston,

I like the shot as well, but would agree with the comments regarding the foreground. Kris has got the crop just about right for my eyes and the tree on the left gives a nice balance to the lighthouse. Can't decide about the blur!

It looks like a shot that would really come to life in warmer light. How would the sun fall later in the day? I'd love to see an evening version with the golden light on the side of the lighthouse and the foreground grass.

Cheers,

 

[Asher Kelman]

I like the blur as it now puts the wind in and adds bleakness.

Asher

 

[Winston Rockwell]

Hi Winston,

I like the shot as well, but would agree with the comments regarding the foreground. Kris has got the crop just about right for my eyes and the tree on the left gives a nice balance to the lighthouse. Can't decide about the blur!

It looks like a shot that would really come to life in warmer light. How would the sun fall later in the day? I'd love to see an evening version with the golden light on the side of the lighthouse and the foreground grass.

Cheers,

i agree about the evening light... if i were able, i'd go back and try it at sunset, or just before, with the warm light. unfortunately, this spot is about 500 miles from where i live, and a "retake" isn't in the cards right now... in any case, the weather there is so unreliable, just getting a shot of this lighthouse with some blue sky behind it is an iffy proposition at any time of day... perhaps some judicious "warming" with PS would improve it? maybe give it more of an "early morning" look?

 

[Winston Rockwell]

not sure i like the blur... partly because i'm not sure "bleak" is appropriate for the rest of the image, given the blue sky and sunlight, and partly because the blurring looks artificial with the trees in the background being clear and sharp. perhaps a bit less blurring would be okay... i'll have to mess with it in PS and see what it looks like.

 

[Jessica Eldredge]

I like the cropped and blurred version, but still keep going back to the orignal. It probably does need to be cropped a little, but I love the look of the grass blowing in the wind. The blurred version takes that away a little for me. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Bev Sampson]

The original photo is my favorite with or without the foreground crop, though I probably would do the crop. Blurred grass in the Kris version, to me, is not realistic because the trees/shrubs in the background do not reflect the same motion.

JMO.

 

[Charles L Webster]

I much prefer the original. The location is such that there is almost only one good POV because of other stuff on the hill, and the weather is notoriously bad. I've made 3 trips there and gotten zero keeper pictures of this light. And it's ~800 miles from where I live.

I think the best you can hope for at this location is a "postcard" picture, with perhaps a lucky sunset.

 

[Rachel Foster]

If a naive opinion is of interest...I like the original as well. Could be me, but the blur makes me tilt my head, trying to find the correct spot in my lenses to look through.

 

[Greg Rogers]

Here goes the newbie again;

As Bev, I like the original shot best. It hits me as is to be a good (if not outstanding), clean, extremely well composed shot. You have everything right IMO. Rule of thirds (often hogwash, but it surely works magnificently for this shot!), nice crisp image, splendid colours......I could hang this on my wall and be happy for a long time.

I'm learning from comments here, and beginning to study where my eye goes when viewing a photo. In this case, initially the uppermost "windowed" portion of the lighthouse grabs me, then my eye tends to move downward towards the nice, crisp meadow, and back up again, with the lovely sky in my peripheral vision at all times.

Again, this is just my opinion, yet the value of a great, crisp and clean shot seems somehow to be getting lost in this digital world. Every photo does not have to be artsy-f*rtsy, and as far as I'm concerned, what a wonderful example of my point.

(no offense to other version(s) and/or comments intended). After all, we are looking for comment, or there is no reason to post, right??

-Greg

 

[Martin Kuivenhoven]

or a step in an other direction...

the left side of the original picture gives context but the foreground on its own may do just that by itself.
(cloned away a bit of the horizon next to the greens on the right)

 

[Winston Rockwell]

thanks for the comments and suggestions.

Martin, your crop is an interesting take - in that form, this might make a very intriguing photo to put in one of those tall, narrow frames, to put in one of those narrow spaces we all have on our walls that are too small for a more conventional image... i may have to give that a try with this one!

Greg, i tend to agree with you... there are some times when you're really striving to create a photo that you can classify as "art"... i think we've all tried that, with varying degrees of success. other times - most times, in fact? - all we want is to capture a good, clean, well-composed shot of something we enjoy looking at. that's certainly why i take photos... not to create "art" as a rule, or to lord it over those who take snapshots with pocket digicams, but to preserve for my viewing pleasure a moment in time, or a scene that i particularly enjoyed. as Asher pointed out in my thread about the Bandon sunset, i "sample time"... i freeze a fleeting moment, and from that initial act i create something that will preserve that moment for me to enjoy again and again, and perhaps give others a glimpse into a moment in time that they could not experience in person.

if others like my work, wonderful. if they want to purchase prints (and a number have), i'm glad to oblige them. but i'm not about "fine art" photography. i'm interested in seeing, and preserving in photos, the world around me as i see it. i will never sell "fine art" prints in big galleries, because most "fine art" photos are a colossal bore as far as i'm concerned. the real world has more than enough subject matter to keep my interest and fuel my passion for photography, and my work reflects a distinct preference for natural images, images of a world - and its denizens - that may be someday no longer be there, or at least not as they exist today. i don't do people, i don't as a rule do cityscapes (though i have sold some of those as well), and i'm not interested in puppies or weddings. i am interested in getting better shots of what i do shoot, which is why i post on boards like this.

hopefully my candor has not unduly alienated some of the more "artsy" folks on this board. there's certainly ample room for both styles in this world, and many people do appreciate shots of lilies in vases or half-lit silhouettes of unclothed women... but given the choice, i'd far rather shoot for National Geographic any day.

 

[Greg Rogers]

Well put, Rocky-
To me, perhaps one of the most important thing you said (regarding the purist and the more artistically-inclined (did I say that right?) photographer is that there is room for us both. That's what makes art fun.

And it makes this forum a lot of fun as well, no?

-Greg

 

[Don Lashier]

Winston, I'm totally with you on your philosophy, at least wrt landscapes. I simply want to create a pleasing and "artful" representation of what it was like to be there. If I've done my work in the field (composition, lighting, etc) then I usually don't even take the image into photoshop but rather do any required adjustments in C1. There is a big difference between an image done thoughtfully paying attention to technical as well as artistic factors, and a "snapshot". My practices are probably the legacy of shooting chromes for decades where what you shot was what you got.

I was once derided by the great Melvin Sololsky on RG for being "just a postcard shooter" but was actually flattered that he even took the time to look through my galleries.

- DL

 

[Rachel Foster]

Not meaning to derail the thread, I just wanted to mention that this sort of discussion -- philosophy of photography? -- is very interesting and helpful to we neophytes. Or rather, this neophyte.

 

[Winston Rockwell]

I was once derided by the great Melvin Sololsky on RG for being "just a postcard shooter" but was actually flattered that he even took the time to look through my galleries.

- DL

there's nothing wrong with being a "postcard shooter", if that's what you like to do. postcard photographers often get some really excellent images that i'd love to have in my portfolio. i've submitted photos to postcard and travel mag publishers myself. but it seems to me that postcard photos are taken with a different audience in mind, and for a different reason than those shot for landscape purists. photos for postcards are intended to make people want to go see the place in person, so the images need to be sunny, blue-skies-and-bright-colors kinds of shots, to appeal to people who know nothing about the place - or often, about photography either. a landscape purist, on the other hand, might find the same subject appealing, but from a different angle, or in different light, because he's after drama or natural splendor rather than trying to persuade Uncle Herb and Aunt Maude from Tulsa to come visit. "Clearing Winter Storm", for example, is a classic landscape photo, but would have been pretty much a flop as a postcard.

the best shots, in my mind, are the ones that fit both worlds... photos that show the majesty and splendor of the natural world in a manner that makes them appealing as large-print wall hangers, and yet also depict the subject in a way that makes people want to go see the scene in person. i have a photo of Mt. Shuksan in the North Cascades of Washington, titled "October Reflection", that to me kind of exemplifies this type of image. it's spectacular in large sizes - i've sold quite a few 20x30 prints - and would look equally impressive on a living room wall or in the lobby of an office or hotel - yet it would probably also work well for a postcard or calendar shot to promote tourism, etc... it's the kind that will appeal to both the purist and the tourist... and frankly, i think that's a good thing!

Rocky

 

[Greg Rogers]

Rachel's use of the phrase "philosophy of photography" intrigues me. Isn't it interesting that Kris saw Winston's shot and added some blur to the foreground....and Martin applied an interesting crop....regardless if either had a thing to do with Winston's intent when taking the shot?

And did I not perhaps step on my own foot when I mentioned the perceived need (in my own mind only) to manipulate photo's in today's digital age? I"m not sure. Food for thought. Full circle back to philosophy. Which is better? Only your hairdresser knows for sure.

-Greg

 

[Rachel Foster]

Is it ok to discuss this question in this thread or should it be in another? I've a few thoughts on the subject that may actually contribute.

 

[Winston Rockwell]

Rachel's use of the phrase "philosophy of photography" intrigues me. Isn't it interesting that Kris saw Winston's shot and added some blur to the foreground....and Martin applied an interesting crop....regardless if either had a thing to do with Winston's intent when taking the shot?

And did I not perhaps step on my own foot when I mentioned the perceived need (in my own mind only) to manipulate photo's in today's digital age? I"m not sure. Food for thought. Full circle back to philosophy. Which is better? Only your hairdresser knows for sure.

-Greg

it's all about perception, Greg... photography, like painting or music or any other art form, is subject to a great deal of personal interpretation, preference, and plain ol' like/dislike. the modifications Kris and Martin applied represent their take on the subject, just as the original does mine. all are valid, even if not all appeal equally to all viewers.

as for your own comment about the apparent need to manipulate images, i wonder how many people do it just because they can, whether they really need to or not? in short, how much is really appropriate, and how much is mere novelty, an exercise in technological infatuation that passes as we mature in terms of both our knowledge of technology and our photographic skills?

food for thought indeed.

 

[Winston Rockwell]

Is it ok to discuss this question in this thread or should it be in another? I've a few thoughts on the subject that may actually contribute.

go ahead and chime in, Rachel...

 

[Asher Kelman]

Greg, i tend to agree with you... there are some times when you're really striving to create a photo that you can classify as "art"... i think we've all tried that, with varying degrees of success. other times - most times, in fact? - all we want is to capture a good, clean, well-composed shot of something we enjoy looking at. that's certainly why i take photos... not to create "art" as a rule, or to lord it over those who take snapshots with pocket digicams, but to preserve for my viewing pleasure a moment in time, or a scene that i particularly enjoyed. as Asher pointed out in my thread about the Bandon sunset, i "sample time"... i freeze a fleeting moment, and from that initial act i create something that will preserve that moment for me to enjoy again and again, and perhaps give others a glimpse into a moment in time that they could not experience in person.

Greg, to me, the description you give of your process is identical to that I call the "Arc of Intent". You work to get these feelings into the photograph so that you for sure and others hopefully will enjoy it again and again. To me that is fine art.

Work that merely is technically outstanding is not!

if others like my work, wonderful. ihopefully my candor has not unduly alienated some of the more "artsy" folks on this board. there's certainly ample room for both styles in this world, and many people do appreciate shots of lilies in vases or half-lit silhouettes of unclothed women... but given the choice, i'd far rather shoot for National Geographic any day.

Half-lit silhouettes might or might not be art. It depends on the work. Just copying someone’s style does not necessarily make art! Whether you recognize it or not, you are producing "fine" art if a gallery happens to sell it! For sure your work shown here is art with your passion embedded in each photograph. That is what art has to be!

What about the other crops? What of them, are they not art? Yes, I think they are but each gives different packages of overlapping and related feelings. Which to choose? That is only for You, Winston to decide which expresses what you wish! What about if some of the unapproved edits were sold as art and people loved the versions? Well, they would be enjoyed by more people but they would not represent the wishes of the original artist and therefore I'd say at least, impure!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Greg, i tend to agree with you... there are some times when you're really striving to create a photo that you can classify as "art"... i think we've all tried that, with varying degrees of success. other times - most times, in fact? - all we want is to capture a good, clean, well-composed shot of something we enjoy looking at. that's certainly why i take photos... not to create "art" as a rule, or to lord it over those who take snapshots with pocket digicams, but to preserve for my viewing pleasure a moment in time, or a scene that i particularly enjoyed. as Asher pointed out in my thread about the Bandon sunset, i "sample time"... i freeze a fleeting moment, and from that initial act i create something that will preserve that moment for me to enjoy again and again, and perhaps give others a glimpse into a moment in time that they could not experience in person.

Ok....Rocky, this is a cogent, clear statement of your philosophy of photography. I'm still discovering mine -- its foundations are there, but the details I've yet to uncover. This is partly because there are aspects of photography (many!) I've yet to encounter, much less consider and articulate.

What I do know is that I seem to gravitate toward "minimalism," or a simplicity. My portraits are all done with a black background. I try to get effect by manipulating the lighting. "Try" is the operative word since I'm still successful only when I get lucky.

This is important because each photographer should know her/his philosophy of photography. What is s/he trying to accomplish? If the photographer is clear, the results will be less muddy, less chaotic, less hit-and-miss.

Our underlying philosophies influence everything we do. This is true in research as well as art. As researchers our backgrounds, biases, penchants, preferences, etc., determine the questions we ask, how we ask them, how we test them, how we gather data, and how we interpret those data. The same goes with photography: What we shoot, how we shoot it, what we do with it in photoshop (!) and what we find pleasing.

Is this making sense?

 

[ron_hiner]

The motion blur is too much... but the idea is good... just add a little softness to the grass. Then tone it down a bit... and recrop a wee bit. And rotate the whole thing about 0.18 degrees to port. This is what I got....

The sky changed colors from the orginal... as soon as I opened it on my machine. I don't know why. I suspect something to do with embedded color profiles. Still outta my league.

Ron

 

[Winston Rockwell]

Ok....Rocky, this is a cogent, clear statement of your philosophy of photography. I'm still discovering mine -- its foundations are there, but the details I've yet to uncover. This is partly because there are aspects of photography (many!) I've yet to encounter, much less consider and articulate.

What I do know is that I seem to gravitate toward "minimalism," or a simplicity. My portraits are all done with a black background. I try to get effect by manipulating the lighting. "Try" is the operative word since I'm still successful only when I get lucky.

This is important because each photographer should know her/his philosophy of photography. What is s/he trying to accomplish? If the photographer is clear, the results will be less muddy, less chaotic, less hit-and-miss.

Our underlying philosophies influence everything we do. This is true in research as well as art. As researchers our backgrounds, biases, penchants, preferences, etc., determine the questions we ask, how we ask them, how we test them, how we gather data, and how we interpret those data. The same goes with photography: What we shoot, how we shoot it, what we do with it in photoshop (!) and what we find pleasing.

Is this making sense?

makes perfect sense, Rachel. we all bring our own sense of identity to our work, or our hobbies. our ideas, our goals, our methods and interests, are all the product of our experience, our training, our innate desires, and those color everything we do. with photography, those things direct us to shoot this subject instead of that, or to prefer one theme over another, so that we each have our own style. to the extent that that style is reflected in our work, we can be identified by our work, or at least associated with it.

your tendency toward a minimalist approach appeals to many people, including, at times, myself. i have photos that would clearly fall into that style category, that i find dramatic and pleasing. i've got several on my wall. is that my primary style? not really. but as i mentioned before, photography is a very subjective and interpretive thing, and we all can appreciate and enjoy overlapping styles. the important thing is to understand what it is we're trying to do, because without a goal, we have no direction, and we don't know what to pursue to get us there.

 

[ron_hiner]

And then I started experimenting.... Don's comment about postcards got me thinking....

Ron

 

[Rachel Foster]

Exactly! The point is we need to be clear on what ours is in order to create what we will find satisfying.

One thing....I'll bet there is ONE underlying principle that characterizes all of your work..and the same is true of all of us. But I doubt many of us have really thought about what that is. If we did, I suspect our work would improve.

 

[ron_hiner]

One more... then I promise to quit! This one smacks of a painting by some famous painter whose name escapes me....

Hopper. That's it.