• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Sunset at Tofino

DLibrach

New member
This was taken on a recent trip to Vancouver Island in September. I was inspired by the wonderful paintings of Roy Henry Vickers whose gallery I had visited just a few hours before this was taken. Is it too obvious? Does it stand on its own without the reference to Vickers? I'm thinking of getting this printed but I'm not quite sure the best way to do that (i.e. paper choice). Thoughts?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Cheers,
Dave

425625829_3RdWe-L-2.jpg

McKenzie Beach
Tofino, BC (Canada)
 

Bill Miller

New member
Nice capture. I for one believe an image should stand on his own. This does. No reference to to anyone is necessary.

Hopefully you shot it in RAW and can pull a little detail out of the foreground. Should make a nice print.
 
This was taken on a recent trip to Vancouver Island in September. I was inspired by the wonderful paintings of Roy Henry Vickers whose gallery I had visited just a few hours before this was taken. Is it too obvious? Does it stand on its own without the reference to Vickers? I'm thinking of getting this printed but I'm not quite sure the best way to do that (i.e. paper choice). Thoughts?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Cheers,
Dave

425625829_3RdWe-L-2.jpg

McKenzie Beach
Tofino, BC (Canada)

I was/am not familiar with Roy H. Vickers work, though I did sneak a peek at the web site listed above. It seems that his style includes horizontal strips of bold color and complimentary dark stripes. I actually intuited that from your photograph and your introductory comments, so the photo is working on that level. If you wanted to move closer to that style, you could increase the saturation of the sky and water. I would also try cropping off some sky, to balance the foreground . I also think Bill Miller has a point about allowing some detail to show in the darker areas, though that seems against the Vickers style.

Thought provoking. Thanks for the post.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This was taken on a recent trip to Vancouver Island in September. I was inspired by the wonderful paintings of Roy Henry Vickers whose gallery I had visited just a few hours before this was taken. Is it too obvious? Does it stand on its own without the reference to Vickers? I'm thinking of getting this printed but I'm not quite sure the best way to do that (i.e. paper choice). Thoughts?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Cheers,
Dave

425625829_3RdWe-L-2.jpg

McKenzie Beach
Tofino, BC (Canada)

Hi David,

It's always appreciated to know what's on an artist's mind to those who study art more closely. It's a privilege we value. And yes a picture should be able to stand on it's own, but when there's a reference to another work, it's good to know.

Vickers seems to show more detail in such a shot but that doesn't matter. If you are inspired by a work, it's still good for this to be a take-off point ,not something just to mimic. Like bill, I prefer more information generally. If however you'd choose to make this more abstract, you can try making it to be just layers of color and darker water. Try different ways of working and see what gives you the most pleasure, fascination, comfort, distraction or other experience you appreciate.

Then in the next pictures you take, I'd try to design the picture according to these ideas of your own.

For me, as I've said many times here, especially when not shooting for a defined commercial purpose, shoot wider so one can still have a leeway for your experiments as to what you might be able to do with such a starting point. It's like getting clay for modeling a sculpture. You know what you want to make but a lot of variables might alter the amount of material needed.

Here, you have emphasize the sky. The water you have not included cannot be used. Yes, it's good to learn to frame exactly what you perceive as the final image. You are not certain, however, yet about this new genre of images, which BTW, I really like. So think of shooting much wider, too.

Thanks for sharing. For the print, I'd use a matte finish.

Asher
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
What are you going to do with the print?

For me, I too would like to see some of the detail added back.

I think this would be breathtaking in Metallic Paper....
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
For me, I too would like to see some of the detail added back.

I think this would be breathtaking in Metallic Paper....

Yes, Kathy,

What a great idea! I was thinking of a soft watercolor look but I've seen the matallic paper and it would fit very well.

Asher
 

DLibrach

New member
Nice capture. I for one believe an image should stand on his own. This does. No reference to to anyone is necessary.

Hopefully you shot it in RAW and can pull a little detail out of the foreground. Should make a nice print.

Thanks, Bill. Yes, I shoot RAW exclusively. There is a bit more detail in the foreground on the original but I was intentionally trying to underexpose that area. It was the silhouette that I was interested in so did not expose to get proper detail there.

I was/am not familiar with Roy H. Vickers work, though I did sneak a peek at the web site listed above. It seems that his style includes horizontal strips of bold color and complimentary dark stripes. I actually intuited that from your photograph and your introductory comments, so the photo is working on that level. If you wanted to move closer to that style, you could increase the saturation of the sky and water. I would also try cropping off some sky, to balance the foreground . I also think Bill Miller has a point about allowing some detail to show in the darker areas, though that seems against the Vickers style.

Thought provoking. Thanks for the post.

Cheers, Nathaniel. Yes, Vicker's style does include aspects that I did not incorporate here. It was more meant to be "inspired or influenced by" than "a copy of". It was my photographic spin on his work.

Others that I have shown it to have also mentioned about the sky. I'll crop a bit off and post below. It does make a difference, but changes the way I see it.

Hi David,
........ For me, as I've said many times here, especially when not shooting for a defined commercial purpose, shoot wider so one can still have a leeway for your experiments as to what you might be able to do with such a starting point. It's like getting clay for modeling a sculpture. You know what you want to make but a lot of variables might alter the amount of material needed.....

Thanks for the encouragement.

Not to worry though, this is a cropped down from the original frame. I agree with you 100% and I tend to shoot wide when experimenting and the work down from there. I'll post the full frame below. As you mentioned this is a new(ish) genre for me that I haven't really explored much publicly and appreciate all the feedback.

Kathy, I'll definitely explore the Metallic Paper. I think that would give more of the impact that I was going for than watercolour paper. Never tried it before (metallic print) so I'm looking forward to it.


Cheers,
Dave

Cropped version: While it works, it makes it a little more crowded for my tastes. My work tends to have a lot more negative space in it.
429800070_YYFRZ-L.jpg


Original: Simply exported from DNG (RAW) to jpg via LR2. Complete with dust spots and uneven horizon
5D, 1/30, F16, -1.3EV
105mm (24-105L)
There is more detail in the rocks than can probably be seen here on the compression. Even more can be pulled out of the RAW file but I did not attempt that here.
429789264_nEkHZ-L.jpg
 
Top