Large Format Landscapes

First a disclaimer: I think the sub-thread on critique runs the danger of becoming personal to either Arkasha or Corran, and it should not. I think Arkasha raises some valid points which are being discounted because of the English, which in his post #12044 has some phrases garbled beyond recognition, such as "remained with sketches tracking." I thought there might be a language translation program at fault, but even if not, since I cannot write a single word in Russian (cyrillic script anyone?) I am not about to throw away the entire comment because of some language issues.

But to get to the positive, here are the thoughts Arkasha presents which I believe are valid considerations in any critique:"What did you want to show these pictures?," "it should see something interesting. Beautiful light or textured sky or something else."

In my words, but taken directly from Arkasha's comments, we make most photographs because something in the scene resonated with us, there was something we wanted to show the viewer. In the majority of images we intuit pretty immediately what that was, either something that struck us as beautiful, or a center of interest which caught our eye and imagination, or sometimes a sense of irony (Austin Granger, for example, has an eye for the slightly out-of-kilter scene). I think it is a fair question to ask if we see an image which seems to lack the above. Now one must be careful, because there is a whole body of imagery which looks very commonplace, such as Steven Shore's large format work, or perhaps Robert Adams's, which appears to violate the principle. Still, if one doesn't understand why an image was made, other than to simply document "I was there," the question is legitimate.

Then Arkasha expands on the thought, pointing out that sometimes an image is made simply because one finds the light beautiful, or the appearance of the sky. If all of these elements are deemed lacking, one can critique the image. Whether or not others agree with the critique is a separate issue, but that is exactly why we have these discussions, and speaking for myself, exactly what I am looking for when I post images. (I was at my monthly New Jersey Photographer's Forum meeting last night, and came back with a whole bunch of notes about improvements I could make to the images I showed to the group.)

And I think it is fair to apply those questions to Corran's hiking images which were posted. Personally I find some of them interesting, such as #12052, where to use our "standards" from above, the lighting makes the image work, the almost perpendicular split between the unlit side of the scene, and the lit side. Some of the others seem, to me (and I stress the "to me") to be large format snapshots. Isn't that the point of critique?

The only rule on this and other image threads is stated clearly at the beginning,

"Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Good point. I've thought about adding a line in my signature saying "all comments and critique welcome" or something to that effect. When I was auditing photo classes the critique part was always my favorite class times. It's nice to know when people like, or dislike, a certain photograph, and why.

---

Randy: The large red bold letters don't apply in this case. Or to be more precise, Corran said he was interested in critiques.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Lewin

Randy: The large red bold letters don't apply in this case. Or to be more precise, Corran said he was interested in critiques.

---

Yes they do. Many ignore the Mod's admonition.

Bryan did not ask for critique in his first post. http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=1#post1350746

Let me first say that I do not bear Arkasha any ill will. My original response pages back was a bit sarcastic because I felt the response was somewhat curt. After reflection there was the issue of a possible language/culture barrier (though I don't want to assume - there are plenty of multilingual posters here). Regardless, I will readily admit the image is not strong. Some folks may only post their absolute best work here but I think posting less strong work (and gauging reaction) can be a helpful learning tool. I know I often pre-visualize a scene but don't necessarily achieve that vision. This is a weakness of mine and I continue to work on it. His second post is certainly much more constructive though.

Also, I think the topic engendered some good discussion, which is positive. Also, I apologize for not remembering to post that I always welcome thoughtful comments and critiques.

Moving on - thanks also for your comments, Peter and Marty, on the previous images. The interesting thing about the mountains is you can have wonderful light at one part of the trail and then crest a hill and the light is gone and it's just drab flat light. Both the back-lit forest scene and the top of the mountain scene was around the same part of the day. Looking at the previous image again, I think I will try a square crop, placing the clear line of light and dark dead center. I think that might give it more visual interest.

I certainly wasted some film during this session, forgetting to change my meter to the correct ISO for the first two shots. For that and other reasons, I've decided it's not a good idea for me to work with more than one camera at a time (I had a 645 camera with me as well). Fortunately I noticed the error and got an exposure I'm happy with:

https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8089/2...1ff61b9d84.jpg
Firelight by Jeff, on Flickr

4x5, 300mm, Provia + 81A

Monashka Bay, Kodiak, AK
https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8558/2...2edeab33_b.jpg[url=https://flic.kr/p/LqzrHp]
Chamonix 045n2,
Schneider Super-Angulon 90mm f/8 SC.w/3stp GND and #25 red filter
Delta 100, XTOL

Chris7521: Wow! That landscape/weather photo stopped me in my tracks. Can you or anyone explain what sort of weather phenomenon is at work, or is it just the difference between NJ and Alaska weather? (Incidentally, I'm impressed by your understanding of how to combine the GND and red filters, i.e. its one thing to see an image, another to capture that vision.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Lewin

Chris7521: Wow! That landscape/weather photo stopped me in my tracks. Can you or anyone explain what sort of weather phenomenon is at work, or is it just the difference between NJ and Alaska weather? (Incidentally, I'm impressed by your understanding of how to combine the GND and red filters, i.e. its one thing to see an image, another to capture that vision.)

---

Thanks for the compliment. I thinks it's just the edge of a weather front. The clouds taking over from the south. You can see that anywhere from time to time. As far as any technique with filters...I am still learning. Sometimes, it works out😊

Buki canyon, Ukraine. Nagaoka 4x5, Fujinon 180/9 @ 22, Foma 100 in XTOL 1: 2, 8:30 min.
Yuriy Sanin, Kiev, Ukraine.

https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8102/2...6e340dff_o.jpgБуки 4 by Yuriy Sanin, on Flickr