Ansel's Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico (Page 7): Modern technology ??!?!?!? ROTFLMFAO. Actually ignorance and lack of common sense. The sun is behind the viewer and somewhat toward...

User ID

camerapapi wrote:

I hope the majority of you know that this image wa... (show quote)

Modern technology ??!?!?!? ROTFLMFAO. Actually ignorance and lack of common sense. The sun is behind the viewer and somewhat toward the south, as per the shadows on the structures. That puts a full moon somewhat to the viewers left. Such a southward sunset indicates an early wintery time of year. Your edit is unsettling to the senses.

User ID

larryepage wrote:

I think that is sagebrush, not sheep...

The reason they dont look like real sheep is that they are wolves in sheeps clothing.

User ID

srt101fan wrote:

The OP's question is anything but "sophomoric"!

Amen. Timmers is inventing a back story ex post facto, seemingly to infuse more weight or substance to the act of making a photograph. Back stories may at times be entertaining but are visually worthless.

Any photo must stand on its own visually without explanation. Photos that cannot stand on their own are simply illustrating the back story, a somewhat pedestrian but useful function.

(Download)

KindaSpikey Loc: English living in San Diego

The Beatles made some great songs when they started out, and were perfectly marketed, and towards the end of their career, if honest, their music was a bit "so, so",but still huge hits because after all, it was "the Beatles". I'm pretty sure the same goes for a Da Vinci, Picasso, et al. And I think Ansel falls into the same category. Don't get me wrong, he certainly produced some great images, but I believe that in some instances, his name alone became greater than his work. Inho.
Ray.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

NickGee wrote:

Such a fool's errand tinkering with an iconic photo such as this. You want to show off, go create something of merit on your own two feet.

I find this entire thread little short of ridiculous. So many people confusing what they like/don't like with what's aesthetically and technically good/not good. Asking all the wrong questions, giving glib answers. A validation of banality.

This begs the question: "Why are you here?" I don't mean here on page 6 of such a 'banal' thread, but on UHH at all. This is a photo site dedicated to the display and discussion of all things photographic. Past that, how can any of us confuse what we "like or don't like with what's aesthetically and technically good/not good?"

People give there own opinions on what they like or don't like, it's what people do, both here on UHH and pretty much every part of life we touch. The original posters question was more than reasonable for a Photo forum and the varied opinions have been great, exceeding many of the more "banal" topics put forth.

About all that's ridiculous is participating in a thread you find ridiculous.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Wallen wrote:

img https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5... (show quote)

I love everything about this photo - except the streaky clouds. I've not seen clouds looking like that before and although it doesn't mean they don't exist, it makes me think that he did a long exposure of the scene and applied the moon photo later on. The clouds just don't look natural to me but, I really am amazed at the sharpness and the detail he was able to achieve in the rest of the photo.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Not bad. That guy's got potential. : )

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

BigDaddy wrote:

This begs the question: "Why are you here?&qu... (show quote)

Exactly right on. Whatsisname's opinion that you so eloquently answered is saying we should censor opinions in art and photography of what he considers 'settled aesthetics'.

Ironically he would probably be the first one to say 'rules are made to be broken', and 'anything goes in art' but only as it applies to his opinion. Of all the times I have seen it I have never seen any artists objecting to the earlier post we saw of a mustachioed Mona Lisa.

srt101fan

BigDaddy wrote:

This begs the question: "Why are you here?&qu... (show quote)

Well said!

anotherview Loc: California

The over-bright sky imbalances the image. Nevertheless, AA saw this scene while on the road. He stopped and quickly set up his gear for the shot. AA heavily edited the exposure, to suit his sense, apparently.

I have taken my inspiration from AA on other grounds -- his complete dedication to photography. His saga as a masterful photographer and his support of environmental causes also impress me.

Wallen wrote:

img https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5... (show quote)

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

BooIsMyCat wrote:

I love everything about this photo - except the streaky clouds. I've not seen clouds looking like that before and although it doesn't mean they don't exist, it makes me think that he did a long exposure of the scene and applied the moon photo later on. The clouds just don't look natural to me but, I really am amazed at the sharpness and the detail he was able to achieve in the rest of the photo.

From most accounts, the exposure was one second or so. I think they are cirrostratus clouds that probably looked pretty much as portrayed. Remember...it was just at sunset.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

anotherview wrote:

The over-bright sky imbalances the image. Nevertheless, AA saw this scene while on the road. He stopped and quickly set up his gear for the shot. AA heavily edited the exposure, to suit his sense, apparently.

I have taken my inspiration from AA on other grounds -- his complete dedication to photography. His saga as a masterful photographer and his support of environmental causes also impress me.

You are right. In Adams' negative SOOC that he has shown, the sky is middle tone gray.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

larryepage wrote:

....the single biggest thing that the majority of folks can do here to make their photographs more interesting is to break out of the prescribed boxes (or at least push the sides out a little bit).....

The issue of the so-called "rules" is a significant one and worthy of more discussion. It would be wrong to be dismissive of the rules because they serve a useful (some would say vital) purpose in the early stages of learning. They point out to us many of the DOs and DONTs, and describe many of the basics that we benefit from knowing.

However, the rules can also become restrictive, and if they are adhered to mindlessly they become anti-creative and an obstacle to the growth of our capabilities and imagination.

If doing things contrary to the rules is to be effective, it's essential that we understand clearly the reason for their existence. With that understanding we are better placed to understand why it may be better to break them sometimes. Breaking the rules without that sort of understanding is very likely to produce results that look more like mistakes and not so much like products of genuine inspiration or enlightened experimentation.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

R.G. wrote:

The issue of the so-called "rules" is a ... (show quote)

Yes, but there are also some who would say that Adams' work is 'settled aesthetics' and you can't question it. Reminds me of some of what passes for science these days.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Fotoartist wrote:

Yes, but there are also some who would say that Adams' work is 'settled aesthetics' and you can't question it. Reminds me of some of what passes for science these days.

In a previous thread about aesthetics it came out that there is a school of thought which suggests that beauty is absolute and therefore independent of opinion. Beauty, it is said, exists whether there is anyone there to observe it, appreciate it or label it as beauty. I prefer a definition that accommodates the possibility of different tastes, preferences and interpretations.