Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Peaceful and contemplative as Erik says. There is an audience for understated images like this for sure. Probably a bedroom wall shot rather than a living area picture. A photographer I know (he does earn a living with his camera hence photographer) calls them motel bedroom shots. ie boss stealing time off for afternoon tryst with the secretary does not want anything to command attention on the walls.
re the light it was probably nice when you captured it but how much of that is retained after PP is debatable. Probably very little in actual fact. Whats there your software put in. However you pp work has made it look as attractive as this scene can be.
Think I would have screwed on the wide angle and got down low behind and close to that yellow bush.
As presented it has great composition lovely from a technical viewpoint but almost no impact.
But Meatloaf sang Two outta three aint bad so who am I to argue with either of you?
If you feel its complete and are happy with it then all is well with the world

R.G. Loc: Scotland

So you agree that shots like this have their place? I think what Linda is saying is that in your face isn't the only legitimate place for a photo and we shouldn't forget the other possibilities.

Your second comment above is quite telling. You think that to take it further it needs more "impact". My suggestion on this subject is that it could benefit from added interest, and that suggestion is a product of a different mind-set.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Hya R.G. Shots like this do have a place and can be a lucrative area for pro's to work in. I added to my comment and as my friend always says there are loads of motel bedrooms that need a "quiet" picture. Some would say quiet equals boring but Im not sure that's the case always.
Im a thick guy as you well know R.G. so to me the added interest would surely give it the impact many would require. If I have missed something please come back to me but our views seem quite similar to me on this point.
My mind set is I would never have taken it due to lack of impact. Pretty sure come daylight I could within a square kilometer from my house find 20 similar shots. I also have a mountain very close to my home. But because I would not dream of or desire to post a shot does not make it wrong. It certainly also does not give it impact but if it satisfies the poster then all is well.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I'll just repeat my previous statement, and if there's no disagreement then you haven't missed anything.

"I think what Linda is saying is that in your face isn't the only legitimate place for a photo and we shouldn't forget the other possibilities".

I think what you're saying is that as far as you yourself are concerned, "impact" is the way to go. I don't see impact and interest as meaning the same thing. To my mind, interest can be the subtlest of things, and I like shots that reward the viewer who takes the bother to look closely enough or carefully enough to notice small or subtle things.

I would classify some shots as photographers' photographs, meaning that only a photographer is going to appreciate or "get" them, whereas Mr. and Mrs Joe Public are going to miss what the photograph has to offer because they're looking for uber-pop or sensationalism or whatever they see as constituting the wow factor.

jwt Loc: Texas Hill Country

You had me at the title Linda and the photo did not disappoint. Beautiful my friend! :thumbup: :thumbup:

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks so much for your comments, Erik!

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Come on R.G. off the pedestal please! So the weekend snapper who considers themselves deserving of the unearned title of photographer has a more open mind and is able to see more than the average Joe?
My friend your gonna have to forgive me but I do not wish to be in that elitist club. Im an average Joe with an average Nikon probably below average ability whilst using it and very happy to be known as a snapper.
Im actually with regards to taking pictures a mirror image of the huge majority on the Hog.
if you wish along with others to elevate them and you with a false title you must allow me a good belly laugh.
Your bio says your a driver you have a camera you take some very nice photos and your just like Mr Public. Feet on earth please R.G. I promise you we aint nothing special.
This is maybe off subject but probably good to understand anyone is capable of appreciating different things and all their opinions are valid so with a basically quite simple picture its a good avenue to follow I reckon.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Eloquently spoken, R.G. The irony is that if everyone is going for unusual, then nothing stands out as being truly so. Remember when soft, silky water was actually unique? :)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Yes, thanks, that was the point.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks so much for stopping by, Jim!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

What made me think of exploring this idea in FYC was Steve's request in the book club that we post a photo with "visual tension." Looking through the past year's worth of images I've posted to UHH, I realized how often I go out of my way to avoid just that :) And that led me to recall this article:

http://www.naturephotoguides.com/blog/photo-consumption-conformity

"500px is essentially an echo chamber for one style of photography – strongly colored wide-angle grand landscapes with prominent foreground elements that feature epic conditions at often familiar locations."

And that led me to creating this topic. Thanks again, R.G. Your thoughtful observations are always appreciated.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I think this is a worthy discussion to pursue, and Linda's nice image is a good example. Whether we should pursue it here or elsewhere is debatable. But: How much have all of us bought into the classic 500px landscape shot as the required formula? (saturated colors, low angle with foreground anchor, dramatic sky, distinct and powerful elements in fore, mid, background, preferably long exposure with milky water somewhere, etc.)

I confess that Marc Adamus's early work was one of the strongest draws that got me interested in landscape photography. At the time, his approach was unique and attention grabbing. Now it has become the norm, and for me even the strongest and most dramatic of these formula images don't grab me like they once did and I find the less formulaic work of Bill Neill, David Chauvin, Guy Tal and Floris van Bruegel more interesting.

I wonder if what the next trend will be?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Just stating a simple fact. There are things about photographs that we (people in general) won't appreciate until we've tried it ourselves. And there are things that we won't appreciate until we've made the extra effort to improve.

I'm sure there are still some people who haven't even tried using smartphones or P&Ses to take pictures, and the simple fact is that those people won't appreciate things that will be appreciated by somebody who has tried (and very often failed) to take pleasing shots.

And there are things that a snapper won't appreciate until they've made the extra effort to improve their shooting skills. I'm just stating simple facts. No pedestal-posing involved. We were discussing the difference between Linda's shot and those that have more of a wow factor - I was simply pointing out the difference between people that will "get" Linda's type of picture as opposed to those who's appreciation is limited to shots with more wow factor (and therefore more universal appeal and appreciation).

I'm talking about the sort of insight and appreciation that comes from having tried something for yourself. I see that as a simple fact. I don't see anything elitist about it.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Who can tell. What I can predict is that some things will never go out of fashion, but they'll never be the "latest thing" - they'll just stay in the background ticking away and just being there for anybody who wants to notice them.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

R.G. my friend you were heading down the same path as someone who thinks The Rolling Stones make noise and if you do not appreciate Chopin you are a fool. Elitism covers many things unfortunately.
Insight and appreciation gained from experience is a fact. Its not sufficient to give oneself and others fancy titles they are not entitled to and assume because they use these titles so freely they have the insight appreciation or experience.
Now lets get the post back on track and get folks discussing this snap and others in a similar vein.