Presque Isle River Michigan U.P.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Nature Photography Image Critique : One Thread

Things seem a little slow here, so here's a picture upon which to flex your collective critical faculties.
Pentax 67/Velvia

Mark Meyer
www.photo-mark.com

-- Mark Meyer (mark@photo-mark.com), November 02, 2000

Answers

Well, to nit pick... it's too good. I have nothing to critisize. Just kidding. I really love it. Thanks for posting it.

Kevin

-- Kevin Ferris (kferris575@aol.com), November 02, 2000.


Great photo and coposition, would like to see a little more detail in the dark areas though.

-- Tait Stangl (taits@chemsite.net), November 03, 2000.

When were you there? I was up there in the fall and back in August. That is my favorite place to go. I've got lots of nice shots like yours from there too.

-- Ken Cravillion (kenc@execpc.com), November 04, 2000.

Mark,

How long was your exposure? Did you take any longer exposures to blur the flowing water even more?

--Mark

-- Mark Erickson (mark@westerickson.net), November 04, 2000.


Beuty of a pic Mark. Besides it being such a fantastically executed photo, I just love the scene to begin with. The rocks twist and stab into the current like jagged fingers.

-- John Moran (JavaTiger@Hotmail.com), November 05, 2000.


Great composition with the jagged rocks. Wish the water was less muddy, but in August you can only take flowing water pictures when the water flows.

-- Christian Deichert (torgophile@aol.com), November 07, 2000.

I usually prefer not to chime in on my own images but I thought you might find it interesting that the water is not muddy. Most of the rivers in this area collect tannins from the wood and roots in the water. The water takes on a tea-like color. This is not uncommon for rivers and streams that flow through relatively flat wooded areas.

As long as I'm commenting on comments: Tait, I found you critique interesting because one of the things I think make this image work is that the extraneous details are lost in the shadows. I can't help thinking that more detail would only be a distracting element. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

-- Mark Meyer (mark@photo-mark.com), November 07, 2000.


I have to agree that more detail in the darks would detract, and IMO lighten the picture - as it is there's almost a classical (to use a fussy word for it) chiaroscuro to this photograph. One of my problems with many waterfall shots is that they're over-exposed or at least washed out by the amount of whiteness from the blurred water, in addition to shooting up and often getting white sky in the image (do a 'waterfall' search of the www.photo.net gallery and you'll get a couple examples of what I mean - along with some other nice shots) This shot provides a very nice contrast. I also love the contrast of blurred water to still water (there's one corner un-blurred). Mark - did you note a shutter/aperture/lens for this?

-- Chris Pencis (cpencis@yahoo.com), November 09, 2000.

Why is muddy water an issue? Are we critiqing water quality or a photo? You could take a damn good picture of muddy water. That could even be part of what makes it interesting.

-- Charles Eustace (carloz1@usa.net), November 09, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ