dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

FYC

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

Might be a decent image dansmith but it ain't high enough quality for me to get a good look full screen......sorry but I also like a bit of technical observation along with subject, composition, and so forth.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

How far downshore from Corpus Christie were you.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The compression of UHH's thumbnails and the mustard yellow background don't give us a chance to see the best side of this, I'm sure.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Film or digital?

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Saddened somewhat by the emphasis placed on the technical side of photography on this forum. The origins of this image and what was done to it to get it this far should not be a factor in commenting on its esthetic merit or on how that could be improved. Should I decide to print this digitally or otherwise the finished item including the frame choice will display differently from what is posted here as well.

I'll put the soap box back in the garage now.

I stuck the frame on it to help separate it from the yellow. The black doesn't help much on this one either.
It's BW film from a late 50's Voigtlander
I expose and develop film "by the book" as it gives me a standard start point. PP workflow is haphazard trial and error and evolves as I learn more.
South Padre island is more handy to Brownsville than Corpus Christi.

jgordon Loc: Boulder CO

I really agree with this. If one were to go to a gallery to view prints, no technical information would be necessary in order to appreciate or critique images. If, for example, depth of field is too great or too shallow, that can be seen without knowing which lenses or f-stops were used.

It is the final image that matters -- not the lens, the f-stop the camera model or the shutter speed. I am always somewhat mystified when someone on the UHH claims that they can't critique or react to an image without knowing all about the the EXIF data.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Dan, I am with you 100% !

However, this image is a distant view of what appears to be finely detailed textures and subtle tones. The thumbnail + my aging eyes and my monitor don't afford me the opportunity to see this photo in the same way I can see some others, such as close-ups of bright flowers, or high contrast b&w.

The fact is that viewing a compressed 600-px image on an average sized computer screen is difficult and often we can't see details and color (or tones) the same as a download version.

I am more than happy to talk about only the below points (from an article linked in my signature line), but it doesn't change the fact I really can't see your photo:

Emotion
Light
Composition
Creativity
Timing
Context
Layers

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Keep your soapbox out but move over for me. Speaking for myself, I want to learn to be a better photographer, technically and artistically. Sometimes the technical details help me in the former. For me, I photograph to express myself artistically and to record memories. I started photography in 1959 when we did not have sharp lenses or films and papers with wide tonal ranges. That is what many people strove for. Now, we have all that and even more so that from a technical sense, I am in hog heaven. And it does make me enjoy photography a lot more. I miss the darkroom but Lightroom has it beat. Ok, you can kick me off of your soapbox now.

I thought the picture was vintage from its look and what you post. It is a classic of its period. Could use a little bit more ferricyanide here or there but very respectable. And preferable to giving a digital photo the vintage look from someone who probably was not there.

PP is no more haphazard trial and error than film but is more forgiving. You cannot spoil a raw file like you could film in the developer or hypo. My workflow is very consistent because for me, the evolution from camera image to final image mirrors exactly what I did in the darkroom. Several predictable preliminary steps followed by less predictable tweaking.

Thanks for posting and initiating this discussion.

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Point well made Linda.
Here's the non resized version. What I was trying to get was to enhance the separation of the different areas in the dune. Light angle was not favorable but I didn't have the luxury of returning. Should I decide to paper print this and if it is worth the effort, I will start back and rescan the negative and re-edit as well. This offering is for ideas only.

Dang! didn't hit store original - watch this space

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

First let me say it would help to know you were looking for" esthetic merit", but all you posted was For Your Consideration so I considered the image and left my thoughts. Did not mean to offend. I'll have to agree with Linda here Dan. If you were referring to my statement please note nothing was asked about technical information. I just wanted the image to be of high enough quality to make some technical observations. I asked for no technical information and could not care less about f/stop, film, digital or otherwise. So I am confused by your sadness and soapbox dissertation as I saw nothing asked about how the image originated. I would like to see if it is technically in focus and so forth, observe depth of field and whatever else to get a feel for the image...as presented when downloaded and viewed full screen with no magnification it is already pixilated, hence my comment.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

When you have interest in feedback on specific areas of concern of interest, such as composition or subject or mood, you could request in your opening. I have done that on occasion, basically indicating I don't care about any technical issues in that particular image. IMO, not enough folks in this forum say enough in the opening, so we are left to offer what we as viewers see as issues or successes, and that may or not be helpful to the OP.

But again, a download just to view more properly would be appreciated

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Really depends upon whether you want to help with the artistic or technical part of the photo. You do not need EXIF for the former. And you are right about the gallery.

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

No offence taken everyone.
Here's the pix full size (I hope this time)

(Download)

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

This works. All seems rather well done Dan. Love the textured feel and can almost feel the grit. I still make memories on the Texas gulf coast so I have enhanced senses of observation here. Personally for me there is a bit too much dark sky…I might crop down and a bit in from the right. I would like to see a touch more light on the lower left. Good job Dan.