Cape Blanco light

[Rachel Foster]

It has a bit if an Impressionist feel.

 

[Winston Rockwell]

as an example of the point in my last post, about having a goal, i have on my wall a 12x36" panoramic photograph - actually, three photos stitched together in software - of the Oregon coast. the images were taken from Ecola Point state park, just north of Cannon Beach. the view is spectacular, with the coastline sweeping from left foreground into the distance on the right. the sea is blue, with white-capped surf and craggy rocks, and the whole thing is just too BIG, too much to encompass in a single frame, even if i had a lens wide enough to do it. a single frame could never capture the majestic sweep of the shore, the hazy distant hills, the overall sense of awesome grandeur that i saw standing on that point. (not to say my panorama does, but it's a lot closer than a single, wide-angle shot would have been!) anyway, when i took those photos, i had one thing in mind, one goal... making that panoramic print. i wasn't certain how best to go about it, but i applied everything i've learned about landscape photography, made several sets of photos, and put the best of them together to achieve a final result that i'm basically pleased with.

that's why i say that having a goal is critical. knowing what you want to achieve is the first step. then you apply your tools and your knowledge to get you there. in this case, those tools are your lenses, your camera, your tripod, etc.... coupled with your knowledge of technique, your ability to make the most of your tools, and your sense of composition - your "eye" for what is pleasing. it's the last that's hardest. anyone can buy the tools, and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can master the basic technical aspects of taking properly exposed photos, but having an innate sense of what looks good - an "eye" - is not something you can get from a camera store or a book.

 

[ron_hiner]

Rachel's use of the phrase "philosophy of photography" intrigues me. ... <snip> Which is better? Only your hairdresser knows for sure.

-Greg

I don't think any of the derivations of Rocky's photo are any better than the orginal.... but in each case, another 'artist' threw in his/her 2 cents. The only thing that matters is Rocky's vision. The others... in my mind anyway... are technical excerises in how we might change and publish the photo as if it were our own. And one derivitave work tends to inspire another.

Rocky -- I'm totally in sync with you on knowing your goal when you shoot... I think that's why (in part) the dirivatives don't have the power of the orginal.

I'll add also that bigger prints are different than little prints. (my wife is laughing at that comment, but I stand by it) Bigger prints take on a whole new character -- a 12x36 pano is so much more powerful than anything on a computer screen. Perhaps thats why I tend to do more effects on smaller images. Bigger output is a special effect all in its own.

Ron

 

[Winston Rockwell]

thanks, Ron...

and if you're curious, here's a link to that panoramic, which i posted here last December... obviously, this has nowhere near the impact of the full-size print, but imagine, in your mind's eye (we all have one, or we wouldn't be photographers!) what this would look like stretching 3 feet across your wall...

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1830

 

[ron_hiner]

Wow! That's stunning at screen size... I can only imagine what it would look like at 3 feet. The color.. the tones... everything is great! Have you tried scaling it larger?

 

[Winston Rockwell]

i upsized it a fair bit to get the 7200x2400 image file for a 12x36 print. i didn't want to go much larger, for fear of losing clarity. besides, with a mat and frame, it's over 42" wide as it is! any more, and i'd have a hard time finding a home for it!

 

[Rachel Foster]

Wow indeed! I'm going to study the framing and composition of that one.

 

[Asher Kelman]

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.

Rachel,

Here for sure I disagree! There is no one underlying personal principle that directs any art work. Even things you think of as "one" or "unique" are really complex, ever changing with multifactoral dependance!

Do what helps you express yourself in your own style, right now; that's while being open to new possibilites!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Oh, we could debate this one, Asher. But I suspect it's just semantics as I'm speaking at possibly a more macro or superordinate level than you perhaps?

One such principle might be, for example, elegance or simplicity of line. Some work is so clean -- lacks clutter -- that it takes my breath away. I'm thinking at a very fundamental level, but I've not put enough thought into it to articulate other possibilities.

 

[Charles L Webster]

Back to Cape Blanco

Here's my take on Cape Blanco Light.

This was taken in the proverbial 40-knot gale. I chose to crop away everything that wasn't lighthouse.

Shot with the Canon 300D w/ EF-S 17-85 in March of this year.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ok, off-forum discussions (thank you!) have helped me articulate the beginning of my one underlying principle. I want to show the essence of what I'm photographing by eliminating as much "noise" as possible. That's why I tend to always use black backgrounds and dramatic lighting. I think.

 

[Don Lashier]

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.

Hi Rocky,

The ironic thing is I've never shot a postcard. I actually think that Melvin would classify most landscape photography as "postcards" including such greats as Ray Atkinson. OTOH I'm certainly thinking about publishing note cards and post cards as two different landscape photographers who have their own galleries (one here in Oregon, one in Santa Fe) both told me that they make the bulk of their money on post/note cards - far more than print sales.

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!

I agree. I remember your Shuksan shot and to turn out such an impactful image of a clichéd scene is a magnificent achievement. I find that the "purists" lean towards the more abstract shots that rely on composition, color, and often simplicity while the tourists want something that more directly reminds them of their experience.

Pardon me for sort of turning this into a "lighthouse" thread but I've got one LH 5 minutes north and another 5 minutes south. Here's one of my favs of the north one (Yaquina Head), and it's also popular with the "tourists" The clouds ruled this particular day so I forewent the usual grassy foreground in favor of the clouds. Straight out of C1 btw.

- DL

 

[Rachel Foster]

The blues in that are compelling, Don. What makes this one arresting is that while blues are usually a color I associate with peace and tranquility, this photo has a strong bleakness about it (for me).

 

[Charles L Webster]

The central Oregon coast has an abundance of lighthouses. And an abundance of bad weather... I've not been so lucky with the weather as Don and Rocky. Nice pictures! Don, your Yaquina Head light looks tilted to the right a bit?

 

[Don Lashier]

> Don, your Yaquina Head light looks tilted to the right a bit?

Hi Charles, yeah, this was processed before C1 had arbitrary rotation. But in any case I'm not a fanatic about leveling shots although this one might benefit some.

Rachel, lighthouses tend to be in bleak places, this one in particular since it's jutting 3 miles into the ocean. Does this one give you a fuzzier feeling? (Still bleak to me) And sorry Charles, still tilting.

And btw, despite my normal minimalist processing, this one got quite heavily photoshopped including HDR layers. But I need to redo it as I'm much better at it now than 5 years ago. Need to fix that color cast in the lower sky too

- DL

 

[Rachel Foster]

Back to the one underlying principle, Asher: I've not seen enough of your photos to know, but after looking at your vase photos http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4086
I suspect your one underlying principle might be to show how fragile and yet precious life is. Whether this is correct or not, this would be an example of the sort of superordinate principle I'm positing.

 

[KrisCarnmarker]

Just wanted to clarify one thing. My alteration of the image was not intended as a complete alternative to the original image. I was only trying to illustrate a point. Think of it as a "sketch" of an idea. For instance, I agree that there was too much blur, hence the "adjust to taste".