All quiet on the river

[Guest]

The end of a perfect day

 

 

(River Thurne before you ask - just before I adjourned to the pub for a pint.)

[Martyn]

A pint well earned I'd say; fantastic!

[ChrisLumix]

Gorgeous composition, as ever, Bill.  My only reservation is the HDR nature of the waterline detail - I think I'd have preferred a slight misty/hazy quality.

[NannyFerret]

And perfect reflections too. 

[colinb]

A Wonderful and peaceful vista.

[Paul]

A wonderful scene Bill.

 

Paul.

[Denis]

*sigh

 

 

[Guest]

Gorgeous composition, as ever, Bill.  My only reservation is the HDR nature of the waterline detail - I think I'd have preferred a slight misty/hazy quality.

Mist tends to be more of a morning thing so sorry, no mist.

[ChrisLumix]

Mist tends to be more of a morning thing so sorry, no mist.

 

Maybe, but you've processed that image to give an HDR effect surely? I mean, that's not the image straight out of the camera?

[Guest]

Maybe, but you've processed that image to give an HDR effect surely? I mean, that's not the image straight out of the camera?

I've opened up the shadows. When you shoot RAW nothing is ever "straight out of the camera" and why should it be if you can make it better. For me photography is realising the potential not accepting a sub-standard reality.

"My camera is a brush with which I can paint the world."

[Barbara]

*sigh

 

 

Deeper Sigh

[Korky]

A lovely, simple image that just oozes quality.

 

I don't care a sod how you've achieved that quality, it's taken skill and an artist's eye and that'll do for me. This whole 'straight out of the camera' argument just doesn't hold water. Back in the days of the darkroom, photographers would use every trick in the book to manipulate images, the fact that we now use computers just makes things a little different.

 

Lightroom doesn't have a 'create me a masterpiece' button, it takes skill and knowledge to produce the kind of work that you're known for.

 

Now.......... Did we agree 50 quid or was it 75?

 

Korky

[Brian]

That is an absolutely cracking image. Just right.

So much to look at!

[ChrisLumix]

I've opened up the shadows. When you shoot RAW nothing is ever "straight out of the camera" and why should it be if you can make it better. For me photography is realising the potential not accepting a sub-standard reality.

"My camera is a brush with which I can paint the world."

 

Ok. Well first, let me say it's a simply beautiful image .. but more as an artwork. As a photograph, something in my brain rebels and says "No! Not real." Does that matter in the long run? Probably not, but it's interesting to compare this image with your mill in the early morning mist : I could accept that 100% as a photograph, as in 'I could be there looking at that scene, and that's how it would be'. I can't accept this image in the same photographic way, though once again I have to say it's a beautiful picture. Where does that leave me? A bit confused, I'd say!

[Guest]

We all have our different perspectives. No one is right or wrong. What's right for me is not necessarily right for you - but I can only aim to please myself.

Thanks Chris.

[colinb]

Ok. Well first, let me say it's a simply beautiful image .. but more as an artwork. As a photograph, something in my brain rebels and says "No! Not real." Does that matter in the long run? Probably not, but it's interesting to compare this image with your mill in the early morning mist : I could accept that 100% as a photograph, as in 'I could be there looking at that scene, and that's how it would be'. I can't accept this image in the same photographic way, though once again I have to say it's a beautiful picture. Where does that leave me? A bit confused, I'd say!

 

not putting you down here Chris just trying to help you get your head around things...

If this picture came out the camera unedited untouched by the human hand assumably you would except it as a photograph?  

Modern cameras will take hdr photo's, tweak the dynamic lighting all in camera all automatically.

Bill, like many of us, shoots in Raw then 'develops' the picture off camera using his skill - surely that is a less automated way of creating a photograph than letting a camera do it all for you? And as he as used his skill to set the camera, iso, shutter speed and or aperture, etc and finally 'seen' the picture that is truly there not as 'artwork' but as a photograph. 

Isn't a photograph as much about seeing the picture, showing us what we might not see as just as much as just recording a scene?

[ChrisLumix]

not putting you down here Chris just trying to help you get your head around things...

If this picture came out the camera unedited untouched by the human hand assumably you would except it as a photograph?  

Modern cameras will take hdr photo's, tweak the dynamic lighting all in camera all automatically.

Bill, like many of us, shoots in Raw then 'develops' the picture off camera using his skill - surely that is a less automated way of creating a photograph than letting a camera do it all for you? And as he as used his skill to set the camera, iso, shutter speed and or aperture, etc and finally 'seen' the picture that is truly there not as 'artwork' but as a photograph. 

Isn't a photograph as much about seeing the picture, showing us what we might not see as just as much as just recording a scene?

 

That's a fair question - the point is, I don't think it would, simply because the human eye (well, MY eye anyway!) wouldn't see that scene in that way.

 

Let me say again, as I did above, that it is a beautiful image. There's a sense of space and simplicity about it, and the sky & water remind me of classic Japanese painting.

 

My problem is that a few elements on the waterline - specifically, the three bungalows? boathouses? - don't seem to sit right (and again, it's just a personal opinion) with the rest of the picture. To give an analogy from art, Canaletto and Turner are both fine painters, the ultimate exponents of their genres. But I would find it jarring if someone was to take the precision of a Canaletto Venice canalside, and put it into one of Turner's wild sea/skyscapes. That's an extreme of course, and I'm not suggesting Bill's fine picture jars like that would, but there's just something my eye can't quite accept about the clarity of those buildings.

 

Having said that, it could be a one-off 'trick of the light' - I wasn't there so I can't really comment about that! I would once again though, like to admire the balance, harmony and tranquility of the composition, which is indeed something special. My reaction is no more than a quibble, and if I'd taken that particular photograph I'd be very proud of it.

[Guest]

After the sun has set (or before it rises) lighting is surprisingly even as the last of the suns light is no longer directional but diffused from the atmosphere.

That said the camera did record deeper shadows than I presented here. What I sought to present was what i saw, the human eye has a far greater ability to see into shadows than does a camera sensor.

 

I offer this by way of explanation only. We are all entitled to our opinions.

[ChrisLumix]

Thanks for that Bill. I for one would love to see the unprocessed version, just to see how it compares.

[Guest]

Thanks for that Bill. I for one would love to see the unprocessed version, just to see how it compares.

Well Chris I am not going to give away all my secrets on the www but, so you can judge how much I have opened the shadows, ..................

 

............  not a lot ??????

[ChrisLumix]

Well Chris I am not going to give away all my secrets on the www but, so you can judge how much I have opened the shadows, ..................

BiAll20140305095.jpg

 

............  not a lot ??????

 

Yes, that's quite a difference.