New Photo

[RationalBiker]

I recently shot this along Skyline Drive in the Shenandoah National Forrest.

A larger version can be viewed here:

The Journey

VES

[Scott_Connery]

That is really an awesome picture, thanks for sharing.

[Dagny]

reminds me of that poem "The road not taken". good job!

[RationalBiker]

Thanks for the comments Dagny and Scott!!

VES

[scottkursk]

RationalCop, the composition is incredible. As is the clarity etc. What do you shoot with?

[RationalBiker]

Thanks!

I have a Canon 1D Mark II Digital SLR. It's a high end pro body camera. I did some post processing in Photoshop CS (levels, a little boost in saturation, some unsharp mask and slightly cropped).

Post shot processing is pretty much standard with most DSLR camera types, particularly Canon and sharpening. Think of the digital image as something of a "negative". With most point and shot digital cameras processing (sharpening, color adjustments, etc.) is done inside the camera.

VES

[scottkursk]

Thanks!

I have a Canon 1D Mark II Digital SLR.  It's a high end pro body camera.  I did some post processing in Photoshop CS (levels, a little boost in saturation, some unsharp mask and slightly cropped).

Post shot processing is pretty much standard with most DSLR camera types, particularly Canon and sharpening.  Think of the digital image as something of a "negative".  With most point and shot digital cameras processing (sharpening, color adjustments, etc.)  is done inside the camera.

VES

Thanks! I've been shooting on an ancient AE-1 since the 80's. I was pretty resistant to digital until I started thinking of the digital images at the behest of a friend. I always thought the most fun and creative part of photography was working in the lab. Except sepia; sepia stinks. Both in the literal and figurative sense. Either way, I stil enoying the inherantly physical process of good lab work. It's similar to what I used to experience when I did ceramics.

The only thing I've been worried about is getting used to using Photoshop instead of using a hole in the paper to burn the photos in. eek. I have noticed that alot of the digital pics have some incredibly sharp pictures but then when I started messing around with some pics I got scanned at Wolf here in Houston and I must say the freedeom I had was amazing.

But, as I mentioned before, the shift if paradigm from dipping my hands in chemicals and using Wacom pad and Photoshop is a bit of a stretch. I will learn to adapt but the second "bathroom" in my house will still be know as a lab!

[Concerto of Atlantis]

Heh. I also have an AE-1 (Program). They're great little cameras. My main camera however is a Canon T-90. At the moment I'm saving up to buy a 85/1.2L lens. They're fantastic for portraits. What lenses do you have?

Here's a picture of my AE-1.

[RationalBiker]

Scott:

You have half the battle done already knowing "traditional" processing. I went into PS without the benefit of knowing any developing techniques in advance. Many of the concepts are similar as I understand it. At any rate, I can do some decent post processing at this point after a good bit of practice and a lot of questions on other forum boards.

Concerto:

I have 3 Canon lenses at this point. The 28-135 IS f/3.5-5.6, the 17-40L f/4 (excellent lens!!), and the 70-200L IS f/2.8 (another very nice lens!). The 28-135 is nice and versatile, not bad for a consumer grade lens and the IS is pretty handy for about 2 stops slower shutter speed handheld.

Still, the equipment doesn't make the photographer. Your AE-1 and T-90 can still take some breath-taking images no doubt. And they are a heck of a lot less expensive than the 1D Mk II.

VES

[pvtmorriscsa]

Great Photo.

I will be seeing scenes not dissimilar to that when I hike the Appalachian Trail next year.

Makes me even more excited to get start my long a**ed walk from GA to ME.

[RationalBiker]

Thanks pvtmorriscsa!

Here's a sample of the relatively easy editing power of Photoshop CS. Also, another image to keep you anticipating your lengthy trek pvt.

Before....

After....

This is by no means a pro job. It demonstrates how much detail may still be in an image even though it appears to be underexposed.

VES

[scottkursk]

Before....

After....

This is by no means a pro job.  It demonstrates how much detail may still be in an image even though it appears to be underexposed.

VES

That is simply amazing. I gotta hand it to Adobe. How much time would we used to have spent in the lab and with touch up brushes.......

Do you use a Wacom tablet or something similar? Or do you use a mouse? It seems that the "feel" you could get from a tablet would add alot of the old burninng and brushing techniques. Though from what I have seen Photoshop seems to be practically artificial intellignece once you have the hang of it.

[RationalBiker]

Do you use a Wacom tablet or something similar? Or do you use a mouse?

I use a mouse, but then none of that is individually tweaked. A Wacom would be much nicer for any detailed work. It's the Highlights/Shadows filter (which was new to PS:CS) that "intelligently" pulls the detail out. The same could be done (much more painstakingly) with some dodging, burning, masking, leveling, etc.

I have been in discussions before on other forums about the ethics involved in image manipulation. What it generally boils down to is how much is the image being manipulated, what is being represented by the image, and what is the images purpose. Some photojournalists over the last couple of years have gotten in trouble for altering the content of the image by manipulating it, something easier and easier to do all the time. I usually limit my editing to cleaning up the image and adding some punch to it to compensate for what's lost in the image capture. Sometimes "photos" turn more into works of artistic license.

VES

[Guest jrshep]

Vern,

Thanks for posting your image of Skyline Drive in Shenandoan National Forest. It brings back memories, as I drove that road some many years ago. It's a beautiful area.

You've got many favorable responses, and you didn't invite any constructive criticisms, so I have hesitated to mention one thing about your composition that bothers me. It's a distracting "kiss." That's just a tease, but I'd be happy to explain it. I won't say anything else about it unless you ask. If you do, I will explain myself and give you my reasoning so that you'll be able to judge for yourself whether or not my critique is warranted. I'm only offering it for the love of the art.

Otherwise, thanks again for invoking the fond memories.

John

P.S. Aren't digital cameras wonderful?

[RationalBiker]

jrshep,

By all means I'm open to constructive criticism. It may offer me a way to improve and I'm certainly open to that. Fire away!!

Factually speaking though, I didn't invite compliments either, I was just receptive to them.

VES

[Guest jrshep]

By all means I'm open to constructive criticism.  It may offer me a way to improve and I'm certainly open to that.  Fire away!!

Factually speaking though, I didn't invite compliments either, I was just receptive to them.

Vern,

Thank you for your response. It is true that you didn't ask for compliments, but I generally feel more comfortable offering unsolicited compliments than unsolicited criticisms. So I wanted to ask first.

Okay, I'll see if I can get this across.

As to a "kiss," first a credit. For several years, on Saturdays, on PBS, there was a half-hour painting show with the artist, Helen van Wyk. Very often, she would make the point that one shouldn't "kiss on canvas." It was a cute and memorable metaphor for a particular problem with composition.

A "kiss" occurs when two objects visually, from the angle of view, appear to touch or when their bounding edges coincide.

For example, say that there is a building in the background and another in the foreground, or even a mostly straight, upright tree instead of one of the buildings. If one takes a picture from a certain angle, it will look as though one edge of the front building (or tree, etc.) coincides with an edge of the rear building (or tree, etc.). Such coinciding lines (in perspective) like that form a dominant "kiss."

Even if there are two irregularly shaped or geometric objects, like fruit on a table, if, from the angle of the camera, they seem to just touch, or "kiss," then it confuses the image, conflicting with the attempt to create the three-dimensional illusion, the photo or painting, of the scene.

A "kiss" is a type of 2D conflict with the 3D illusion. It confuses the two-dimensional edges of two objects that are not really touching, fighting the attempt to create a 3D illusion on a flat, 2D, surface.

(If you view an image abstractly in terms of it's main two-dimensional components, looking for dominant or major edges that touch or coincide, it is easier to spot any "kisses.")

Generally, because of this conflict of "kissing," it's better to either have the objects overlap one another (aiding the illusion of three dimensions), or have them sufficiently separated visually, in perspective, so that there's no confusion as to where their edges are with respect to each other.

Even if the two objects are touching in reality, an angle of view that shows them just touching also creates a "kiss." A change in the point of view, or even moving the objects literally, if possible, can resolve this type of "kiss."

In your photo of Skyline Drive, the foreground is dominated by the road which leads very powerfully and effectively into the distance, to the center of interest, to the distant curve of the road and the framing provided by the trees on either side. The viewer's eyes simply have to go to that area by virtue of the composition. The major lines, the edges and center stripes, and the visual perspective (the diminishing apparent width) of the road direct them there. It would be a very different image were you not to include the road so dominantly in the foreground, and I certainly like it there.

What bothers me about your image, however, is the "kiss" of the left-hand edge of the road with the left-hand side or edge of the image. This is a "kiss" between the edge of a three-dimensional element with the two-dimensional edge of the photo, and so, also a clash between the 3D illusion and the 2D fact.

And too, this "kiss" abstractly forms a large, dominant "K" with the left-hand edge of the photo. The lines of the "K" are like a very powerful arrow pointing to and contacting the left-hand edge, and coupled with the "kiss," the "K" demands a great deal of attention or compositional significance, and it conflicts powerfully with the center of interest. The fact that the line is a bright white, in rather great contrast to even the value of the rest of the image in that area, and brighter than any other part of the image, tends to increase the significance of this "K."

What's the solution?

To avoid the "kiss" and the "K." To avoid any major element near the edge of the image which demands so much attention that it conflicts with the primary interest, the center of interest. Even to avoid having the center of interest "kiss" an edge of the image.

With a shift in position while composing and taking the picture, or by cropping later, you could get rid of the "kiss" and the "K." In attempting to do so, I would also say that you should watch out for another potential problem, that of a major line going directly to a corner of the photo. Such a line (like were the yellow stripes in the middle of the road to go directly to the lower right-hand corner of the photo) would abstractly form, with the right-angle corner of the photo, an arrow that powerfully points to that corner, an arrow that would tend to move and hold the viewer's eye to that corner, conflicting with the center of interest.

Anyway, that's the principle of "kissing," and I hope that I've communicated clearly just what it is and why it's a problem in composition. If you agree, then I hope my criticism has been helpful.

If I remember correctly, Miss van Wyk would say that kissing is okay (certainly enjoyable), just not on canvas.

Regards,

John

[scottkursk]

Some photojournalists over the last couple of years have gotten in trouble for altering the content of the image by manipulating it, something easier and easier to do all the time. 

That is the dichotomy between editing and creating an entirely new image. Like the National Geographic that "edited" the positions of the great pyramids in Egypt so that the picture was more to their liking.

I think the difference comes from when you quit improving what is already there to where you physically add/subtract something material to the picture.

[RationalBiker]

... but I generally feel more comfortable offering unsolicited compliments than unsolicited criticisms. So I wanted to ask first.

Understandable.

And I do appreciate the criticism. I understand your explanation of the "kiss", and I will try to keep that in mind when I think it may be an issue in future captures.

In this particular image, I'm not personally distracted by that. In theory I can see how some would be, and I would be perhaps in other images.

If I hadn't framed it so tightly, I could mess around with different croppings so see how it changes the image. The problem was, I wanted the elements in it as they are. I didn't want too much sky in it as it would underexpose alot of the foilage, and I like the enclosed or "cathedral-like" effect of the trees.

And the road was shot like that to guide the viewer into the "heart" of the image. I hope they don't veer off to the left and "crash" because of that "kiss"!!

Again thanks for the explanation. That adds another bit of knowledge to my photographic endeavors.

VES

[Guest jrshep]

VES,

Thank you for your response. You're welcome for the explanation.

Certainly, if that "kiss" doesn't bother you in that image, there's no reason for you to change it. Perhaps, as you say, the idea will prove helpful to you another time. I certainly wouldn't say it should never be done, but I do think it's helpful to be aware of the potential problem it can cause.

And the road was shot like that to guide the viewer into the "heart" of the image.

Yes, I understand why you would want to include so much of the road. If's effective. Skyline is a beautiful drive.

I hope they don't veer off to the left and "crash" because of that "kiss"!!

Isn't there a law against kissing while driving? Is there a field test?

I guess the other image you posted (the one with before and after versions) was also in that same forest? It's a nice image.

It's wonderful what is possible with digital photography and editing. One of the things I like a great deal is being able to see the actual results immediately, not having to wait until the film is developed. And of course it's amazing what one can do with graphic software.

Anyway, I enjoy getting to view your images, and hope to see more. Thanks for sharing your work.

John

[Guest jrshep]

A portion of a photo I took at the gravesite of Robert Frost. It's in Bennington, Vermont. Notice the inscription.

"Love is an irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired."

--Robert Frost

[RationalBiker]

A portion of a photo I took at the gravesite of Robert Frost. It's in Bennington, Vermont. Notice the inscription.

"Love is an irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired."

--Robert Frost

Interesting picture and quote.

VES

[Guest jrshep]

Interesting picture and quote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've always liked that inscription, "I had a lover's quarrel with the world," a great deal. I clipped a lot from the photo I had taken, so you saw only the portion near the top which included his name and that inscription.

Right underneath his inscription is his wife's name: Elinor Miriam White, and her inscription, "Together wing to wing and oar to oar." Then follows five other names. The stone is actually long, and it's flat on the ground.

The other quote about love is not on his tombstone; just another quote of his that I like.