Snow Day
Dec 19, 2020 13:57:15 #
Dec 19, 2020 14:06:03 #
Dec 19, 2020 14:07:58 #
Dec 19, 2020 14:17:25 #
Cany143
Loc: SE Utah
tommystrat wrote:
The judicious use of color behind the bush (tree?) is a nice touch. The image is stark, dramatic, and evocative without being overdone. For my taste, the sky is a bit blown out, but upon reflection, that serves to highlight the tree branches, which are the main subject in the first place. So... 
First, my thanks to those who've looked and/or commented.
And second, though there've been other comments made no less deserving, you (Tommy) touched on several aspects of this particular image (and virtually any image I or anyone might post) that --in my mind's eye, at any rate-- deserve discussion, despite a Gallery section's posting not being the generally accepted place to discuss much, while other sections being considered more apropos.
What is 'overdone'? (Conversely, what is 'underdone'? That, however, is a separate subject altogether, and as such is outside the scope of what I want to discuss.) Drama, evocation, subject, and, indeed, taste, not to mention the manner, method, or degree (or lack thereof?) any of these might --or might intentionally not-- be employed in the taking, making or viewing of an image are worth discussing as well. Anybody up for any of that?
Naturalistically speaking, the 'sky is blown out' for the simple fact that the brightest portion of the sky is precisely where the sun had been. That its behind a featureless section of misty cloud means simply that no matter what anyone had done (in shooting or in processing), to maintain the veracity of naturalism is to let it be as it was, and what anyone in that place and under those conditions would've perceived as being both actual and factual. Its considerably different than the clouds we see in some images, where overexposure --or an inability to process the scene accurately-- leaves them, photographically speaking, 'blown out.' Its not that I'd make any claim toward being especially 'good' --or better than anyone else-- with exposure or with processing, but I will claim a certain ability to observe, and observe accurately.
Which leads me to 'subject.' For most (it seems), subject equates to 'thing.' That's well and good for those who think in those terms, but to me, in seeing or shooting or processing whatever may become an image, 'thing' is not sufficient. If all I wanted --or was able to comprehend-- was to capture objective reality, I'd simply go and look, and not bother with a camera or any software or anything else. Its as if the 'eye' would be worthless without it being connected to a mind. And anything that's mindless is.... well.......... not worth much of my time.
In the image as posted, all but one range of colors have been desaturated. I chose to do so. Because it abstracts reality while rendering as faithfully as I could the facts of the scene. One might question 'why abstract at all?' And I'd answer that in abstracting, I hope to elicit the possibility that someone might ask the question.
Dec 19, 2020 14:20:01 #
Dec 19, 2020 15:23:11 #
Dec 19, 2020 16:20:52 #
Dec 19, 2020 16:57:29 #
Dec 19, 2020 18:23:22 #
Dec 19, 2020 18:35:14 #
Cany143 wrote:
In Poverty Flat.
Jim, aweome photo. DDL is again required to see the details.
Greg
Dec 19, 2020 20:07:43 #
Dec 19, 2020 20:36:45 #
Dec 19, 2020 21:29:20 #
Dec 19, 2020 21:39:02 #
Of all the images that I've seen of yours, this is my favorite. It's beautifully composed, beautifully exposed. Stellar!
Dec 19, 2020 21:52:18 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.