EXPERIENCE: A Great Place for Photography Education - Latest Comments

Re: Kate

Guest — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:51:11 -0000

Interesting post. I have made a twitter post about this. My friends will enjoy reading it also.

Re: Flower Power from Grand Marais, MN

Guest — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:00:54 -0000

Interesting post. I have made a twitter post about this. Others no doubt will like it like I did.

Re: Lake Superior: Split Rock Lighthouse and New Web Site

Kimberely — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:39:28 -0000

I love this image AJ...and will echo Jeff's comment about "fat" color. I want to spread it on my toast and take a big bite. I will check out the fine art print page this weekend...can't wait. KG

Re: Lake Superior: Split Rock Lighthouse and New Web Site

tbechtel — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:06:48 -0000

Terrific image.

Travis

Re: Lake Superior: Split Rock Lighthouse and New Web Site

Jeff — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:49:17 -0000

Oooh, these pics look nice. I guess in theory I should be able to click on "lightbox" under an image, then go to the Lightbox tab to see my chosen pics grouped together, but that doesn't work for me. However, I am on IE6 (not my computer), and it is throwing errors on every click. This is not your fault, of course, as IE6 stinks. I need to look at this with another browser.

Again, pics look really incredible. The spoon and cherry jumps out at me, hadn't seen that before. I am a fan of fat color. With that said, the B&W water scenes are way cool too.

Hah, hard to separate comments on what (the photos) from comments on how (the delivery mechanism). I am drawn to peer at the photos and ignore usability issues. Overall, the site seems to look and work pretty well, despite this old browser I'm using. It makes me want to see the prints in person.

Would like to hear your thoughts on the site as it is used and you receive feedback.

Re: Scouting The Workshop on the Gitche Gumee

Kevin — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:36:59 -0000

Alec, I can identify with your efforts. I like to experiment with shots that have some potential, but don't quite do it for me. You had the guts to just put it out there and ask for comments. Admirable. I think my take on this whole endeavor is that, when part of an image is realistic, it's unsettling for another part to be changed so much as to be unrealistic. Finding that balance point between realism and lack thereof is the trick.

Re: Scouting The Workshop on the Gitche Gumee

Alec — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:59:33 -0000

Hi Gang,

First, THANK YOU for sharing your comments and I'm thrilled that you're willing to...this is how we all get a better sense of what we like and dislike in our photography. It takes courage to ask people what they think, it takes EVEN MORE to tell that person. This is the truth, as I've come to know it.

Let me first specifically address the post production piece. IN PHOTOSHOP (for you Jeff and Chet :)) I duplicated the background layer. To that new layer I applied 20 points of gaussian blur...Kevin and Jeff, your comments led me to think that was just too much blurring. Then I applied a layer mask to the blurred layer and painted with black at 15% opacity to bring back in areas of sharpness.

Jeff, folks will use the tilt shift to accomplish this affect, though its affect is a little different than the appearance here.

I've seen a fair bit of this around and generally haven't appreciated the look or process. Honestly, I consider it a little gimmicky for my tastes, but I'm always willing to experiment and play.

Same is true with this particular capture. I was scouting, it was hard light (which immediately gets me thinking black and white) and I was quite a ways from this scene, shooting at 200mm. So, I knew it was a difficult composition and if I had taken the time I'm sure I could have found several others I might have liked better.

So, to Kim's question, How do I feel about? I took the first composition I had, shot it, and used a gimmick try to turn lemons into lemonade. I also really enjoy the entire image and feel, but not so much that I wanted to just post it. I was quite on the fence with this one. I had enough intangible apprehension about the image to specifically ask for a response to it and see if we could all gain a little insight by exploring this one.

So, my question to all of you if you're still reading at this point; What insight have you gained about your OWN process by looking at this image?

Re: Scouting The Workshop on the Gitche Gumee

Chet Ellingson — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:32:23 -0000

This is a fun image. A few years ago (well, more than a few) I was taking photos of miniature trains, and attempting to make them look real and full size. It was a fun project......I never thought to do the exact opposite. Well done.
Chet

Re: Scouting The Workshop on the Gitche Gumee

Jeff — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:36:10 -0000

I like these "miniature" scenes generally. I thought this was a golf course at first, with the reflected person near the right side looking like the flag on the green. A good name for this mythical course would be Pebble Beach, I guess. But no, it's not a course, it is an actual pebble beach. I'm not sure the composition works 100% for me, but I'm not sure why. The point at the top of the frame is at a weird angle, or maybe it just looks out of place compared to the nearer, more naturally shaped (?) points, and I might agree with Kevin that the upper right vegetation looks weird. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

As far as post-prod goes, I first thought, what's involved, this is a lensbaby shot, but then I notice 2 distinct areas of focus, far apart in distance, which is unusual. Then there was your comment about shooting long, which must mean a telephoto, with the blur added in post. The effect is good, creating some questions which are fun to try to answer in my head. I like the mystery of it.

My memory of effects like this (using a tilt-shift) usually involve color pics, with the color or contrast hyped a bit to add a bit more unreality to the scene. Depending on what colors the people are wearing, this might add to the pic. If this was a golf course, the greens would be nice to see with plaid-wearing people strolling around. It could be that seeing it in B&W further confuses my expectations.

Overall, I like the shot, the effects, the disconnection from reality. I'd like to see the shot before editing to really know about the post-prod work. Adding blur after the fact is tougher than it looks, isn't it?

Re: Scouting The Workshop on the Gitche Gumee

Kevin — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:24:32 -0000

Cool image, Alec. But personally, I find the blur of the lighter portion of the image a bit distracting. Maybe it's just me, but I can't really tell if there are blurred trees in the background or an out-of-focus branch six feet from the camera in the foreground. I know what you're trying to accomplish (drawing the viewers attention to the focused area of the image), and that frequently works well. I'm just not sure about this particular image. I'll be curious to see what other feedback you get. Again, it could be just me.

Re: Scouting The Workshop on the Gitche Gumee

Kimberely — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:21:28 -0000

AJ! I have been enjoying your images from the north shore (as well as Amy's). I am still not certain how I feel about this particular image. It gives me a feeling of viewing a miniature model made my an architect firm. The selective focus is unexpected and causes me to view the scene from afar. I don't feel as connected to it. How do you feel about it?
KG

Re: From The Workshop #2

Kevin — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:17:53 -0000

Looking forward to seeing images of the lighthouse, Alec.

Re: From The Workshop #1

Chet Ellingson — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:39:59 -0000

Sleeping in this morning was welcomed. The entire experience has been magical.
Enjoying the north shore with Alec.

Chet

Re: From The Workshop #1

Kevin — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:36:39 -0000

I'm eaten up with envy here, Alec. It's hot in the cities, so you picked a great time to ditch the maddening crowd. I hope you all come back with some great images!

Re: Landscape Photography: Establishing Relationships

Alec — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:15:23 -0000

Hey Gang,

Thanks for ALL THE COMMENTS. I want to pick up where Amy left off. I posted this image, not because I thought it was some work of art. I posted it because it really is a challenging image and from it all of us can hone our own intent and insight.

I can't disagree with any of the comments, nor would I. Photography is subjective and therefore all responses have validity. So to Jeff's comment...this wasn't a test per se, it is subjective but on my end there are things going on that don't work for me in the image. You touched on them, as did everyone else.

This raises some really good questions about us as photographers...for example:

1) ON PROCESS: What makes a good image? Well, Amy nailed this...an image and process that is true to ourselves first. If this is happening, its already a good image before it ever sees the sensor! And certainly before anyone else says "This is a great photo" or "I could have shot that...whatever."

2) ON AESTHETIC: When does some imbalance or disharmony or tension enhance our experience with the image? Jeff/Chris/Chet all touched on this in one way or another. For certain, when I was shooting I had considered this element. That's all. Just thought, "Heavy static rock, moving sky, good contradiction?" The next thing I thought was, "We'll see. Shoot it!"

3) ON AESTHETIC: Culturally speaking, there ARE elements of design that we (western culture) will find aesthetically pleasing. You all are familiar with most of them. Things that come in 3's, movement from top left to bottom right, diagonal v. static horizontal, rule of 3rds, repetition of shapes, color depth/relationships and on and on. All of this is helpful in beginning to understand what each of us likes and dislikes as elements in our photography. It gives a way of organizing our approach and developing our gut response to what our eye sees. Paying attention to this will help each of us develop a look or feel to our photography that is genuine. None of it is necessary to having a successful image, but it certainly take us in a direction we may enjoy.

I'm really pleased that two of you are participants in the work shop and we will spend a lot of time exploring all of this. Jeff, any way we can get you to join us?

THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
Cheers,
Alec

Re: Landscape Photography: Establishing Relationships

Amy — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:45:35 -0000

This is a great example of how honest and differing assessments of one's art can help us see new options, and at the same time, test how certain we are that what we've created is still true for us.

Thanks for putting your work out there Alec, to involve us in this process.

Re: Landscape Photography: Establishing Relationships

Chet Ellingson — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:23:08 -0000

Alec,

When I first looked at the thumbnail image, my eyes said there were two different images there, not one. Even after looking at the full size image, I still wanted to go back and look at the lower thumbnail. Some very dramatic stuff going on, but to me, it is " black and white" (sorry) there are two different images there.

I like them both.

I'm looking forward to working with you on the north shore.

Re: Landscape Photography: Establishing Relationships

Cannon — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:50:40 -0000

Big Alec,

Really interesting image. For me, the image seems disconnected. I think it is because the reflections in the rock pools indicate tranquility and non-motion, while the sky is presented to represent movement and motion.

Also, and maybe of equal or greater significance, my eyes move in competing directions. On the pic foreground, my eyes move from the bottom right to the left, following with path of water pools on the rocks. For me, this causes an imbalance because the sky moves from the top left to the top right in a less dimensional pattern.

Those are my initial thoughts on your pic which seems technically superb.

Re: Landscape Photography: Establishing Relationships

Jeff Baker — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:27:50 -0000

Hmmm, interesting pic, good story, good case you make, intriguing question ...

You mentioned that sky working in harmony with the foreground, making the one item you didn't mention the middle ground, or strip of lake. But, despite general principles, one man's harmony may be another man's cacophony. I suspect you're speaking objectively, not subjectively, or we wouldn't have much hope of figuring it out.

A few items I'm not certain about include the bright strip of lake (much brighter than the sky above, which doesn't seem right), the sky which has shapes in it my brain wants to resolve, the foreground pool again reflecting a sky which is brighter than the sky above it, and the bright pool fighting with the rock next to it for status.

I'm aware that a bit of disharmony might work just fine, or the success of this image might just come down to individual taste. Some sour makes sweet sweeter.

I'm still working on it, but work calls. Thanks for the opportunity to look at this.

Re: Landscape Photography: Beautiful Experiences and HDR Images

Alec — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:33:43 -0000

Hi Wes,

Thanks for stopping by and for the kind words. Are you watching the TDF? Are you riding? Hope all is well, mon.

alec

Re: Landscape Photography: Beautiful Experiences and HDR Images

Wes — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:12:26 -0000

Stunning, Alec. Even more so with the sound.

Thanks

Wes

Re: Landscape Photography: Beautiful Experiences and HDR Images

Alec — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:44:33 -0000

Hey K-Hawk,

Shutter speeds were: 6.0/3.2/13 seconds. The moving trees question is great. I'll try to answer it as best as possible, all relevant to the use of Photomatix.

The software has an option of trying to control for moving objects, like trees and people. In my experimentation I've developed a bias AGAINST using that option. Especially in circumstances like the ones during the creation of this image. For the trees etc. I prefer longer shutter speeds so there is some blurring of trees in each bracket. Then Photomatix results give a nice, natural blurred feeling. If I was using significantly shorter speeds, in essence freezing movement in some or all of the brackers, I'd get unacceptable results, with ghosting effects that don't look natural. So, where it suits my purpose I go with natural blurring and the software handles that very well. I've been doing some commercial work lately with cars moving in the images at various points and shutter speeds. Very different circumstance from trees, and yet I'm getting good/cool/acceptable results. In other landscape shots with much quicker speeds I've had results I didn't like at all.

Hope this helps, and thanks again for the comments and questions.

Cheers,
Alec

Re: Landscape Photography: Beautiful Experiences and HDR Images

Kevin Hawkins — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:52:50 -0000

Inspiring image, Alec. I played the audio as I looked at the image, and imagined what it must have been like to be there. As you say, a beautiful experience.

How long was your shutter speed? Does HDR work when the subject matter is moving, as it is here? It seems like you'd be merging images that aren't identical. I guess, in this case, the blended images simply adds to the flow of the water. But if a tree had been blowing in the wind, it might have looked strange(?)

Re: Video Tutorial Episode 4(2): Split Neutral Density Filters Part 2

Alec — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:36:20 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for the kind words and feedback. I think your comment about a "pro" is great. I spend a great deal of time using every reasonable piece of equipment and software to squeeze the most out of a digital camera. At the end of the day, each of us has a process and all of us should use what ever features the camera has to squeeze the best performance out of it. The only advantage a "pro" has is WRITING OFF ALL THAT EXPENSIVE GEAR! :)

Cheers,
Alec

Re: Video Tutorial Episode 4(2): Split Neutral Density Filters Part 2

kozureOokami — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:10:45 -0000

Hey Alec,
It's quite rare these days for a pro to admit that they let the camera on auto for some feature or other, but I guess that's one of the things that one should know, when to rely on the camera and when not. I was using spot metering 100% of the time, but after watching your post I went back to matrix and realized that the results are indeed very good.
I already have a soft ND2, but now I'm really thinking of getting a reverse ND..
Very nice tutorial, keep'em coming.