Storm Clouds

John Angulat · Dec 30, 2008

I honestly didn't know where to post this image (and don't be wise-guys and say "the trash can") so I'll put it here.
Sometimes mistakes turn out for the better...the intent was to capture the rigging in the tall ship but the backlighting pushed everything except the clouds to black.
I sort of like it anyway.
Thoughts?

Mike Shimwell · Dec 30, 2008

It is a bit dark for my taste, but I know what you mean - striking and dramatic. Have you tried opening the shadows up at all - they probaly only need some almost inferred detail and a bit more light in the scky to improve it?

Mike

Asher Kelman · Dec 30, 2008

Mike Shimwell said:
It is a bit dark for my taste, but I know what you mean - striking and dramatic. Have you tried opening the shadows up at all - they probaly only need some almost inferred detail and a bit more light in the scky to improve it?

Mike,

Opening up the shadows is a start. However if the picture is not about the contrast between the linear rigging and masts against soft clouds, then we may need to see more.

John,

Given the title, "Storm clouds" then I don't have so much issue with the image except to open up shadows. Still it might be more effective not to exclude the deck and bow of the boat the lower composition, well below the current frame.

Then the boat could appear at risk.

Do you also have wider shots?

Asher

Mike Shimwell · Dec 30, 2008

Asher, I always read your replies to learn more. You so often take the image beyond the original thoghts (mine at any rate) that it's helpful and instructive.

Thanks

Mike

Ken Tanaka · Dec 30, 2008

Mike; All photography is the product of decisions. More specifically photography is all about exclusion. Unlike painting or drawing which begin as blank canvases/pages, the photographic frame is always full of stuff wherever the lens is pointed. Deciding what to exclude from a photograph can often be painful, as sometimes it may lead to a decision not to take the picture at all at that time.

That's what I think I might have decided, at least from that vantage point. You have two strong general elements that, by themselves or in a different scene, might combine to create a compelling image. But in this case they don't work well together at all in my opinion.

Th masts and rigging, photographed from that vantage point and with an (apparently) longer focal length lens are all about geometry. We struggle to find the geometric relationships that you're trying to show. But meanwhile, like an impish child in the background, the surging clouds are suggesting that there's bigger stuff to see in the scene. We want to see a wider view because of those damn clouds. Making the photo b&w doesn't help. In fact, it hurts because now it's hard to distinguish clouds from smoke. Making it darker also makes your problem worse.

Whenever you have a majestic background like billowing clouds you have to select your foreground subjects and framing very, very carefully such that they work together to create something interesting. A photo -ANY photo- of the Grand Canyon, for example, is cliche and instantly forgettable. But a photo of something interesting with the Grand Canyon in the background has a chance to be very intriguing.

So, on this image, I would have made one of three choices. (1) Frame wider, showing the entire ship against those clouds to help invoke the viewer's imagination of a day when that little ship was in the enormous sea with only the wind for locomotion. (2) Frame much tighter to create a geometric study of the masts and/or rigging with just enough clouds to lend some tonal variety to the image. (3) Forget this shot altogether. Not having been on the scene I can't really speculate which would have been the best selection (contrary to what I suggested above).

John Angulat · Dec 31, 2008

Asher, Mike & Ken,

Thanks so much for the time spent studying this image. As always, I greatly appreciate the help and suggestions on how to improve.
Asher and Mike - unfortunately I can't open up the shadows (other than maybe in the clouds) as the detail was lost in the original exposure. I do see, however, how it would help the image if I had that opportunity. Alas, the shot is was it is (perspective), and sadly Asher's suggestion of wider view is well noted but not possible.
Ken - thanks very much for the detailed suggestions. I totally agree (and now see) what you mean in your suggestions 1 and 2. That's what separates the pro eye from my amateur viewpoint. Also, I'm still trying to get my head around your description of geometry. If you have the time, could you sort of "dummy it down" for me? It would be appreciated.

Ken Tanaka · Dec 31, 2008

John Angulat said:
Also, I'm still trying to get my head around your description of geometry. If you have the time, could you sort of "dummy it down" for me? It would be appreciated.

I'll give it a whirl.

Here's a scene of tall ships where the brooding, but non-turbulent, clouds help to set a scene that suggests impending conflict. Will a ship be firing on another soon? (Of course, close inspection --or viewing the large print-- reveals a small Coast Guard boat keeping "peace" over this 2006 gathering.) So this image is not about "geometry" but rather about the total scene in which the clouds play a supporting role.

Now let's return to your image. I remarked that its core value is that of geometry, by which I meant that the silhouetted masts no longer have visual or intellectual value as ship parts, but rather only as lines that intersect and create negative spaces and 2-dimensional spacial (i.e. figure ground) relationships for the viewer. The clouds, to a great degree, confounded the viewer from comprehending this true scene.

Consider, below, a version of your image in which I've taken the liberty to adjust brightness to eliminate the clouds. Now we've reached, albeit crudely, the essence of what this image has to offer: 2-D geometric relationships. The fact that these are ship parts is identifiable but incidental.

Does this help?

John Angulat · Dec 31, 2008

Hi Ken,
Thanks for taking the time to help me out.
Both images help me see what you are referring to. I see the "totality" in the first and now understand more clearly what you meant by Geometric relationships in the second image.
For what its worth, I quite like what you accomplished with my original image!
Thanks again for taking the time to teach.

Alain Briot · Dec 31, 2008

John,

Personally I like the relationship of the masts, rigging and clouds. To me they evoke a metaphorical relationship between the sailboat and the wind.

I do think the image is too dark. Here's a modified, lighter version that I did quickly:

And here is the original for comparison:

Alain

Jim Galli · Dec 31, 2008

If I had shot this I would have done it exactly as first posted. The drama in the clouds is the subject. The rigging is secondary and everything I need to know about it is present. Don't sell yourself short even if it is a happy accident. Do it on purpose next time but not so different.

Alain Briot · Dec 31, 2008

I agree with Jim, except that the image is a little dark. I wouldn't remove the clouds, they make the photograph.

Asher Kelman · Dec 31, 2008

Hi Alain,

I do like your lightening the billowing clouds. Maybe not so far has you have taken it. I might have tried a gradient so that the base of the clouds remains dark.

Asher

Mark Doodeman · Dec 31, 2008

Personally, I like the first image as it was posted. Someone who is standing on that ship is more concerned with the clouds and impending weather- so this is what they are looking at, and ignoring the masts, as the photo reflects. The only thing I would have done differently is to either include the hull of the boat, or to not have any part of it appear in the photo. It shows a bit on the bottom corners. Still, as I said, I like it.

While Alain Briot's edit of the photo completely changes the meaning for me, I like it also. I like that the complexity of the rigging comes through more.

Ken Tanaka · Dec 31, 2008

Well there you have it, John. Very different points of view about the potential for your 'umble little snapshot. I'm not at all certain that you've gained much reusable value from the commentary -- can any online critique of a snap offer any real value? But it's always interesting to see such varied points of view. Perhaps that's why the Rorschach inkblot tests were so popular for a while.

Asher Kelman · Dec 31, 2008

Art as a new frame of reference, a playground or gymnasium for the mind!

Ken Tanaka said:
Well there you have it, John. Very different points of view about the potential for your 'umble little snapshot. I'm not at all certain that you've gained much reusable value from the commentary -- can any online critique of a snap offer any real value? But it's always interesting to see such varied points of view. Perhaps that's why the Rorschach inkblot tests were so popular for a while.

Ken,

You, as often you do, hit touched upon a property of art that I think is important to consider.

I have come to believe that part of the function of some art might be to act as a stimulus for us to escape from the call of other matters. We are invited to be intrigued and exercise our minds in a "New Universe", perhaps with different rules than our own. In this new frame of reference, (just as in a play we watch), we might look at the givens in our life and recalibrate out values. We might just be entertained by fantasy of free association. IOW, art can become a playground or gymnasium for the mind.

So a snap, can be more than that if it can work thus!

Asher

John Angulat · Dec 31, 2008

Ken Tanaka said:
I'm not at all certain that you've gained much reusable value from the commentary -- can any online critique of a snap offer any real value?

Hi Ken,
I truly believe you are mistaken. As a professional, the comments and critiques offered may seem mundane or almost Photo 101 to you and others. But to us amateurs it represents a priceless resource. I learned things from your post that may not seem like much to a pro, but where else would I have been shown "totality within a scene" or geometric balance within an image?
Happily, I have gained much and will be a better photographer for it.
Have a very Happy New Year!

Asher Kelman · Dec 31, 2008

John Angulat said:
Hi Ken,
I truly believe you are mistaken. As a professional, the comments and critiques offered may seem mundane or almost Photo 101 to you and others. But to us amateurs it represents a priceless resource. I learned things from your post that may not seem like much to a pro, but where else would I have been shown "totality within a scene" or geometric balance within an image?
Happily, I have gained much and will be a better photographer for it.
Have a very Happy New Year!

Hi John,

Your reaction is music to my ears. Riskit! to work, must mean that photographers who start a thread show that they take in and value responses to improve their long term work. I'll write more on this shortly and add the link here.

Asher

Alain Briot · Jan 1, 2009

John Angulat said:
Hi Ken,
I truly believe you are mistaken. As a professional, the comments and critiques offered may seem mundane or almost Photo 101 to you and others. But to us amateurs it represents a priceless resource. I learned things from your post that may not seem like much to a pro, but where else would I have been shown "totality within a scene" or geometric balance within an image?
Happily, I have gained much and will be a better photographer for it.
Have a very Happy New Year!

Good point. Also, the idea is not for all of us to agree, but instead for each of us to present our personal opinion about what works and what can be improved in the image.

Being in agreement should be something that happens occasionally and is rather unexpected !

The interest is in having different views. If we all agree we might as well say "nice work" and move on.

nicolas claris · Jan 2, 2009

Ken Tanaka said:
Mike; All photography is the product of decisions. More specifically photography is all about exclusion. Unlike painting or drawing which begin as blank canvases/pages, the photographic frame is always full of stuff wherever the lens is pointed. Deciding what to exclude from a photograph can often be painful, as sometimes it may lead to a decision not to take the picture at all at that time.

That's what I think I might have decided, at least from that vantage point. You have two strong general elements that, by themselves or in a different scene, might combine to create a compelling image. But in this case they don't work well together at all in my opinion.

Th masts and rigging, photographed from that vantage point and with an (apparently) longer focal length lens are all about geometry. We struggle to find the geometric relationships that you're trying to show. But meanwhile, like an impish child in the background, the surging clouds are suggesting that there's bigger stuff to see in the scene. We want to see a wider view because of those damn clouds. Making the photo b&w doesn't help. In fact, it hurts because now it's hard to distinguish clouds from smoke. Making it darker also makes your problem worse.

Whenever you have a majestic background like billowing clouds you have to select your foreground subjects and framing very, very carefully such that they work together to create something interesting. A photo -ANY photo- of the Grand Canyon, for example, is cliche and instantly forgettable. But a photo of something interesting with the Grand Canyon in the background has a chance to be very intriguing.

So, on this image, I would have made one of three choices. (1) Frame wider, showing the entire ship against those clouds to help invoke the viewer's imagination of a day when that little ship was in the enormous sea with only the wind for locomotion. (2) Frame much tighter to create a geometric study of the masts and/or rigging with just enough clouds to lend some tonal variety to the image. (3) Forget this shot altogether. Not having been on the scene I can't really speculate which would have been the best selection (contrary to what I suggested above).

I, once again, do totally agree with Ken's very good advices…
I would like also to add that, photography is also the art of waiting.
Once, before shooting, you have decided what you need to get it, you'll have to be waiting for:
- Right light, from the right direction
- To move to the right place to get the right angle OR for your subject to move (it happens with boats) to the right place
Once everything is where you need, then shoot it!

It's all in the intent! for the pic below, I knew I had to wait for the night, at day the magis is gone…
Should I have wanted clouds, I would have wait another day.
Yes I know a photographer who waited many days to get the right light and waves to photogrph a lighthouse…

as sometimes it may lead to a decision not to take the picture at all at that time

YES!

Storm Clouds

John Angulat

pro member

Mike Shimwell

New member

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Mike Shimwell

New member

Ken Tanaka

pro member

John Angulat

pro member

Ken Tanaka

pro member

John Angulat

pro member

Alain Briot

pro member

Jim Galli

Member

Alain Briot

pro member

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Mark Doodeman

New member

Ken Tanaka

pro member

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

John Angulat

pro member

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Alain Briot

pro member

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator