Harvest Time

[Garasaki]

I think it's a really neat photo. I keep looking for soldiers in it, as it reminds of WWII for some reason (like it's the French countryside). Or Snoopy running across the field in his WWI pilot's helmet.

I would be curious to see some different crop options. For instance, there is a lot of the foreground there. I'd be tempted to crop some of that out.

I'd also be tempted to look at cropping some of the left side out. I actually find the wind turbines don't add anything to the picture (for me) so I'd take a look at a crop that eliminated the left one. Actually, just playing around with it, I could find a logical place to crop either the left or right side turbine out...I actually preferred the right side eliminated crop.

So interesting that you took this while driving, and even at a fairly low shutter speed!

 

[The_Traveler]

Man, do I dislike this picture.
IMO, it is a jumble of different stuff all packed in together.
Fuzzy in the front from the motion - that has nothing to do with the supposed placidity of the center.
Low ugly clouds at the very top and then neat rows of other kinds of very contrasty clouds almost down to the horizon, interrupting the clean look of the church.
And the two wind turbines.
Some of the bales fuzzy, some sharp

This is a goulash of stuff that doesn't appeal to me at all.
Not every picture makes sense to shoot at 100 km/h and not every scene comes together in a coherent picture.

Sorry.

 

[Braineack]

if this shot hasn't been nominated yet... it needs to be.

stellar.

 

[charchri4]

What I like most about this shot is it looks like home. I drive through fields and wind turbines everyday that look just like this. I can see the WWII sense to it as well and the sense that a storm is just over the horizon.

I suppose it would be easy to pick stuff apart if you were looking at it as a photograph but to me it looks like a painting that you would never do that too. The details in it are endless and I can see sitting under it at a gallery soaking in the infinite sky on the right, the shadowy black seemingly bent turbine blades on the left and the way the blurred foreground drives your eye to the church. I don't know much about photography but I think it's a very cool shot.

I'm new enough to not know all the unwritten rules so I apologize if this is out of line but could you post the unedited version of the shot? I'm curious to see the artistry you brought to the image from what you started with. If that's artistry taboo I get it but just wondering.

 

[PixelRabbit]

I think it's a really neat photo. I keep looking for soldiers in it, as it reminds of WWII for some reason (like it's the French countryside). Or Snoopy running across the field in his WWI pilot's helmet.

I would be curious to see some different crop options. For instance, there is a lot of the foreground there. I'd be tempted to crop some of that out.

I'd also be tempted to look at cropping some of the left side out. I actually find the wind turbines don't add anything to the picture (for me) so I'd take a look at a crop that eliminated the left one. Actually, just playing around with it, I could find a logical place to crop either the left or right side turbine out...I actually preferred the right side eliminated crop.

So interesting that you took this while driving, and even at a fairly low shutter speed!

Hi Garaski, thanks so much for your thoughts! I agree that there are many possible crop options in the image that would work, the composition I chose is 1/3 sky 1/3 farmland and 1/3 foreground to create balance and depth, the sky and land echo each other and drive the eye into the center of the image. There are certainly compositions with the turbines gone but for me they are actually quite an important element in the shot to portray the landscapes in our area correctly. The generation of power whether it is the wind turbines or the marching power lines from the nuclear plant tower over our farmland in an often controversial fight between old and established and new technologies and they should be included.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Lew, thanks so much for your thoughts, getting and opposing opinion to what I do is great, it makes me really think, I'm still working through a reply to you

Braineack, thanks!

What I like most about this shot is it looks like home. I drive through fields and wind turbines everyday that look just like this. I can see the WWII sense to it as well and the sense that a storm is just over the horizon.

I suppose it would be easy to pick stuff apart if you were looking at it as a photograph but to me it looks like a painting that you would never do that too. The details in it are endless and I can see sitting under it at a gallery soaking in the infinite sky on the right, the shadowy black seemingly bent turbine blades on the left and the way the blurred foreground drives your eye to the church. I don't know much about photography but I think it's a very cool shot.

I'm new enough to not know all the unwritten rules so I apologize if this is out of line but could you post the unedited version of the shot? I'm curious to see the artistry you brought to the image from what you started with. If that's artistry taboo I get it but just wondering.

Charchri, thanks so much, I'm glad you enjoy the shot and it is familiar to you, that's cool That "painting" quality to the image is exactly what I strive to create, something different, and I really enjoy the results I get.

It never hurts to ask about a fellow photographer's process, some may be less inclined to share but I don't mind, I've not kept my methods secret along the way

This shot starts with shooting at the slower shutter speeds to get motion into at least part of the image, in this case it is the foreground. I shoot in RAW so I process the image like any other raw image, sharpening, saturation, colour temperature etc. This is the image I processed to be used for the B&W conversion.



The B&W conversion was pretty straight forward with the addition of an orange filter to darken the sky and foreground and enhance the yellows in the field/church to make them pop and be the brightest part of the image.
Here is the final result.

 

[The_Traveler]

Lew, thanks so much for your thoughts, getting and opposing opinion to what I do is great, it makes me really think, I'm still working through a reply to you

Thank you for thinking about the comment.
Too often, people who get a stream of positive responses will treat a negative comment as if it was like an inadvertent fart in an elevator, ignoring it and expecting that all others will also.

 

[charchri4]

Wow didn't see that one coming. The raw shot is surprisingly unremarkable and I would have never seen the finished image from it. The transformation is amazing! Thank you for sharing your process and talent with us.

 

[FITBMX]

There are hay bales everywhere around here, and I have never seen any I want a photo of. So great job on these, it is a perfect scene!

 

[PixelRabbit]

Man, do I dislike this picture.
IMO, it is a jumble of different stuff all packed in together.
Fuzzy in the front from the motion - that has nothing to do with the supposed placidity of the center.
Low ugly clouds at the very top and then neat rows of other kinds of very contrasty clouds almost down to the horizon, interrupting the clean look of the church.
And the two wind turbines.
Some of the bales fuzzy, some sharp

This is a goulash of stuff that doesn't appeal to me at all.
Not every picture makes sense to shoot at 100 km/h and not every scene comes together in a coherent picture.

Sorry.

Ok Lew, here goes I took some time to be sure I didn't have a knee jerk reaction and that turned into putting thought into what I do and why I do it that way. First I want to thank you for consistently being my harshest critic, I think I'll fall over then look for the mothership if you ever actually like one of my Fine Art in Motion shots let alone any other but it's all good.

I can get on board with this being a very busy/heavy composition that won't appeal to everyone, the different elements taken individually can certainly be picked apart especially from a mainstream, standard photography standpoint. I've thought a lot about it and I'm still cool with how this came together, it is exactly what I wanted, natural vignette, echoing of the sky in the pattern and tones of the foreground, fuzzy foreground to drive the eye in to the placidity of the field/church surrounded by heavy dramatic surroundings. The wind turbines, hay bales, church, all of it belongs and is an accurate representation of where I live and quite frankly the controversy that looms over our area.

I think that the part that REALLY made me think was the bolded part. From your past comments you have always railed against this method I'm using and I get it, it's not for everyone, some will find it gimmicky or a cop out trying to put lipstick on a pig BUT on the other side there are people who it resonates with, some who like the look it creates, some who love it as much as others hate it and that is perfect, I think the wider the gap between opposing reactions, love and hate, the more impact you are making and that is ultimately what we strive for, impact.

Now, why I do things the way I do, I think first and foremost it is selfish, I get a lot of joy and satisfaction out of it, it reminds me of our 2 hour drive every Friday to the cottage growing up, filling the boredom by tracking objects with my eyes as the whip past the window, counting telephone poles, quickly watching for the critters at the side of the road etc...

I've worked hard on understanding the forces at work when I'm panning from a vehicle, what my focal plane is doing, whether it is dragging, spinning, moving away or towards my subject and at what speed, the distance between me and the subject and what is behind it/in front of it, shooting forward, out the side and as we drive away all create different effects. Watching for subjects ahead and quickly deciding how to place my focus, whether I want a faster or slower shutter speed, where my light is positioned, I could go on and on. There is a lot of practice, time, effort and thinking that goes into what I'm doing, it is not just spray and pray "oh look how cool this turned out!"

Moving beyond my self serving motives in a close second is this is my point of view, lets take the landscapes for example, someone who doesn't live in a rural area like this will seek out a location and go and spend time there, they will find the right angle/time of day/etc... to take a shot of the beautiful landscape and create a beautiful image inspired by THEIR experience of the location which will echo others experience who visit, and ultimately look like all of the other landscapes out there, they are almost always from the visitors point of view. Well, I'm not a visitor, I live here, I pass by these beautiful scenes on my way to buy milk, I drive through the countryside to go anywhere I want to go, I do not stop to enjoy the scene, I'm passing by at 100km/hr and that is how I experience the beauty that surrounds me. While not every shot works out well (believe me I have the outtakes to prove it) the same can be said for just about any other style/method used in photography and I will continue to shoot the damn cows this way until I get it right because it is my point of view. Can I create the mainstream landscapes? Can I get an image that fits in with current styles? Can I make plastic perfection? Yep I can, I know my gear and how to use it, I just choose to use it a little different. Some love it, some hate it and that's exactly how I like it One last thing to add, while I do post a fair amount of shots in this style I DO shoot a LOT that isn't, Fine Art in Motion isn't all that I do, it is only one thing I enjoy shooting when we drive which ultimately is a small portion of the photography I do.

 

[The_Traveler]

Man, do I dislike this picture.
IMO, it is a jumble of different stuff all packed in together.
Fuzzy in the front from the motion - that has nothing to do with the supposed placidity of the center.
Low ugly clouds at the very top and then neat rows of other kinds of very contrasty clouds almost down to the horizon, interrupting the clean look of the church.
And the two wind turbines.
Some of the bales fuzzy, some sharp

This is a goulash of stuff that doesn't appeal to me at all.
Not every picture makes sense to shoot at 100 km/h and not every scene comes together in a coherent picture.

Sorry.

Ok Lew, here goes I took some time to be sure I didn't have a knee jerk reaction and that turned into putting thought into what I do and why I do it that way. First I want to thank you for consistently being my harshest critic, I think I'll fall over then look for the mothership if you ever actually like one of my Fine Art in Motion shots let alone any other but it's all good.

PixelRabbit,

I don't think I'm your harshest critic because I rarely say much about your pictures taken while going fast because I think they are mostly technique triumphing over content, like most excessive HDR, and I think it is a dead end artistically. I think it is a waste of your talent, much like the Israeli artist who photographs exploding flowers. Making art is hard and finding a technique to produce consistently attractive, decorative pieces is a seductive way to stop working hard emotionally.

I can get on board with this being a very busy/heavy composition that won't appeal to everyone, the different elements taken individually can certainly be picked apart especially from a mainstream, standard photography standpoint. I've thought a lot about it and I'm still cool with how this came together, it is exactly what I wanted, natural vignette, echoing of the sky in the pattern and tones of the foreground, fuzzy foreground to drive the eye in to the placidity of the field/church surrounded by heavy dramatic surroundings. The wind turbines, hay bales, church, all of it belongs and is an accurate representation of where I live and quite frankly the controversy that looms over our area.

OK, it doesn't appeal to me. But you like it.
Trying to minimize my opinion as 'mainstream, standard photography point of view' so that you can see yourself as breaking-out, doing something new, so new thinking that you even have a name for it just seems like you are backing away from the issue of this picture.

This isn't a composition, no matter how you talk about 'elements', there are lots of things that seem extra (like the second air turbine with a different color and the top row of clouds that clash with the others in style). and the conversion makes the clouds much more of an element.
You've cropped this to exclude stuff already and whatever you think about your FAIM in the foreground, it doesn't add anything, it's just something to look past.

I think that the part that REALLY made me think was the bolded part. From your past comments you have always railed against this method I'm using and I get it, it's not for everyone, some will find it gimmicky or a cop out trying to put lipstick on a pig BUT on the other side there are people who it resonates with, some who like the look it creates, some who love it as much as others hate it and that is perfect, I think the wider the gap between opposing reactions, love and hate, the more impact you are making and that is ultimately what we strive for, impact.

Now, why I do things the way I do, I think first and foremost it is selfish, I get a lot of joy and satisfaction out of it, it reminds me of our 2 hour drive every Friday to the cottage growing up, filling the boredom by tracking objects with my eyes as the whip past the window, counting telephone poles, quickly watching for the critters at the side of the road etc...

I've worked hard on understanding the forces at work when I'm panning from a vehicle, what my focal plane is doing, whether it is dragging, spinning, moving away or towards my subject and at what speed, the distance between me and the subject and what is behind it/in front of it, shooting forward, out the side and as we drive away all create different effects. Watching for subjects ahead and quickly deciding how to place my focus, whether I want a faster or slower shutter speed, where my light is positioned, I could go on and on. There is a lot of practice, time, effort and thinking that goes into what I'm doing, it is not just spray and pray "oh look how cool this turned out!"

Moving beyond my self serving motives in a close second is this is my point of view, lets take the landscapes for example, someone who doesn't live in a rural area like this will seek out a location and go and spend time there, they will find the right angle/time of day/etc... to take a shot of the beautiful landscape and create a beautiful image inspired by THEIR experience of the location which will echo others experience who visit, and ultimately look like all of the other landscapes out there, they are almost always from the visitors point of view. Well, I'm not a visitor, I live here, I pass by these beautiful scenes on my way to buy milk, I drive through the countryside to go anywhere I want to go, I do not stop to enjoy the scene, I'm passing by at 100km/hr and that is how I experience the beauty that surrounds me. While not every shot works out well (believe me I have the outtakes to prove it) the same can be said for just about any other style/method used in photography and I will continue to shoot the damn cows this way until I get it right because it is my point of view. Can I create the mainstream landscapes? Can I get an image that fits in with current styles? Can I make plastic perfection? Yep I can, I know my gear and how to use it, I just choose to use it a little different. Some love it, some hate it and that's exactly how I like it One last thing to add, while I do post a fair amount of shots in this style I DO shoot a LOT that isn't, Fine Art in Motion isn't all that I do, it is only one thing I enjoy shooting when we drive which ultimately is a small portion of the photography I do.

Your personal reasons for doing this the way you do it are irrelevant here in this circumstance because that assumes that someone who really, really, really wants to succeed automatically should get credit for the wanting to succeed.

You put this picture up here to hear something, if I didn't say what I thought just because you are a nice person, that would be me failing you as a friend.
Take the bad with the good and use it however you want.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Man, do I dislike this picture.
IMO, it is a jumble of different stuff all packed in together.
Fuzzy in the front from the motion - that has nothing to do with the supposed placidity of the center.
Low ugly clouds at the very top and then neat rows of other kinds of very contrasty clouds almost down to the horizon, interrupting the clean look of the church.
And the two wind turbines.
Some of the bales fuzzy, some sharp

This is a goulash of stuff that doesn't appeal to me at all.
Not every picture makes sense to shoot at 100 km/h and not every scene comes together in a coherent picture.

Sorry.

Ok Lew, here goes I took some time to be sure I didn't have a knee jerk reaction and that turned into putting thought into what I do and why I do it that way. First I want to thank you for consistently being my harshest critic, I think I'll fall over then look for the mothership if you ever actually like one of my Fine Art in Motion shots let alone any other but it's all good.

PixelRabbit,

I don't think I'm your harshest critic because I rarely say much about your pictures taken while going fast because I think they are mostly technique triumphing over content, like most excessive HDR, and I think it is a dead end artistically. I think it is a waste of your talent, much like the Israeli artist who photographs exploding flowers. Making art is hard and finding a technique to produce consistently attractive, decorative pieces is a seductive way to stop working hard emotionally.
You are correct, you rarely comment until you hate something enough to voice your opinion but you have consistently found fault and that was what I was commenting on saying you are my harshest critic. Right now I'm trying really hard to wrap my head around your comment here, first, you have pigeon holed me and reduced ALL my artistic efforts solely to this technique, which is far from true, this is only part of my photography pursuits and artistic expression. Shooting from the car probably makes up 10% of the images I take and that is being very generous. You say consistently creating attractive decorative pieces as PART of my photography pursuits like it is a bad thing???

I can get on board with this being a very busy/heavy composition that won't appeal to everyone, the different elements taken individually can certainly be picked apart especially from a mainstream, standard photography standpoint. I've thought a lot about it and I'm still cool with how this came together, it is exactly what I wanted, natural vignette, echoing of the sky in the pattern and tones of the foreground, fuzzy foreground to drive the eye in to the placidity of the field/church surrounded by heavy dramatic surroundings. The wind turbines, hay bales, church, all of it belongs and is an accurate representation of where I live and quite frankly the controversy that looms over our area.

OK, it doesn't appeal to me. But you like it.
Trying to minimize my opinion as 'mainstream, standard photography point of view' so that you can see yourself as breaking-out, doing something new, so new thinking that you even have a name for it just seems like you are backing away from the issue of this picture.
Why does this seem to irk you so much??? Why do you say this like doing something different is somehow bad? You have freely stated that you don't like what I'm doing and that is fine but you can't see past your dislike of it and accept it is still a valid point of view. You are assuming that I'm hanging my hat on the method and relying on it solely to make all of my images successful. You devalue my point of view by saying I'm using it as an excuse for this image but truth be told even if I was standing behind a tripod on the side of the road I would have taken this exact same image with the foreground OOF so the fact that it was taken in motion is irrelevant. In my efforts to understand your viewpoint the thing that screams the loudest is your disdain for how I choose to express myself and because you don't like it it is invalid.

Fine Art in Motion isn't my made up name for what I'm doing, I do believe in photography jargon it would be considered ICM or intentional camera motion, Fine Art in Motion is the name of the SET of images I have created and I use it as a promotional tool, nothing more, your assumption that I've named the method is wrong.
This isn't a composition, no matter how you talk about 'elements', there are lots of things that seem extra (like the second air turbine with a different color and the top row of clouds that clash with the others in style). and the conversion makes the clouds much more of an element.
You've cropped this to exclude stuff already and whatever you think about your FAIM in the foreground, it doesn't add anything, it's just something to look past.
Ok lets remove our personal preferences associated with this shot and talk composition for a second, how can you say there is no composition to it? That truly boggles my mind, the rule of thirds is pretty obvious, framing, leading lines, even the centered subject are all used with intention. It is heavy and busy. To dislike my decisions is fine, to not like how it comes together is fine, but to say there isn't a composition is wrong. I don't understand the opposition to the second turbine, it is unobtrusive, it doesn't trap the eye and it serves a purpose in the scene, it indicates multiple turbines around the church not just the one. The foreground regardless of whether there is motion in it or whether I was standing still is there for the purpose of looking past, to drive the eye to the center of the image, to enhance the seemingly serene church and field so it was successful, it adds framing, depth and a feeling of looking into the scene. You are right, I cropped a bit off the top and the bottom of the image to fit into the rule of thirds and eliminate light part of clouds above (which are exactly the same as the rest of the clouds) and a power line. Like I said, it might not work for you and others but it does work for me and others, saying there is no composition is simply wrong.

I think that the part that REALLY made me think was the bolded part. From your past comments you have always railed against this method I'm using and I get it, it's not for everyone, some will find it gimmicky or a cop out trying to put lipstick on a pig BUT on the other side there are people who it resonates with, some who like the look it creates, some who love it as much as others hate it and that is perfect, I think the wider the gap between opposing reactions, love and hate, the more impact you are making and that is ultimately what we strive for, impact.

Now, why I do things the way I do, I think first and foremost it is selfish, I get a lot of joy and satisfaction out of it, it reminds me of our 2 hour drive every Friday to the cottage growing up, filling the boredom by tracking objects with my eyes as the whip past the window, counting telephone poles, quickly watching for the critters at the side of the road etc...

I've worked hard on understanding the forces at work when I'm panning from a vehicle, what my focal plane is doing, whether it is dragging, spinning, moving away or towards my subject and at what speed, the distance between me and the subject and what is behind it/in front of it, shooting forward, out the side and as we drive away all create different effects. Watching for subjects ahead and quickly deciding how to place my focus, whether I want a faster or slower shutter speed, where my light is positioned, I could go on and on. There is a lot of practice, time, effort and thinking that goes into what I'm doing, it is not just spray and pray "oh look how cool this turned out!"

Moving beyond my self serving motives in a close second is this is my point of view, lets take the landscapes for example, someone who doesn't live in a rural area like this will seek out a location and go and spend time there, they will find the right angle/time of day/etc... to take a shot of the beautiful landscape and create a beautiful image inspired by THEIR experience of the location which will echo others experience who visit, and ultimately look like all of the other landscapes out there, they are almost always from the visitors point of view. Well, I'm not a visitor, I live here, I pass by these beautiful scenes on my way to buy milk, I drive through the countryside to go anywhere I want to go, I do not stop to enjoy the scene, I'm passing by at 100km/hr and that is how I experience the beauty that surrounds me. While not every shot works out well (believe me I have the outtakes to prove it) the same can be said for just about any other style/method used in photography and I will continue to shoot the damn cows this way until I get it right because it is my point of view. Can I create the mainstream landscapes? Can I get an image that fits in with current styles? Can I make plastic perfection? Yep I can, I know my gear and how to use it, I just choose to use it a little different. Some love it, some hate it and that's exactly how I like it One last thing to add, while I do post a fair amount of shots in this style I DO shoot a LOT that isn't, Fine Art in Motion isn't all that I do, it is only one thing I enjoy shooting when we drive which ultimately is a small portion of the photography I do.

Your personal reasons for doing this the way you do it are irrelevant here in this circumstance because that assumes that someone who really, really, really wants to succeed automatically should get credit for the wanting to succeed.

You put this picture up here to hear something, if I didn't say what I thought just because you are a nice person, that would be me failing you as a friend.
Take the bad with the good and use it however you want.

My responses are in blue, this one posted outside the quote to get it to post but it follows at the end...

Did you read that part you quoted to try to understand what I was saying and why I was saying it? No, you read my entire response to respond to it from your viewpoint and be "right". If you read it with an open mind you would have understood that I was no longer talking specifically about this image and was actually TRYING to get you to see validity in an opposing point of view, my point of view, a point of view that many people enjoy and resonate with. You dislike this image beyond my use of motion, I get it, I accept it and I know that the person who likes it and the person who doesn't are BOTH RIGHT. I don't expect automatic credit for anything I do, because I'm nice or because people might like me, I don't expect credit because I do something differently, I don't expect everyone to like what I'm doing and how I do it, quite frankly I don't expect anything. I strive to express myself and illicit a response and you know what, I do get that response from friend and stranger alike so I must be doing something right.

 

[The_Traveler]

You put a picture up for response.
I general don't respond to what you do but, in this case, my visceral reaction was so strong that I did. I sort of regret it.

You can say that I need to have an open mind but that implies that, no matter what people do, if they think it's good, I should accept that.
No.

Believing that because an image has 'the rule of thirds is pretty obvious, framing, leading lines, even the centered subject are all used with intention' that it is well composed makes no sense at all.
That's like throwing all the ingredients of a wedding cake in a bucket and saying that all the pieces are there.

No amount of words will convince me, against my own senses, that your picture is a good, satisfying and well constructed picture and what I said about it still stands.
Saying that because other people like it isn't an effective arguement for me.
Other people have different tastes than mine.

Let's drop this here, you do what you want; I won't comment on what you post.

 

[PixelRabbit]

You never joined the conversation with me Lew, you haven't read or tried to understand anything I've said within the context of my reply, I'm not asking you to like this image, I have tried to steer the conversation away from the image a few times and start a discussion about what I shoot, how I shoot and why (sound familiar to a contest you are currently running at all?) but you keep pulling it back to your dislike of this image, you can't see past your own opinion and fixation on this image so you are right, the conversation that never really started is quite over which is very unfortunate.