Weekly Competition #19 The Monochrome Landscape

When i first saw Lilliy's pic i couldn't stop staring at it. I remember seeing a documentary on this tree some time ago and couldn't get my head around everything it may have seen over the 4000 years it has been around. If only it could speak

"All these Canons and Nikons taking my photo! At last!! A Pentax!!"


Matt

Yes, it was a pretty awesome and priviledged experience being up there amongst them at 10,000 feet+ in the cold still air and trying to imagine the times they had witnessed, a difficult concept to comprehend.
It is well worth a visit, especially if you get good wx like I was fortunate to have, thank u for your comments.
Here are couple more, without any fancy D&G work:

I'm really not wanting to sound like sour grapes or anything but McBrian's picture seems like an example of what not to do with a composite. The shadows are all wrong. For the sun to be in that position, the tree and hillside would be in silhouette. i believe this point was made in another thread some time ago.

First at all I want to say that I ´m completely in accord with John respect my entry of this week. I also feel there was rivalizing the foreground sculpture with the background. Having said this…

I was waiting the reaction of anybody in this respect. Yes AJ, I think like you!

It is like John dressed the Forum Moderator “toga” instead of the competition Judge one, with McBraian´s image.



Best regards.
________________
Dirk TROTTEYN.
K10D+ Sigma 18-50 1:2.8 DC Lens.
Image counter: 4255.-

Not sure I understand that. If it's got anything to do with whatever was said in the discussion then I would not be aware of it for the simple reason that I didn't look at the images until it was time to judge and I didn't take part in the discussion or take any note of it.

So I have to say I have no idea what you mean. Do please explain?

Please, please lets not be falling out over an image, in my view how one arrives at the final composition is entirly up to the individual as long as it's all their own work, in other words "each to their own" (thats 2 judges that have givin it a place at the table .

I don't usually go in for heavy manipulating (merging 2 or more images that is), as I said in the other thread it was an excercise in photshop that yielded an image I was pleased with, whether you agree with the process or not is up to the viewer.

Personally, I think it's a bit bizarre applying this sort of "is this realistic" evaluation to a composite in the first place. Why on earth should a composite look "realistic"?

In any case, you're completely wrong, it's not a composite at all, is it, Brian?

Any fool can see that the sun is setting behind the hill, as shown, and there's a socking great multi-kilowatt floodlight, out of frame to the left, behind the camera. I expect Brian felt that the foreground needed something to bring out the detail.

What's wrong with that, anyway? We think fill-in flash for back-lit portraits is ok.

The two separate shots are just a red-herring, cunningly designed to put us off the scent.

I thought I'd chip in on this.

First of all, well done Lilly, a really great shot. And John, it can't have easy to judge. As has been said in other posts, the standard was very high in this week's competition and demonstrated the use of a number of techniques to deliver the final image.

I don't think it really matters what you do to get the required result as long as it produces something worth spending some time to look at. Take my image, for example. I actually converted this to monochrome in camera not long after I'd taken the shot. I thought the scene would benefit from the conversion and wanted to see the effect there and then. When I then transferred the image to my PC, I didn't think it needed anything else (other than removal of dust spots).

So I think we should judge the final result and not get hung up on the technique used. We can all learn something from the info each submitter may give on how their shot was produced - but I don't think there is any reason to crtiticise the technique actually chosen.

Chris

I am actually quite flattered that John liked my shot enough to give it second place. I have forgotten the original reason for taking it but when I first printed it, it was quite sharp and lacked character. Then to try to emphasis the mood of the print, I tried going up about 3 grades of paper hardness and although that was better, it still didn't quite click with me. For the final and third print, I defocussed the enlarger slightly which, to me, gave it the "old world" look which complimented the old stone footbridges.

Kim

First at all I must recognize that McBrian´s image without the “double sunned illumination” is really a brilliant and simple composition.

But, McBrian´s image isn´t precisely an abstract or surrealistic picture, in where the “double sunned illumination” is really an unfortunate and coarse mistake (not sure if McBrian noted before uploading).

When competition was closed I waited anxiously for the judge verdict. But what a surprise! It was as a “Slap” (not a make-up precisely)… Third Place for the “double sunned” image? Really I didn’t understand your position regard McBrian´s photography!

Intending explain myself, I thought in two possibilities; or John didn´t noted the mistake (here dressed with the Judge “toga”), or John with the intention of ending the previous discussion took a defensive position with McBrian´s image (here with the Moderator´s “toga”).

John, hope this time I´m more explicit. Please don’t take my comments as offensive to your person.


“I prefer the critique that causes pain over the adulation or the complacent ones…” fragment of an interview to Sebastiao Salgado by a Brazilian art magazine. In this aspect I partake with Salgado…


Best regards.
________________
Dirk TROTTEYN.
K10D+ Sigma 18-50 1:2.8 DC Lens.
Image counter: 4258.-

Dirk, I don't take offence, I just did not know what you meant, so thank you for the expanded explanation.

I'm really don't want to upset people over an image, and mcbrians entry would be great without the fake sun.

I'm sure the image has been critiqued before on here and people pointed out the shadows were wrong, when i saw it had been entered for the competition i was surprised.

when I saw it was placed 3rd i was incredulous.

I'm sorry but when i see the image it just screams 'fake' to me and a very poor fake at that. yes the original image of the tree is good but in my opinion (and I'm sure the opinion of others who have critiqued it before), the sun just spoiled it.

it is this that I can't understand

i'm not trying to ruffle feathers, not trying to be awkward but i can't leave it unsaid.

I know this is a friendly competition but when someone a while ago asked about criteria for entering, i said something like 'I would use my gut instinct to judge', john said he uses strict criteria on judging images as per serious competitions.

I have serious difficulty believing mcbrians image would have placed highly in a serious competition, purely because the shadows don't match up.