Backlit

Time to risk it again.

Taken in February 2012:






Larger view, IMHO less interesting:






Opinions, Suggestions?


Best regards,
Michael

Suggestions regarding what Michael?

I find this an interesting image and the composition is good. Where it lacks a bit is the texture of the beam and the surface. It should be more visible imo. Both the sepia and the bw versions are OK for me.

Michael Nagel said:

Time to risk it again.

Taken in February 2012:

Opinions, Suggestions?

Click to expand...

Michael,

This picture is frame well. The wood beam and its shadows form a meeting place of drama commanding attention to the center, from which vantage point we are impressed with the wavy texture of the sand lit from one side and then a smoother blend of the beach to the water in the far distance.

There's tons of room for artistic interpretation of the possible ways of presenting the textural maps of the sand in the foreground the rich wood and then the smoother distant beach. I can see a more than a few variations. In fact, this would make a great vertical triptych with varied tones with sepia, platinum, and copper and more for example these ideas:

Try these other colour combinations:

Copper and blue:
Foreground: Red 75, Green 95, Blue 110;
Background: Red 230, Green 210, Blue 170

Sepia with neutral highlights:
Foreground: Red 70, Green 60, Blue 45
Background: Red 255, Green 255, Blue 255

Blue tone:
Foreground: Red 40, Green 70, Blue 105
Background: Red 170, Green 200, Blue 200 (From here.

or by this approach.

or else Google-Nik's Silver Effex Pro, which does all of this and more as a plugin for PS.

Anyway, I feel strongly that this is a piece worth exploring further as framed here and there's a lot more power to be expressed, even though I love it just as it is.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

....
There's tons of room for artistic interpretation of the possible ways of presenting the textural maps of the sand in the foreground the rich wood and then the smoother distant beach. I can see a more than a few variations. In fact, this would make a great vertical triptych with varied tones with sepia, platinum, and copper and more for example these ideas:

Try these other colour combinations:

Copper and blue:
Foreground: Red 75, Green 95, Blue 110;
Background: Red 230, Green 210, Blue 170

Sepia with neutral highlights:
Foreground: Red 70, Green 60, Blue 45
Background: Red 255, Green 255, Blue 255

Blue tone:
Foreground: Red 40, Green 70, Blue 105
Background: Red 170, Green 200, Blue 200 (From here.

...

Click to expand...

Asher this is all fine, if it had been your picture. But should we be telling somebody else how to generate art from their work? Especially when that person actively states that he is not an artist? Suppose for a minute that Michael follows your advice and creates a tryptich. Would it then be art? Or would it be letting go of one's own vision and do something artsy just to pretend? That is the reason why I have asked Michael why he wanted our suggestions; regarding what aspects? He did not answer yet.

Cem_Usakligil said:

Suggestions regarding what Michael?

I find this an interesting image and the composition is good. Where it lacks a bit is the texture of the beam and the surface. It should be more visible imo. Both the sepia and the bw versions are OK for me.

Click to expand...

Thanks Cem,

Your remark on the texture of the beam and surface is already a suggestion.

Best regards,
Michael

Asher,

Thanks for your suggestions, but just two details: This is ice (shot in February) and there is no horizon or other shore to be seen as it was shot at an angle of approx. 15 to 20 degrees looking down.

You know that I am not in favour of too extensive PP, but I will have a look.

Best regards,
Michael

Michael Nagel said:

Thanks Cem,

Your remark on the texture of the beam and surface is already a suggestion.

Best regards,
Michael

Click to expand...

No it isn't a suggestion, It is my personal view of what I think is lacking. I did not tell you that you should produce a version with more texture, did I?

You see why it is next to impossible to give proper C&C online, it is so prone to misunderstandings.

Cem_Usakligil said:

Especially when that person actively states that he is not an artist?

Click to expand...

I am back in first person here...

I think you missed that episode that sparked the thought of adding this to my signature.

To make it short:
It is a stance against the increasing number of self-proclaimed artists using it as a label to sell veblen goods (thanks Jerome for making this point) while the designation of their work as art is questionable to many.
My point is that artist is something someone else can call you - here I see it as a compliment and I am fine with it, but calling myself an artist, well here is the beginning of the story with additions that led to my signature.
This post adds some more to it (you need Fahim's comment above for context).

This is now terribly off-topic here but I think it is necessary to clarify things.

Best regards,
Michael

Cem_Usakligil said:

No it isn't a suggestion, It is my personal view of what I think is lacking. I did not tell you that you should produce a version with more texture, did I?

You see why it is next to impossible to give proper C&C online, it is so prone to misunderstandings.

Click to expand...

Cem,

It is a suggestion on what parts of the photo it could be worth to spend some additional effort - can we agree on that?

Thanks!

Best regards,
Michael

Well I guess this teaches me to mind my own business from now on.

Use of words

Cem,

Suggestions - the meaning of this word can vary a lot. For me, pointing into the direction of a path to explore further is already a suggestion. With the addition of what aspects to modify/improve, there is even more. Giving precise indications how to modify opens the way to look on the photo in a way how someone else would have done it. OK, this would be no longer my work as you rightfully indicate above, but the result can be an eye-opener for future work.

I did not ask a precise question as my perception of the two photos is inevitably different from other onlookers, so why directing when this means limiting the variety of answers/indications? There could be something I missed completely while others stumble upon it on first sight, so why potentially excluding it? I do not claim to be perfect, this is why I ask and I do not think that limiting to specific sections/details helps when I hope to find reactions based on the overall impression combined with details originating from individual perceptions. I prefer clear words to criticism veiled in false compliments though any response is inevitably subjective ('If I would have done this...').

Concerning my rant against self-proclaimed artists - the reason for this lies outside this forum, I just wanted to clarify the meaning of my signature. Maybe I have to modify it...

By no means I wanted to offend you - I cannot pinpoint where I did it, but please accept my excuses.

Best regards,
Michael

Cem_Usakligil said:

Well I guess this teaches me to mind my own business from now on.

Click to expand...

Cem,

Don't get it wrong! We are all meant to mind other people's business here.......... when it's been requested, after all! There's a huge difference between what we rightfully can say and then the idea being used. We make suggestions but the photographer has to protect his/her offspring in this flood of new ideas. Still, we can't be showing offense if our ideas get misunderstood. In a small but active group as here, we'd end up with no comments at all! We just we try better the next time!

We fail as a group if we hold off in exchanging ideas by giving the impression that we're miffed by someone's suggestions. To loose your input would be a significant loss!

Asher

@Michael. You did not offend me. I was just not pleased with the discussion on semantics. I thought that you were avoiding my question which remained unanswered.

@Asher. I am more than happy to offer my input if someone asks for it. But it has to be clear what input is being requested.

Exploitation of different versions of B&W to expand viewer experience!

Michael Nagel said:

Asher,

..........just two details: This is ice (shot in February) and there is no horizon or other shore to be seen as it was shot at an angle of approx. 15 to 20 degrees looking down.

Click to expand...

............... So there goes another one of my faculties, pattern recognition! Tau protein could be accumulating ...... , LOL!

Michael Nagel said:

You know that I am not in favour of too extensive PP, but I will have a look.

Best regards,
Michael

Click to expand...

Michael,

The conversion of an image to B&W is obviously a major transformation with needed allocation of billions of colors to a limited amount of possible tonalities. So there are no "truthful" ways of making a B&W picture, unless it's just "truthful" to a standard Ilford, Efke, Kodak, Fuji or other film and paper look.

So why not select 3 and that way promote different hidden aspects of that image so as to stimulate the viewer to a broader take on your work. I like this picture very much, although my limited references, took it as sand rather than ice! I might suggest, in this regard, that the title include a slightly stronger hint that it's frozen! In Germany in February, local experience would offer up ice as a choice. Here, in southern California, I'm not sure whether it's even legal!

Asher

Just because I like playing from time to time (hope you don't mind) - - - I thought, why not make it look a little more like snow. I also cropped with the content a bit higher to the top of the frame:

Asher,

I limited myself to one possibility until now - often for the combined reasons of limited time and limited computing power. Currently I am working on improving the latter and hoping the first will also get better.
There will be different representations, but probably not of this one I am afraid.

Thanks for the suggestions/indications.

Best regards,
Michael

Robert,

Thanks - I did not think of this all-white representation and cropping like this is a very good idea - there is more emphasis on the shadows and the resulting geometry.

The all-white is probably easier to associate with snow and ice.

Snow is not all-white, there is an amazing variety of tones that change with the light. It is difficult to grasp when you only see snow from time to time. I grew up in a place where winter lasted at least four months in a row. In this case your eye get easier accustomed to the subtle tonalities. You can have similar effect when renovating an appartment, painting the walls white and living there the same time (I did that once). After two days you see imperfections in your work somebody just passing by will never notice...

Best regards,
Michael

Hi Michael.
I won't call you anything. Just Michael.
It took me a while to get my head around the lack of horizon. A perspective thing I think. 3D on a flat surface without a reference point. That's not a criticism, just an observation.
It is an interesting subject and taken from as interesting a PoV. Your choice of colour on the first didn't help with my understanding of the subject matter, along with some others, as it seems. If it was your intention for us to be deceived, then it worked.
The B&W version doesn't help much either way. Personally, I don't think it adds anything. You might like to explain what you point was in doing that.
Looking at it as objectively as I can, I, like most, will probably make an attempt at figuring out the reality. Once I get past that and get it all wrong, the next step is to consider it as a tonal study; an abstract in the artistic sense, in which case it becomes a passable attempt at capturing the contrasts, forms and textures in a rather formal manner.

Hey, Robert, remind me not to have you rearrange my furniture. Yuck!

Tom,

Thanks for telling me what you see. This together with Ashers comment above makes me recognize that I am victim of my own perception. For me it was clear that it is ice and snow - I would not have seen another interpretation.
This information helps lot to better see what is there - with or without reference point.

I wanted to capture the textures and shapes and saw this as well as the factual objects there. My goal was to have both views...

No intend to fool anybody this time - it is just that I have to take a step back from what I see and try to imagine how what is in the frame can be seen by someone who lacks some of the information I have.

Thanks again - I have to remember to try to look at what I took with different eyes...

Best regards,
Michael

Michael Nagel said:

I am back in first person here...

I think you missed that episode that sparked the thought of adding this to my signature.

To make it short:
It is a stance against the increasing number of self-proclaimed artists using it as a label to sell veblen goods (thanks Jerome for making this point) while the designation of their work as art is questionable to many.
My point is that artist is something someone else can call you - here I see it as a compliment and I am fine with it, but calling myself an artist, well here is the beginning of the story with additions that led to my signature.
This post adds some more to it (you need Fahim's comment above for context).

This is now terribly off-topic here but I think it is necessary to clarify things.

Click to expand...

Michael, if this is what you intend to say, then your signature is misleading. It should read: "I don't call myself an artist" instead "I am not an artist".

As to the photograph, I find Robert's suggestion quite interesting. And since we are talking about suggestions, I like suggestions. In my mind, they are not a way to say "you should correct what you did" but an indication of new paths to explore. Would this be my photograph, I would not necessarily follow Robert's suggestion entirely (in particular the crop, because I do not like the way it arranges the structures on the ice), but would consider the high-key approach. Just, maybe, not in that green (but I am not sure).

But suggesting something, one explains what one sees in a picture. If I suggested something, it would be a crop. Why? Because in the snow structures, I see lines and I need to arrange the frames so that the lines conduct my eye inside the frame. So a suggestion of crop actually means that I see the elements in this way. I find quite interesting that Robert had a completely different suggestion, one which I would never had considered, because I don't pay enough attention to contrast. Here, I think, the suggestion of a contrast biased towards high-key fits the mood of the scene better than the original and is worth considering.

Cem_Usakligil said:

Asher this is all fine, if it had been your picture. But should we be telling somebody else how to generate art from their work? Especially when that person actively states that he is not an artist? Suppose for a minute that Michael follows your advice and creates a tryptich. Would it then be art? Or would it be letting go of one's own vision and do something artsy just to pretend? That is the reason why I have asked Michael why he wanted our suggestions; regarding what aspects? He did not answer yet.

Click to expand...

Cem,

That quote is just reflexive humor, like Tom Dinning saying your are a worthless bastard, when he means he'd like to buy you a drink, LOL!

I make it my job to find out as best I can what folks intents are and try to remember the replies to my private notes to them for clarification when I'm not sure. So for me, there's no difficulty, Michael is very open to ideas, but is very capable of doing everything without any help from anyone of us. "Openness", is BTW, a hallmark of the creative mind.

Asher

Cem_Usakligil said:

Asher this is all fine, if it had been your picture. But should we be telling somebody else how to generate art from their work?

Click to expand...

If you know enough of the person, appreciate his/her work and they've given license, one can suggest ways of expression that might be outside their normal frame of reference. The true artist inside will always protect the purity of their intent and then decide whether or not suggestions make sense and support their own purposes or not.

Take, for example the work of doing this NSFW portrait of a girl standing in front of a screen, where help is requested. It was suggested that the b.g. could be 2 stops under in lighting. I added it could be 2 stops over instead. In these suggestions, we do not create for the photographer, just open the way to use of tools to better express the ideas the photographer already has.

That's all Michael is doing here. I just recognized an alternative approach for presentation of a picture with myriads of possiblities. It would be up to Michael to find it fitting or not and then to make the myriads of creative choices necessary to actually put together 3 versions expressing different aspects he wants to show us and that work together as he wishes. That I could never do on his behalf! It's not my picture nor my interest. Our only task is to provide tools and routes for the photographers own goals, be it a wedding picture, a product shot or a work to be considered ast art one might find in an art gallery. The latter is my assumption for this work. At least to be that kind of work, not necessarily planned for any submissions at this time.

A finished picture, however, does not need nor warrant such ideas. It is what it is - enjoy what's likable, or just walk on!

Asher

Jerome,

Jerome Marot said:

Michael, if this is what you intend to say, then your signature is misleading. It should read: "I don't call myself an artist" instead "I am not an artist".

Click to expand...

I think that I will use another wording. At least the point has come across here.

Jerome Marot said:

{...} In my mind, they are not a way to say "you should correct what you did" but an indication of new paths to explore. {...}

Click to expand...

Ma parole

Jerome Marot said:

But suggesting something, one explains what one sees in a picture. If I suggested something, it would be a crop. Why? Because in the snow structures, I see lines and I need to arrange the frames so that the lines conduct my eye inside the frame. So a suggestion of crop actually means that I see the elements in this way. I find quite interesting that Robert had a completely different suggestion, one which I would never had considered, because I don't pay enough attention to contrast. Here, I think, the suggestion of a contrast biased towards high-key fits the mood of the scene better than the original and is worth considering.

Click to expand...

Thanks. There are a lot of paths to explore now. I will see how much I will spend on these and what I will apply in another way at other pictures.

I just finished rescuing files from a computer that had some hardware issues and I will fix it and set it up again some time on Sunday (at least the basic stuff), so there will be little time left for anything else for the remainder of this weekend.

Best regards,
Michael

Michael Nagel said:

Tom,

Thanks for telling me what you see. This together with Ashers comment above makes me recognize that I am victim of my own perception. For me it was clear that it is ice and snow - I would not have seen another interpretation.
This information helps lot to better see what is there - with or without reference point.

I wanted to capture the textures and shapes and saw this as well as the factual objects there. My goal was to have both views...

No intend to fool anybody this time - it is just that I have to take a step back from what I see and try to imagine how what is in the frame can be seen by someone who lacks some of the information I have.

Thanks again - I have to remember to try to look at what I took with different eyes...

Best regards,
Michael

Click to expand...

You only have your own eyes to view this through, Michael. Stick with those. Visualizing what it is you want to record and how is tricky business. That's the fun. Some days you never can tell how it will all turn out. If photography was totally predictable I have a feeling some of us might loose interest.
I know some are still talking over us with more important issues such as art but when it comes down to it, the beauty of photography lies in what it was in the eyes of the photographer, not what we perceive it to be.

Tom,

Thanks, yes, these are my eyes - there is no other eyes I can use.

To illustrate what I wrote above, here is some snow...




Best regards,
Michael

Too static. A simple subject like this need lots of help from the framing and POV. This one didn't get it.