This is something that I caught up my eyes as I was driving up to Bishop last year. Not sure if this works. I am still trying to decide if the ray looks fake.
D750, 200mm, f/16, 1/125, ISO 50
@adhikalie
@adhikalie
3 Likes
A stunning, delightful, mysterious achievement. Nothing looks forced.
FWIW, my eye goes to the darkest portion of shadow over the central peak … wanders around from there. Maybe it is not darkest, just a contrast trick with the bright area to its left.
It definitely works. That light has a graphic nature to it and the contrast with the land brings the viewer in.
No nits from me.
Adhika, my first thought was if there is a big light city behind those mountains. I doesn’t matter because you have here a fine image in my eyes !!
Fabulous photo! Totally works for me.
It’s amazing. I like it.
My ONLY ONLY comment is that there is too much black at bottom. It takes away from the radiating rays - and they are the star if the show. This is my suggestion.
3 Likes
This works great for me, Adhika. Very graphic and really grabs the viewers attention. I think @Eugene_Theron has a valid suggestion but he took it a little too far for my tastes. Bravo - great shot!
Adhika,
This is so very cool! Interesting you ask if the rays look “fake.” Interesting because the impression I get is that of moving water - a faster shutter speed reveals detail, where as a longer exposure, texture and silky motion. The rays here, just like the latter - a long water exposure. As opposed to distinct linear rays…
This just works beautifully!
I would agree cropping a bit off the bottom to reduce some negative space - but perhaps not as far as Eugene cropped.
Great eye and vision - glad you pulled over!
Lon
1 Like
Beautiful, Adhika. It doesn’t look fake at all to me. I could see cropping a very small amount off the bottom, but only that. I quite enjoy the negative space. This is outstanding, I quite like it.
This is something very different from you Adhika. With you I normally think of warm, inviting scenes, filled with soft light and gentle colors. But it’s also good to see you stretch in a different direction.
This does not look fake to me, I have seen this phenomena on a number of occasions while out shooting landscapes, and you have captured a glorious example of it here. Interesting choice to present it in B&W, it looks great to me.
Here is another vote for something in-between the original presentation and Eugnee’s crop.
1 Like
@Dick_Knudson, @Nathan_Klein, @Ben_van_der_Sande, @Tony_Siciliano, @Eugene_Theron, @Bill_Chambers, @Lon_Overacker, @Harley_Goldman, @Ed_McGuirk: Thanks, everyone!
I know what you mean, Ben, it looks almost like one of those concert pictures, right?
Thanks, Eugene! Yes, definitely can chop off a little more at the bottom. The only reason I chose this amount of black at the bottom is for the aspect ratio. Now, I don’t think I will go as far as making it as panoramic as yours, but I think 5:7 can be a happy compromise.
Ohhh, I have never really thought about it this way, Lon. Thanks for this insight!
Here is my thinking, Ed: The color version is pretty much just the blue sky, the rays, and a very dark mountain. I struggle with the tonal contrast in the color version because of that. I suppose I could keep some details in the mountain but it feels like it detracts from the quality of the sun rays. B&W seems to be a good medium to “alter” reality that way.
Another gem. Beautifully abstract and very dynamic. Without seeing it in colour, black and white seems like the an obvious choice for an image such as this. Wonderfully seen and marvellously executed. I like the rework with a little less black on the bottom - but still enough to ground that dazzling light. Print it!
Thanks, @Kerry_Gordon !
Talking about printing, would you mind sharing more information about your photobook printing? I usually print my photos as a folio box. I would print them on 12x12 papers of my choice and stack them in the box but I like the idea of compiling them into a photo book. Now, I have used Blurb before but I think they are too casual and I am not impressed with the print quality. Additionally, I am rather particular with my print medium. My go-to paper is the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 although I would print on their baryta papers from time to time. I am not a Hahnemuhle snob and I am open to trying new, similar papers, but I am not aware of any places where I can get this done for a photo book.
Thanks for the insight into your thinking, it works beautifully in B&W. I once encountered this same phenomena at sunrise along the ocean in Acadia NP (the sun was hidden behind a hill on a peninsula across the bay). I have never been satisfied in processing that image due to having problems getting color separation in the rays. You now have me fired up to go back and try it in B&W !!!
This is very nice. It sure works. I would crop a inch in the bottom…
@Adhika_Lie. So, we’re kind of talking about two different things - printing and publishing. I love printing. A couple of years ago I bought my first printer, a Canon Pro-1000 and have been absolutely delighted with the consistent quality of the prints, whether colour or black and white. I personally use Canson papers. I learned how to print from Robert Rodriguez and he recommends Canson not only because of the quality of the paper itself but because of the quality of the profiles, which, as you know, can have a major impact on accurately translating the file to the print itself.
While I love printing my own images there is a limit to what I can do with them. I have boxes full of them. There are only so many I can hang in my home or give as gifts and I have absolutely no desire to sell prints. So, for me, the question became, how could I share my work with friends and family in a more space and cost effective way. Ultimately I decided on publishing. There’s basically three ways to go about it. The first and, I suppose, most prestigious would be to find a publisher. But, regardless of the quality of one’s work, unless you are extremely well known there aren’t too many publishing houses that will take on a project that is likely to lose money or break even at best. And, of course, with an outside publisher there are typically going to be compromises around cost vs. quality. The second way to go about it is to effectively hire a publishing house to do a custom job. That’s the way one of my mentor’s, David duChemin produces his art books. They are stunning because he has complete control of quality, choice of paper etc. However, there is always going to be a minimum run with up front costs that with likely run into the tens of thousands of dollars so anyone going that route had better have a ready audience or be stuck with 3 or 4 hundred gorgeous photo art books in their basement. Finally, there is the third option - self publishing. At this point (and I’m guessing forever) this is the only reasonable option for me. So far I have published two books and both through Blurb. There are a lot of limitations and the binding, even in their premium hard cover option, is glue rather than stitched. That being said, for the book I did based on a particular jazz concert I photographed, I had it printed as a 12"x12" hard cover with dust jacket and used their premium Proline Pearl paper and was super impressed. The book ended up costing about $70 CDN per copy, which is reasonable for my purposes. I only printed six or eight copies for myself and a few friends who wanted one. The book on jazz was all black and white photographs but the second book, which involved images from 34 photographers was both colour and black and white. It was done in two different editions - one with their regular lustre paper (to keep the price down for some) and one with the Proline. The Proline was far superior. It has a nice weight and had the feel of a real print. Now, a Blurb book is never going to look as good as the prints I make but, at the price and with the advantage of being able to pay per copy, I’ve been quite satisfied. I love being able to pick up a book of my own prints and share it with others. It is not my absolute ideal but, for me, a reasonable compromise between quality and cost effectiveness. If there are others out there who have experience with other self-publishers or publishing their work in some other way, I’d sure love to hear about it.
1 Like
I like your repost a lot Adhika. The rays look natural and not forced.
1 Like
My thoughts exactly, Kerry. My goal, at least now, is to publish a book every 2 years with top X images I make in those 2 years. It would be nice to look back on the journey I have been on after publishing several of these books.
Ah, gotcha. I can’t remember the paper I used when publishing with Blurb before and I think you are right, the print quality will not be as good as those individual prints but there would be some compromises to be made, for sure.
Thanks for this idea, I would run a few thought experiments with this and see where I end up!
Thank you so much, Eva! Much appreciated!