Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Power pylon
Power pylons are much under-photographed objects. In fact, to look at most landscape photographs one wouldn't realise that they existed.
Permalink / posted by and copyright of Colin [auspiciousdragon.net] : 8:50 AM
Comments:
power pylon's as under-photographed objects? usually not in germany. but this shot is quite different. great combination of manmade and nature's power with focus on nature asking which is the ultimate power.
in 'civilised' landscapes those tracks of human acting are conspicuous.
like this image for the nearly silouette appearance without loosing visibility and details in the dark. also the DOF is well chosen. the not centered pylon (and trees) adds a balancing effect to the otherwise centered compo. conversion is adequate and well done.
{the nearly silouette appearance without loosing visibility and details in the dark}
Printing the lower half of this picture is proving to be a challenge. I can see a new printer on my horizon....
Basically, this photo is a challenge to the viewer! I agree with and endorse most of what Michael says. The challenge comes with the aesthetics as the author's comment on pylons implies. Standing by my house, deep in rural Wales, I can only take a photo, without a wire of some sort featuring, in one 90 degree sector. That happens in most of the places I go to locally. Increasingly, wind turbines feature on high points as well. The question these man-made features (often dominating natural topography) pose can vary but invariably involve conflict, either between man and nature or between man's own requirements of nature.
Here is a wild plant (possibly hogweed - ubiquitous and a fierce coloniser) and cultivated ground, a field. At least there is a hedge but it looks lonely: not too many other hedges around. The poplars seen here are usually associated with planting as opposed to natural woodland and the pylon echoes their shape and position in the landscape courtesy of man.
None of this is necessarily bad but this photo is, I would suggest, not sympathetic to this landscape: it is shot under a lowering sky, one of those dog day of winter skies when there isn't much light and everything looks drab. The whole methodology of the shot leads to that impression. I imagine that each viewer might be led to differing conclusions for the reason that questions (awkward in my view) are posed. This photo has depth to it and the pylon is a catalyst to the answer any of us might give in response. Finally, there is a magenta-ish tinge in the upper cloud - possibly as a result of forcing some part of the shadow development - intentional?
John E: thanks for the comments. I'll respond to some of your more philosophical points after a night's sleep. The magenta-ish tinge in the cloud is in fact a result of a light (fake, digital) sepia tone that I created in order to print this picture on my HP printer (which struggles to do neutral so I force the cast in an acceptable direction). The tones in the bottom half of the picture are beyond the capabilities of my Epson 2100. Oh, yes, and it is hogweed.
John E and michael: You are right, this isn't a shot sympathetic to the landscape. I feel that too many landscape photos are 'Joe Cornish like'. Colorful fictions of a landscape that doesn't exist now (even if it ever did). This field is in Bedfordshire. The sort of flat England that we hide from here in the Highlands. I find the vista in such places dreary. But the plants, the animals, and the manmade objects can all have a beauty which is sometimes difficult to sum up in a photo. Somehow the vista gets in the way.
This was an attempt to arrange some of these objects into a pleasing whole without idealising either them or the place (which was, in fact, the road leading to a recently closed borstal).
I do not understand the majority of the bottom half of the image, the field. I am uncertain as to why there is so much.
For me the purpose of the image is to produce a subtle juxtaposition between the hogweed and the pylon. The dark sky gives a feel of oppression and the 'bald' hogweed a feel of struggle, forlornness and effort.
With that length of foreground the fact that the stem of the hogweed departs from the image confuses me. If the foreground were smaller and the hogweed stem cut shorter it would be more obvious that the base was not intended to be in the image. Less foreground could still convey the feeling of loneliness and isolation of the hogweed and the feeling of the darkness of the day.
If you wish to have a print of this I think any digital print is going to struggle reproducing the stem against the field, even those folk who print B&W with the colours replaced with greys, perhaps a pro-studio could get the reproduction you require. One of my camera club colleagues competes internationally and pays £5 for a professional photographic print 30*40cm. It's cheaper than a new printer!
Umm. Your comment was not on this image when I commented!
Posting mine 'freed' yours. I don't think I would have said anything different had I seen yours but it could lead to misunderstandings!
Rex: no misunderstandings and thanks for the comment. I took several frames for this shot. Most were landscape rather than portrait and so had much less foreground and stem. To me, these compositions were just a bit too obvious. In selecting this frame, I was deliberately trying to 'confuse' in that I wanted to encourage a viewer to look closely and to disentangle the elements. The unease is deliberate. What exactly is this a picture of?
As to the printer.....I get a wonderful print off my Designjet 30 but you do have to like Sepia (the very light tint in the file becomes a fairly intense brown on this printer). I have hopes that the new Crane paper that some people have had in pre-release form might be the solution to this and similar printing problems on Epson printers where the matte papers can't hold the separation in the dark tones and the gloss papers have the horrid gloss differential problem. I take your point about professional printing though - and any recommendations for a printer gratefully received. Back in the days when I used slide film I went off professional printers as they were either hopeless or exhorbitant. Also, your comment about people who replace the colour cartridges with blacks - do you know anybody who is using the Lyson Daylight Darkroom system?
Looking forward to your member nomination next week.
Since starting to use our Epson R2400 (yes - expensive!!) at about the begining of October I have to say that I am very impressed with the b/w capability (black, light black and light light black). We print mainly on Fotospeed DW Photo DB Matt and I am confident that, with that combination, you could print your pylon and achieve what you want. Their pigment-friendly lustre is good too. I was seriously considering the Lyson solution before getting the 2400 but the Digital Outback experience report led us to the 2400. The only regret is running cost but once the guarantee runs out we'll probably go for a continuous ink supply.
Returning to your picture. It is right that 'the realities' of the countryside are explored both in terms of the aesthetic possibilities and recording and analysing what our relationship with the earth is. And I agree with you that the aesthetics should be more than photos shot at the 'right' time of day. You may find a few coming from me in the future.
There is a 'sub-group' in the club who digitally print B&W. I'll see if they have any advice than can be condensed into a few paragraphs!
I went to a lecture on the colour train and the lecturer earns his living doing profiles, reviewing equipment, and acting as an agent for Lyson and Gretag. He was exceedingly complimentary about the 2400 and made a statement along the lines that it was the first digital printer to produce a B&W print that approached a photographic paper.
John if you go to continous ink you will need to get the inks, paper and printer profiled. (Danger, Grandma and Eggs:-))
Post a Comment
in 'civilised' landscapes those tracks of human acting are conspicuous.
like this image for the nearly silouette appearance without loosing visibility and details in the dark. also the DOF is well chosen. the not centered pylon (and trees) adds a balancing effect to the otherwise centered compo. conversion is adequate and well done.
Printing the lower half of this picture is proving to be a challenge. I can see a new printer on my horizon....
Here is a wild plant (possibly hogweed - ubiquitous and a fierce coloniser) and cultivated ground, a field. At least there is a hedge but it looks lonely: not too many other hedges around. The poplars seen here are usually associated with planting as opposed to natural woodland and the pylon echoes their shape and position in the landscape courtesy of man.
None of this is necessarily bad but this photo is, I would suggest, not sympathetic to this landscape: it is shot under a lowering sky, one of those dog day of winter skies when there isn't much light and everything looks drab. The whole methodology of the shot leads to that impression. I imagine that each viewer might be led to differing conclusions for the reason that questions (awkward in my view) are posed. This photo has depth to it and the pylon is a catalyst to the answer any of us might give in response. Finally, there is a magenta-ish tinge in the upper cloud - possibly as a result of forcing some part of the shadow development - intentional?
This was an attempt to arrange some of these objects into a pleasing whole without idealising either them or the place (which was, in fact, the road leading to a recently closed borstal).
For me the purpose of the image is to produce a subtle juxtaposition between the hogweed and the pylon. The dark sky gives a feel of oppression and the 'bald' hogweed a feel of struggle, forlornness and effort.
With that length of foreground the fact that the stem of the hogweed departs from the image confuses me. If the foreground were smaller and the hogweed stem cut shorter it would be more obvious that the base was not intended to be in the image. Less foreground could still convey the feeling of loneliness and isolation of the hogweed and the feeling of the darkness of the day.
If you wish to have a print of this I think any digital print is going to struggle reproducing the stem against the field, even those folk who print B&W with the colours replaced with greys, perhaps a pro-studio could get the reproduction you require. One of my camera club colleagues competes internationally and pays £5 for a professional photographic print 30*40cm. It's cheaper than a new printer!
Posting mine 'freed' yours. I don't think I would have said anything different had I seen yours but it could lead to misunderstandings!
As to the printer.....I get a wonderful print off my Designjet 30 but you do have to like Sepia (the very light tint in the file becomes a fairly intense brown on this printer). I have hopes that the new Crane paper that some people have had in pre-release form might be the solution to this and similar printing problems on Epson printers where the matte papers can't hold the separation in the dark tones and the gloss papers have the horrid gloss differential problem. I take your point about professional printing though - and any recommendations for a printer gratefully received. Back in the days when I used slide film I went off professional printers as they were either hopeless or exhorbitant. Also, your comment about people who replace the colour cartridges with blacks - do you know anybody who is using the Lyson Daylight Darkroom system?
Looking forward to your member nomination next week.
Returning to your picture. It is right that 'the realities' of the countryside are explored both in terms of the aesthetic possibilities and recording and analysing what our relationship with the earth is. And I agree with you that the aesthetics should be more than photos shot at the 'right' time of day. You may find a few coming from me in the future.
I went to a lecture on the colour train and the lecturer earns his living doing profiles, reviewing equipment, and acting as an agent for Lyson and Gretag. He was exceedingly complimentary about the 2400 and made a statement along the lines that it was the first digital printer to produce a B&W print that approached a photographic paper.
John if you go to continous ink you will need to get the inks, paper and printer profiled. (Danger, Grandma and Eggs:-))