Western Colorado, a few miles east of the UT/CO state line. A sego lily filled hillside under a mid-day, smoke-filled, milky-tinged sky. It's entirely unspectacular. And was precisely why I shot it.
Considering what the air looked like 3 days ago, I will take unspectacular.
joecichjr
Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
Cany143 wrote:
Western Colorado, a few miles east of the UT/CO state line. A sego lily filled hillside under a mid-day, smoke-filled, milky-tinged sky. It's entirely unspectacular. And was precisely why I shot it.
Gorgeous vista, bely shot 🤎🤎🤍🤎🤎
Does beauty have to be spectacular?
UTMike wrote:
Does beauty have to be spectacular?
Personally, I think not, Mike. But whether they admit --or they're even conscious of-- it or not, I'd bet that most would disagree. Insofar as 'landscape'-type images go --as opposed to documentation or reportage or forensics or any of the other niche pursuits that photographers follow-- it's as though viewers (and therefore, photographers, too) have been 'taught' --or persuaded, indoctrinated, coerced, or somehow culturally conditioned-- that "beauty" only exists when something 'pops' or is 'moody' or is anything other than grandiose in some way or another. "Beauty" is relative; it and the values/meanings/examples that've been attached to it over time have never been consistent, and has changed from one time to the next and from one culture to another.
Just spitballin' here, so pardon the distraction. This whole 'visually conditioned' thing has, however, been on my mind for many years, though, and is why --sometimes-- I prefer the immediacy of an 'informed but not conditioned' response toward the actual rather than the secondary, imposed as it were, 'spectacular-beauty-ness' of someone else's proposed ideal.
I think it's a nice image.
DougS
Loc: Central Arkansas
Mighty nice shot, borders on being 'spectacular'!
This is quite nice. I, too, would have taken a shot of this view. Not all days are spent at the circus. Some are simply spent quietly cleaning house and chatting with the neighbors. Those are nice, too.
47greyfox
Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range
Considering that the Canadian smoke and haze has made our views disappear this week, I’m liking your image a lot. Thanks for reminding us of the vistas we’ve missed.
Cany143 wrote:
... It's entirely unspectacular. And was precisely why I shot it.
I think that beauty can be, in and of itself, spectacular. This image is a case that one could argue is an example of that idea.
Cany143 wrote:
Personally, I think not, Mike. But whether they admit --or they're even conscious of-- it or not, I'd bet that most would disagree. Insofar as 'landscape'-type images go --as opposed to documentation or reportage or forensics or any of the other niche pursuits that photographers follow-- it's as though viewers (and therefore, photographers, too) have been 'taught' --or persuaded, indoctrinated, coerced, or somehow culturally conditioned-- that "beauty" only exists when something 'pops' or is 'moody' or is anything other than grandiose in some way or another. "Beauty" is relative; it and the values/meanings/examples that've been attached to it over time have never been consistent, and has changed from one time to the next and from one culture to another.
Just spitballin' here, so pardon the distraction. This whole 'visually conditioned' thing has, however, been on my mind for many years, though, and is why --sometimes-- I prefer the immediacy of an 'informed but not conditioned' response toward the actual rather than the secondary, imposed as it were, 'spectacular-beauty-ness' of someone else's proposed ideal.
Personally, I think not, Mike. But whether they a... (
show quote)
Beauty, like love, is different strokes for different folks or in the eye of beholder. I like this image because for me it has the look of ektachrome and I find it appealing in its own way.
Cany143 wrote:
Western Colorado, a few miles east of the UT/CO state line. A sego lily filled hillside under a mid-day, smoke-filled, milky-tinged sky. It's entirely unspectacular. And was precisely why I shot it.
No. It does not "pop" nor jump in your face. We get enough of that in current advertising. But it does have interest. And that interest comes from composition in framing and leading lines. I found my eyes gliding back through the zig zags of the landscape from the near crest of flowers (or weeds), right, then left, the back right to get lost in the vanishing far distance. Then I feel so small and insignificant on the face of this planet. This planet..... Oh no, here I go again. Your photos have a way of taking me on some pretty wild journeys Hey, is that Carl Sagan standing over there?
No. It does not "pop" nor jump in your face. We get enough of that in current advertising. But it does have interest.
There you have it in a nutshell
I think that some folks, especially the trolls in the group, need to remember that we are amateurs and that we do the best we can given the circumstances.
If we actually had had to make a living at this we would not be here trying to make other people feel bad about what they post.
Whose tagline says, Maybe they just liked what they saw? Words of wisdom and there is nothing wrong with posting things that you enjoy looking at
Personally, I thoroughly enjoy not having the pressure of “performing”.
I take pictures that please ME (well, some times ). My biggest problem here is that I like to share. Are the technically perfect. Probably not but I freely admit that it’s about the journey not the destination.
I am fine with that. Other people need to get with the program because I am too old to care if folks like what I post or not. Not my problem. 🤣
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.