This was shot within minutes of the previous Sand Clouds. This one has more energy. I tried to play the energy below off the softer rocks above. The brightness was raised in processing to keep those rocks fairly bright and the oranges were slightly desaturated. This was all done to achieve this counterpoint, something not visualized in the field. I had walked past these rocks the day before without giving them a second thought, I just wasn’t mentally prepared. By the second day I was seeing better. I believe that between the two days the mind was digesting what it had seen. Making sense of it all and deciding what impressed the most. All without telling me.
2 Likes
I really like the bottom half of the image and think it could stand alone.
I think a crop right below the top rocks works for me.
Well seen.
You’re correct, Dan. In fact my initial vision was the bottom section and I have such an image. The composition was extended later as I saw the interplay between the two. It added a level of complexity which I like. There is still another image that includes the surf and horizon, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
Igor, I like the simple color palette of warms against the neutral tones. I tend to agree that the lower portion is more intriguing because of all the swirls and lead-ins at the bottom. Maybe a crop to just below the warmer rocks(?) What’s also interesting to me is that it almost looks like snow and ice. It’s certainly a fun image to ponder.
Beautiful. My first thought looking at it was the bottom half is the star. While real nice, I like the bottom as a stand-alone better. Much stronger image to my eye.
Igor,
I’ll likely be all over the map with my comments here. First, I think this is a great example how the experience of the photographer, not only from the original onsite experience, but also pre and post experiences, wishes, visions, etc. etc., are that of the photographer. The un-biased viewer has only the image in front of them and so it’s quite difficult most times to relate to that original experience. I feel that way about the “energy” you get from this image. My own problem is, I’m way to simplistic, so I often don’t get things.
I mostly agree about the bottom being the main subject and interest. However, I’m thinking a crop would actually create a much more static image and lose that “energy” if you will.
I think your processing here is spot on, excellent.
I think I much prefer this as presented. The only connection I see between top and bottom is just that they’re in the same sand. But for me, the brighter patch of sand in the middle separates the two sets of rocks; divides rather than connects. Perhaps if the distance was a little shorter? Also, the dark gray patterns, which really help define the lower half, their patterns draw the eye out of the frame on the right rather than connect with the upper rocks.
Let me say it differently. Whether or not you, or the photographer divulge any visions or personal thoughts on the experience, I, the viewer will judge the image as seen on the monitor. And I see a wonderful, intimate beach-scape. I like this a lot.
Told ya I’d be all over the map.
Lon
That’s a good point, Lon.
When I first joined NPN1 I felt quite strongly about this. I felt that the author should present his image with no interpretation whatsoever. Back then my introductory comments dealt with the circumstances about how the picture was taken. I particularly disliked authors who lauded the strong points of their images and complimented themselves. My attitude was - “it’s your job to show your work and my job to critique it. Let’s not confuse our roles”.
I also felt that if you don’t understand what my image is saying then either you’re not trying or the image is a failure. I felt that explaining the image during the introduction is a cop out.
Over the years I have decided than I’m pretty much the only one that feels this way. (“I tried to create a leading line to the mountain”, “The light on the dune allowed me to take the best image I’ve taken in Scotland”, etc.) And so I’ve started to comment on my own work. It’s an easy habit to fall into.
You have also repeatedly stated your theory on how images are to be interpreted by viewers as they see fit without direction from the maker. And I’ve repeatedly stated that each image has a statement that the author is trying to make (images without statements are inherently weak) and a good image is when that statement is effectively conveyed. So, I respectively disagree with your viewpoint. But I do agree that my feelings about my image should not be expressed verbally. Let the image speak for itself.
An artist friend of mine said that her father, who was a painter, told her to never go to a museums and walk from label to label reading each piece about the painting. Ignore the labels as much as possible. Look at the painting for what it is and don’t worry that the battle depicted is Trafalgar or that he’s crossing the Alps. Later on as a photographer I understood what he was getting at.
Igor, no, no, please don’t stop commenting, elaborating on your images. That’s one of the things that I love about your posts. You’re engaged, you think, you express, thoughtfully. I guess I have my own difficulties in explaining and expressing. All I was attempting to say is that regardless of whether the photographer goes in to great detail or says nothing, I as the viewer may or may not “get it.” For me anyway, that does nothing to me whether I view an image as strong or weak, pretty or just documentary. I was NOT implying that you or anyone stop making comments about their own work.
I may or may not expressed this in the past - I probably have. IMHO I ask the question, WHY does an image have to say something?
You also know me well enough to know that the extent of my emotions on photography pretty much only reach the “ooh, that’s a pretty picture” level which is why I spend the bulk of my time critiquing dust bunnies, color casts and border patrols. Many others more often than not strike an emotional connection with not only their own work, but in others as well. Here in lies the beauty of this community that we have such diversity. And I welcome your comments and hope you don’t change on the account of any comment I’ve made.
Lon
Lon, I guess I’ll respond by asking why did you take the picture? Whether you consciously know it, something within made you stop and compose it the way you did. If the image is honest and not a icon copy or a cliche then it has meaning. In my view, the next step is to become aware of that and present it in a way that tells the viewer why you took the picture. And the next step after that is to decide whether what you are trying to say has enough value to be shot or is trite and can be skipped. During most of my sessions I have some that are more meaningful to me personally than others. Those are the ones I get excited about. It’s like in music. Even there are no words in classical music pieces they do say something. Or you wouldn’t respond emotionally. In fact, emotional response is the best indicator that the image has something to say.
This is real nice, Igor. Yeah the bottom half could stand alone as a strong composition but I like the inclusion of the background rocks as they create more depth in the image. I do find the top half a bit too bright, however. I could see utilizing a gradient and bring the top half luminosity down by maybe .3 stops. This will help direct focus on the intriguing sand patterns in the foreground while still retaining the nice balance and depth of the existing comp.
1 Like
That is some cool sand swirls in the foreground. I’ll echo what the others said, the foreground is more interesting than the back but overall I still find this a compelling image.
My vote for the bottom rock as well as a stand-alone image. Nice!
Touche Igor - and excellent food for thought. I should work on that, being more aware. And you’re right, there is always a reason for deciding the capture the photo. Even in many of my images (and comments from folks) “making something from nothing” or “I never would have seen that…” are reasons and have some sense of meaning. Seeing, then creating something beautiful or meaningful - from some ordinary subject like trees and rocks… well there ya go.
thanks for the discussion
The consensus seems to be that the bottom rock should stand alone so here it is. This was the initial vision.
I liked the swirl on the right side you cropped out. I would leave it in.
This isn’t a crop but a previous image. Oh I see, you’d prefer a crop of the bottom half. Yeah, that would work except for the bare ulc.
Hi Igor,
Looks like you are enjoying your time there in Baja … and, really getting into the groove.
I am drawn to this picture both from a subject-matter point-of-view, as well as the unique color palette. The composition is so beautiful. The patterns in the sand, courtesy of the flowing water, provide a wonderful sense of movement, while the rocks themselves act as anchors. The whole thing has come together nicely.
While the rock at the bottom and the surrounding patterns are no doubt striking, I think an image of just that portion wouldn’t be as interesting as what you have here. Including the other rocks near the top of the fame effectively changes the angle and this alone provides a lot of depth to the composition.
Some have suggested making a composition that just focuses on the lower half. That seems like an obvious thing to do. However, I don’t think such obvious choices lead to interesting images because they leave no room for the viewer to derive a greater sense of meaning. I am glad you didn’t go that route.
Looking forward to more …
1 Like
I think you accomplished your goal in this image admirably, Igor. The energy in the lower part of the image is impressive and I do like the counterpoint of the upper rocks. Their roughness also hints at a lot of latent energy in that area as well.
Beautiful work.
1 Like
Excellent comp and light. I like how the rocks provide islands for the eye rest among all the energy in the sand. It’s a very interesting combination of elements.
I quite enjoy the interplay between the two sections of rocks - the crop of the lower part alone doesn’t do much for me. I love how subtle the oranges are, and how they still pop so well against the grays of the rest of the image.
I don’t think it breaks the image by any means, but my first thought was that I’d like to see a bit more breathing room above the top rocks - it just feels like a lot of visual tension close to the top edge of the frame, with relative nothingness in the middle. Of course this may have been impossible, depending on what was up there. The image still works as is, and aside from that I have no nits with it.