Bogley

[stefan]

Randi wrote: goofball wrote: b/w study of iron wash

WOW Jason! That's an incredible picture!
I LOVE it! :2thumbs:

~Randi

yeah no kiddin' ... you framing that one goofball?

[stefan]

wingate falls, cha canyon • may, 2006





wingate narrows, cha canyon • may, 2006

[goofball]

stefan wrote: Randi wrote: goofball wrote: b/w study of iron wash

WOW Jason! That's an incredible picture!
I LOVE it! :2thumbs:

~Randi

yeah no kiddin' ... you framing that one goofball?

being a slave to perfection and an uber critic of (especially) my own work, that one will always let me down. teh depth of field isn't there to satisfy me as the far side is not sharp enough to blow up big. landscapes need to be BIG prints in my mind. gives me fuel for a return trip ! as if anything more than the beauty and fun of it is needed.

aside - i saw an exhibit of moran's work at gilcrease museum in tulsa a few times when it came thru years ago. some of his works took up whole walls in large rooms. incredible... i almost got the feeling i was there, in the image, as it nearly filled the whole of my vision. words cannot describe...

[Cirrus2000]

My favourite "light in a narrow space" shot. Buckskin Gulch, March '07. This photo always takes me to a serene, peaceful place.

[Cirrus2000]

Another fave. Spooky Gulch, October '07

[CarpeyBiggs]

goofball wrote:
being a slave to perfection and an uber critic of (especially) my own work, that one will always let me down. teh depth of field isn't there to satisfy me as the far side is not sharp enough to blow up big. landscapes need to be BIG prints in my mind. gives me fuel for a return trip ! as if anything more than the beauty and fun of it is needed.

Interesting perspective. Personally, I would have no fear in framing that big, despite the technical qualities you seem to think might be lacking. Landscapes should be printed large, but they need to be judged by their entirety. For me, I like images that stand out on there own, regardless of their technical qualities. A great picture isn't necessarily made by certain criteria met, it is made by a photographer interpreting the scene with the tools at his disposal. By their nature, photographs are always imperfect. Or at best, always subjectively examined. At least, that's what I like to think.

IMO, there is way too much judging of photographs today by their technical merit. Unfortunately, I think it is too easy to miss the real power of an image, and instead look at images and think "oh, if only that corner was in better focus, it would be superb." It's always easier to meet the "technical" criteria of an image, because that criteria is defined and measurable, and quite frankly, always attainable if desired. But it's the intangible and unmeasurable qualities that make for great images.

So, that's my opinion. I'm sure there are many who won't agree. But for what it's worth, I think that image would be mighty powerful hanging on my wall in a nice large print. If you blow it up big, and take a step back to take it all in, I would bet 99 percent of all people could care less about that corner being out of focus....

Anyways, great shot. :2thumbs:

[sparker1]

Cirrus2000 wrote: Another fave. Spooky Gulch, October '07



Very nice, Kev. I love the texture.

[fouristhenewone]

Here are a couple from Little Wild Horse I like a lot.

[Summit42]

Cirrus2000 - I really like the pic of spooky.
fouristhenewone - It looks like her head is glowing.. was this the trip right after the big storm in Oct?

Two from Crawford Draw.

[fouristhenewone]

it's from the trip we took with you. you had to bail early, I believe cause Lanik was sick.

[Richard Barron]

I am heading back to the Swell soon, so I hope to have more for this tread. In the mean time, Little Wild Horse...



-R

[goofball]

CarpeyBiggs wrote: goofball wrote:
being a slave to perfection and an uber critic of (especially) my own work, that one will always let me down. teh depth of field isn't there to satisfy me as the far side is not sharp enough to blow up big. landscapes need to be BIG prints in my mind. gives me fuel for a return trip ! as if anything more than the beauty and fun of it is needed.

Interesting perspective. Personally, I would have no fear in framing that big, despite the technical qualities you seem to think might be lacking. Landscapes should be printed large, but they need to be judged by their entirety. For me, I like images that stand out on there own, regardless of their technical qualities. A great picture isn't necessarily made by certain criteria met, it is made by a photographer interpreting the scene with the tools at his disposal. By their nature, photographs are always imperfect. Or at best, always subjectively examined. At least, that's what I like to think.

IMO, there is way too much judging of photographs today by their technical merit. Unfortunately, I think it is too easy to miss the real power of an image, and instead look at images and think "oh, if only that corner was in better focus, it would be superb." It's always easier to meet the "technical" criteria of an image, because that criteria is defined and measurable, and quite frankly, always attainable if desired. But it's the intangible and unmeasurable qualities that make for great images.

So, that's my opinion. I'm sure there are many who won't agree. But for what it's worth, I think that image would be mighty powerful hanging on my wall in a nice large print. If you blow it up big, and take a step back to take it all in, I would bet 99 percent of all people could care less about that corner being out of focus....

Anyways, great shot. :2thumbs:

i hear ya.

and i totally agree on the undue weight afforded technical criteria. to the naked eye, i dare anyone to tell which of 2 images was shot w/ one camera or another, or what film or software was used. mostly, the viewer colud not care less, but as artists it is easy to play favorites and think the work flow we develop is the pinnacle of artistic achievement.

i like to think i am a balance of the technical and the aesthetic. i realized after reading my post again that at proper viewing distance, that corner would look just fine. i spent many years perfecting my craft in the wet darkroom and as a lab tech w/ MANY verrrry picky commercial photographers. the technical aspect has to be understood. just as painters have to knoiw how to use a brush and illustrators a pen. each medium has its own qualitys that must be understood, or else results will be intermittently acceptable. i have heard people say, in response to things such as bellows extension factor, that they "do not believe in that stuff". wtf ? physics ? they do not believe in physics ? if i want teh same result time after time after time, and right the FIRST time, i understand the b-e-f so i can shoot once and have it ready for my client later that day or the next. efficiency and reliability are a must in commercial work. once all that painstaking technical knowledge is achieved it does get pushed back more, but it is always a factor in how we achieve the look we each want to please our aesthetic.

and me ? i'm a slave to tack sharp, corner to corner, and dynamic range tucked in nicely between my 11 zones. my one and only shortcoming :roflol:

[Summit42]

following the LWHC theme .....

[sparker1]

Summit, you've got a great collection of slot shots. :hail2thechief:

[Summit42]

Moonshine Wash