Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Loch Sunart
Another one of my pictures where there appear to be several things competing for your attention. Again, I will be very interested in finding out what you all think. In this case, though, I thought I would talk about the picture first.
There is another version of this shot here:
Version 2
The alternate version is a different exposure rather than a different treatment. Apart from taming the highlights and the usual depth of field stuff I was playing with the time exposure for the water.
For me the picture is the bottom half of the frame. The submerged (man made) wall is the dividing line. Everything above it is context. Everything below it is light and movement.
Permalink / posted by and copyright of Colin [auspiciousdragon.net] : 6:54 PM
Comments:
I wonder why you posted this one? I much prefer the other! I can see that one can divide up the picture but it doesn't cry out to be analysed like that - or, at least, not for me. But following the themes in your own comment: I don't find there to be any competition for attention and find the wall to be better at joining than dividing! I do prefer the other version because it has a better ratio of light and dark; in this one the middle ground water is too bright and serves to break up the link between foreground and background. But without the other version I would like this - it just suffers in comparison.
I don't particularly like making comparisons but having the two images side by side on the monitor I agree with John.
The tonal range of V2 gives more features to the Loch and a greater impression of the oiliness that one gets on a dull Loch with a bit of wind. The sky also has some indication of the type of weather. I also prefer the recession in the hills. To me, the line of rocks appears to be more ominous and a more substantial part of the image in V2, I like the echo curve of the far shore. In fact I think that produces a link across the Loch.
I am beginning to think that you processed V1 to get the 'weather' you would have preferred!
In conclusion V2 has a bit of Wow and strikes a memory cord but V1 looks like PP drifted off target. I’ve re-read your reason for producing V1/V2 but cannot detect the exposure time difference in the water movement. When on Harris I experienced the first set of conditions where I wished I ‘d had the set of ND filters I used to carry with the OM1, or an ability to turn down to 25 ISO.
I did comment on this a few days ago but it seems to have got lost.
I like the pattern in of the water in the foreground and the water, beyond the wall, shows well the expanse of the Loch. However, I do find the brightness of the water in the centre of the picture takes my eye.
My feelings on this are much the same as John E's. I do understand, however, why you might have posted this here rather than the other (my preferred version). This is, after all, where we can all air those images that we think might have something to them so that 'something' might be discussed. The something for this image that is not as apparent in the other is the light on the water, particularly in the lower half. The 'context' part of the shot in the top half is less interesting because of that light in my opinion.
It's interesting how much the different treatments change the mood of the shot.
Although I like V2 better, I want more detail in the rocks. In my mind this would be one of the major reasons for a tighter shot; spend all that dyanmic range in one area rather than trying to capture such a sweeping scene.
The slope of the water has everything falling to the bottom of the picture. I'm really needing something stronger at the base of the shot to hold it in. The rocks across the middle hold the top up nicely but again a slope is taking my eye out of the frame to the right.
Post a Comment
The tonal range of V2 gives more features to the Loch and a greater impression of the oiliness that one gets on a dull Loch with a bit of wind. The sky also has some indication of the type of weather. I also prefer the recession in the hills. To me, the line of rocks appears to be more ominous and a more substantial part of the image in V2, I like the echo curve of the far shore. In fact I think that produces a link across the Loch.
I am beginning to think that you processed V1 to get the 'weather' you would have preferred!
In conclusion V2 has a bit of Wow and strikes a memory cord but V1 looks like PP drifted off target. I’ve re-read your reason for producing V1/V2 but cannot detect the exposure time difference in the water movement. When on Harris I experienced the first set of conditions where I wished I ‘d had the set of ND filters I used to carry with the OM1, or an ability to turn down to 25 ISO.
I like the pattern in of the water in the foreground and the water, beyond the wall, shows well the expanse of the Loch. However, I do find the brightness of the water in the centre of the picture takes my eye.
It's interesting how much the different treatments change the mood of the shot.