Shot overlooking the American River at about 8am.

Pentax Spotmatic F, 28mm at f/16. Used Ilford PanF+ EI100. Scanned from an 8x10" original at 600dpi. The image didn't take too well to JPEG compression so I had to scale it down in size/quality to make the 50kb limit.

Originally the image had no clouds, but using a second negative I added them in through lots of darkroom work. Comments?

-Greg http://www.midtown.net/~psykik/

-- Greg Wittel (psykik@midtown.net), July 14, 1998

Answers

You might have saved a little space by going from RGB to a luminance-only color model (i.e., tossing out the RGB chrominance data).

Although I like the foreground elements, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be focusing on (the river? which is not terribly prominent). The horizon is in the middle which doesn't work for me. I get a curious sensation that the image is tilted, but it might just be the composition. I'm not terribly keen how the black mass of tree leaves is cropped at the top.

I'd rate this about average (5).

-- Sean Yamamoto (seany@altavista.net), July 14, 1998.

I'm not a big fan of B/W in general, so take this with a grain of salt.

I do feel the medium is best best reserved for very graphic images, but that's just a personal bias.

The large tree is very interesting, but there is no detail which would have added impact. There is also no detail in the clouds near the tree. Having the horizon-line in the center of the image is also supposed to be a no-no. 1/3 sky to emphasize the foreground (tilts/shifts may have worked here), or 2/3 sky to emphasize a strong sky are the two "rules" most landscape shooters I know go by. Choosing a different lens and/or vantage point could have helped the composition.

Does the negative have more detail than shows up on-screen? I know how much work it took to add those clouds...

I do like the overall image, but it's not "great" in my opinion. I think I like it more because of the sense of place than for the technical aspects. I know I would enjoy fishing there or lying on the banks on a cloudy day! It reminds me of many favorite places on other rivers. In that sense it succeeds.

I'd also like a clarification of the rules for this forum. This is not a "real" scene. It's been altered in a darkroom and had elements not originally present added in after the fact. Now if that had been done in a computer and freely admitted, there would have been a firestorm here.

Thanks for sharing your work with us. :> It does take courage. Hang in there and keep posting. :>

Best Wishes, Keith Clark

http://www.spiritone.com/~kclark/

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), July 15, 1998.

I think the image would be a lot more satisfying without the bushes in the right foreground which break-up the line of the water and sky. I hope you don't take this as a license to go out and whack them down!

As to changing the sky with darkroom manipulations: I'm a purist, I'll only accept an image that represents what has happened in front of the camera. I either wait for the right conditions, go back later or write-off that particular shot.

Frank

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), July 15, 1998.

Many thanks for your comments. I have returned to the location a few times, with color/slide film and different lenses. Trying out different compositions etc. Still waiting for the right time of year when the sun will rise/set nearer to the scene giving the sky stronger colors. The original scene above was more of a fog scene, but i decided to take a little creative license with the 2nd neg. For future submissions I will take a 'pure' approach.

The original held more shadow detail, showing texture/detail on the darkest areas on the large tree. I was unable to keep the detail in the scan unless I did some heavier editing. Sharpness was lost in the scan as well, focus in the original is from a few feet to infinity. Perhaps it is time to invest in a negative scanner. Again thanks for the comments.

-Greg

-- Greg Wittel (psykik@midtown.net), July 15, 1998.

I agree with Frank that the bushes at the right are competing with the other elements in the composition - the tree, river, and yes, the clouds. I actually like the lack of detail in tree. It creates for me a sense of foreboding - is it going to rain ? I obviously think the clouds are needed for the composition but have a different opinion from others about the "moral" issues of adding them. I do agree that it must be stated upfront they were added. But to me the idea of having to revisit a scene when the clouds are there, to be honest about it, is taking the extreme. We have to work to put food on the table. We can't be there when the clouds are always. This is then just a "temporal" issue for me. I realize that this line of reasoning places one on a slipperly slope, however in this case I think the clouds complement the composition and I like it.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), July 15, 1998.

The clouds ARE a real plus for the image, as the bushes are a real minus.

I don't want anyone to think that my opinions are anything but. Whether or not the "pure" approach is suitable for you is up to you, I'm just telling you what I would do. But, then, I might do lots of things you wouldn't: like drive 350 miles of back roads in a day looking for the RIGHT combination of ingredients to make a decent image or go out at 5 AM and get back home at 11 PM during that drive and NOT make a single exposure! You've got to do what you've go to do! (Please note de-sexed version of the usual quote. Maybe it should be "A photographer's got to do what a photographer's got to do.")

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), July 15, 1998.

Funny, i like it just as is. It has nice tones and is nicely framed.

-- Altaf Shaikh (nissar@idt.net), July 16, 1998.

If most landscape photographers put their horizon at the 30% position ("rule of thirds"), that's almost good enough reason NOT to put it there! It bothers me a bit that it seems to tilt slightly towards the left though. Serene picture!

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), July 20, 1998.

Possibly the "bushes" on the right side of the frame overpower other elements because they fork; one side is vertical, the other aims into the frame. They look to me like fennel or poison hemlock; either is a common weed. I for one wouldn't object if you went back to this spot, cut down the diagonal branch of that weed, and re-shot (assuming it is a common weed). Or you could do it digitally.

-- Richard Shiell (rshiell@lightspeed.net), July 20, 1998.