19VIIb

Hertz van Rental · Jul 19, 2008

And before anyone says "it's too dark" let me say that this is exactly how I want it because that is the way it was and how I saw it.
I don't take pretty pictures or make eye candy - my pictures are actually about something.
And if you can't figure it out, try asking.

Antarctican · Jul 19, 2008

What's it about?

[I could venture a guess, but would probably miss the mark and then be horribly embarrassed and too intimidated to ever comment again.]

(OMG, I just noticed you're a subscriber now!)

deudeu · Jul 19, 2008

I don't want to be mean or over critical but your eyes should have more dynamic range than your sensor. So if this is what your eyes saw, you should get it checked out.

This being said, I agree with you about pictures being about something. Personnally I like pictures that are about something and that are eyecandy.

Anyways, for this picture, I suspect the sky got your interest, so you could have composed the picture to have more of the sky and less of the dark landscape.

Antarctican · Jul 19, 2008

abraxas · Jul 19, 2008

Well, I like how stuff touches. Except that one cloud, but I like that too.

rjackjames · Jul 19, 2008

hmmm.....makes me wonder whats out there....

Chris of Arabia · Jul 19, 2008

Definitely a superior shot, so superior in fact that it doesn't feel the need to make an appearance for me :scratch:

Chris of Arabia · Jul 19, 2008

Hmm, Saudi firewall having issues - works fine through a proxy.

Puscas · Jul 19, 2008

well, I'm always interested in the photogs story. For now, it's too dark IMO.

pascal

Chris of Arabia · Jul 20, 2008

From my perspective, it's not too dark at all. There is something of an implication in that comment that the image is under-exposed. In this instance I don't believe that to be the case, it's just reflecting what HvR saw with his own eyes at the time. There seems to be an automatic assumption that all scenes should be turned into a neat approximation of 18% grey - life doesn't always look like that though - case in point here. It was not taken in daylight, so why should it be made to look like it?

As I look at the various elements of the image, I can see detail in the darkest areas and detail in the highlights - nothing appears blown out, nothing seems to have vanished into blackness - isn't that an indication of a good exposure? It just happens that in this image a lot of the scene is of darker tones, with a sliver of light on the horizon.

Hertz van Rental · Jul 20, 2008

deudeu said:
I don't want to be mean or over critical but your eyes should have more dynamic range than your sensor. So if this is what your eyes saw, you should get it checked out.

The human eye does have a far wider dynamic range than any camera - but the range is not all available at the same time.
The eye - in conjunction with the brain - is constantly adjusting exposure, focus, colour temperature, etc, so that we believe our eyes perform better than they actually do.
For example, we have a blind spot in our eye that we are not aware of because our brain fills in the details (go here to find yours).
So by this philosophy all our photographs should have a big, fuzzy patch somewhere in them so that they accurately reflect what we see.
But what is 'accurate'?
We quite often see things that aren't there, or not see things that are. We all see colours slightly differently, and people with colour deficiencies see them way different. Some people have 20/20 vision, some are long sighted, some are short sighted and some are almost blind.
In short, none of us see things in quite the same way as our neighbour.
And then we can see things in our 'minds eye'. We can have ideas or 'visions' and try to make them real.
Quite a few different ways of seeing there.
And cameras 'see' things differently again (and also have enough electronics in them to make them smarter than some of the people using them, apparently).
So when you take a picture what are you doing? Showing things as they are? Showing things as you see them? Showing things as the engineer who designed your camera though you should see them? Or showing things how you want others to see them so that they can have a similar experience to yours?
This shot was taken just before the sun came up. The field was on the opposite side of the hill and so was in deep shadow.
Some things (the leaves overhead) where in silhouette. Other things (the grass along the bottom edge) were just picking up enough light to make them look luminous.
I think the image (which as Chris points out is correctly exposed) reflects pretty accurately my experience of looking to the East as the sun was rising whilst standing in a field. I was at the boundary of night and day if you like - which is a big clue as to what this image is all about (as long as you can be bothered to actually thing about what you are looking at rather than expecting the image to do all the work for you

).

Tangerini · Jul 22, 2008

In fear of being psychoanalyzed...
A new beginning at every end - this is what I see. The light breaking and illuminating life and land that just previously was dark. The grass in the foreground is being shone on first allows me to see its importance. Why shouldn't the grass be as important as the tree?

Hertz van Rental · Jul 22, 2008

So I'll post the answer to the question (as I wrote it in a PM).

"So there I was sitting in the car at 5am, waiting for the rain to stop and hoping the clouds would break in time for the rising sun. And I keep looking at this field, barely visible in the murky pre-dawn light.
And I'm fascinated.
What is it?
A dense field of ripening wheat and a field that has just been ploughed... with this sharp, straight dividing line running off up and over the hill.
And I'm there at the boundary of day and night looking at a boundary between alive and dead and I get to thinking...
The rain stops.
I get out of the car and the sun is just about to come up over the hill and I see more boundaries.
How many can you see?"