Purity

[amolitor]

This is the kind of a striking wallpaper image that people with an educated taste will never use as their wallpaper. If you know what I mean.

I didn't catch this until I saw it quoted. While I have no more to say about the picture, and I quite like you, sashbar, I take exception to this notion of "educated people" with respect to art. I am mainly interested in, and try to stick to, how regular folks relate to art, and to pictures. My remarks here were not intended to separate "educated" tastes from the great unwashed.

 

[sashbar]

This is the kind of a striking wallpaper image that people with an educated taste will never use as their wallpaper. If you know what I mean.

I didn't catch this until I saw it quoted. While I have no more to say about the picture, and I quite like you, sashbar, I take exception to this notion of "educated people" with respect to art. I am mainly interested in, and try to stick to, how regular folks relate to art, and to pictures. My remarks here were not intended to separate "educated" tastes from the great unwashed.

Well, probably some negative connotations or some meaning of the word have escaped me, since English is not my first language. A lot of "regular folks" have educated tastes as fas as I am concerned, and a lot of well educated people are tastless, so, here we are.. I better stop here.

But I will try to explain why this photo is not "important" to me personally. Because it is emotionally incoherent (probably my English lets me down again). It does not project a coherent emotional impact. It is just a mixture of impressive colors, shapes and effects. Technically wonderful, but emotionally mixed. Just look at it closely - what does it project: peace, greatness, calmness, anxiety, comfort, disquiet, ... the emotion escapes me here. The colors are bold, striking, but meaningless. So that's why "wallpaper" comes to mind - because it is emotionally dead. Or maybe I am dead. It is possible.

 

[sashbar]

You're getting really really good at this sort of thing. I think it might behoove you at this point to ask yourself if this is the kind of thing you want to do. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing -- at all. LOTS and LOTS of people love these pictures. This is an insanely popular kind of thing, and you are a genuinely skilled practitioner of the form. These pictures are very attractive. They're marketable. They have many many desirable properties. I don't think that they're important picture, though. If this is what you want to do, far be it from me to say you shouldn't. My personal take, though, and this is merely my opinion, is that your talent could be better used. I think you could make important pictures.

Hey sorry for the late response. I've read the responses but haven't had time to sit down and respond.

It is flattering that you think I could make important pictures. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, perhaps you could provide some samples?

I am completely with amolitor here. The net is oversaturated with this kind of lookalike (mostly oversaturated) images. I admire your technique and skill, and I will probably never do this kind of shot as good as you do, but, yes, amolitor found a very good word for it: "not important". This is the kind of a striking wallpaper image that people with an educated taste will never use as their wallpaper. If you know what I mean.

I use landscape photography wallpapers as my desktop (the ones that came with windows). I think I'm educated, but maybe not.

Majeed, do not take it personally. I could safely say the image is awesome, and probably that would be true. But I prefer to risk looking like a fool by digging a bit deeper (and falling into the hole I dug) in order to let you know what I think about the image when measured by the highest standard that I am capable of. I tried to explain some things in my previous post.

 

[manaheim]

This is the kind of a striking wallpaper image that people with an educated taste will never use as their wallpaper. If you know what I mean.

I didn't catch this until I saw it quoted. While I have no more to say about the picture, and I quite like you, sashbar, I take exception to this notion of "educated people" with respect to art. I am mainly interested in, and try to stick to, how regular folks relate to art, and to pictures. My remarks here were not intended to separate "educated" tastes from the great unwashed.

Well, probably some negative connotations or some meaning of the word have escaped me, since English is not my first language. A lot of "regular folks" have educated tastes as fas as I am concerned, and a lot of well educated people are tastless, so, here we are.. I better stop here.

But I will try to explain why this photo is not "important" to me personally. Because it is emotionally incoherent (probably my English lets me down again). It does not project a coherent emotional impact. It is just a mixture of impressive colors, shapes and effects. Technically wonderful, but emotionally mixed. Just look at it closely - what does it project: peace, greatness, calmness, anxiety, comfort, disquiet, ... the emotion escapes me here. The colors are bold, striking, but meaningless. So that's why "wallpaper" comes to mind - because it is emotionally dead. Or maybe I am dead. It is possible.

Imo that's what most landscapes are like. Beautiful but not interesting exactly. (this is not meant as a slight on this image)

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Majeed, do not take it personally. I could safely say the image is awesome, and probably that would be true. But I prefer to risk looking like a fool by digging a bit deeper (and falling into the hole I dug) in order to let you know what I think about the image when measured by the highest standard that I am capable of. I tried to explain some things in my previous post.

I see what you are saying and so not take it personally . Of all the landscape images I've posted it is interesting to get this feedback on this particular image.

 

[kathyt]

Majeed, do not take it personally. I could safely say the image is awesome, and probably that would be true. But I prefer to risk looking like a fool by digging a bit deeper (and falling into the hole I dug) in order to let you know what I think about the image when measured by the highest standard that I am capable of. I tried to explain some things in my previous post.

I see what you are saying and so not take it personally . Of all the landscape images I've posted it is interesting to get this feedback on this particular image.

Weird. I still don't understand how landscape photography is uninteresting or unimportant. I guess maybe to someone who has seen every part of the world maybe? I don't get it. Word to you R!

 

[pixmedic1]

this is a great shot.
i don't have to dig very deep into its "meaning", I don't have to wonder if its supposed to be "thought provoking", I just have to look at it an go "damn, that's a bad ass picture"
I find this far more interesting, and far more enjoyable to look at than most of the landscape shots i see around here.
very well done Majeed.

 

[sleist]

I think this is an unfortunate by-product of the volume of images on the internet.
People see so many of the same types of photos that they seem to take for granted just how much effort and/or skill it takes to get great shots.
I'm not just talking about photographic skill, but also the effort it takes to get to these places or wait for the decisive moment or simply be able to "see" the photo before you press the shutter.
The sheer volume of wonderful images acts to give the illusion of simplicity, redundancy, and cliche.
People today seem so interested in pleasing the internet that they have forgotten the importance of pleasing themselves.

 

[kathyt]

I think this is an unfortunate by-product of the volume of images on the internet.
People see so many of the same types of photos that they seem to take for granted just how much effort and/or skill it takes to get great shots.
I'm not just talking about photographic skill, but also the effort it takes to get to these places or wait for the decisive moment or simply be able to "see" the photo before you press the shutter.
The sheer volume of wonderful images acts to give the illusion of simplicity, redundancy, and cliche.
People today seem so interested in pleasing the internet that they have forgotten the importance of pleasing themselves.

Well said.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I think this is an unfortunate by-product of the volume of images on the internet. People see so many of the same types of photos that they seem to take for granted just how much effort and/or skill it takes to get great shots. I'm not just talking about photographic skill, but also the effort it takes to get to these places or wait for the decisive moment or simply be able to "see" the photo before you press the shutter. The sheer volume of wonderful images acts to give the illusion of simplicity, redundancy, and cliche. People today seem so interested in pleasing the internet that they have forgotten the importance of pleasing themselves.

Well said.

Some background to this shot:

From hourly forecasts, I gave it a 20% chance we'd have any light except overcast.

This particular wave was well over knee high. I'm standing barefoot in the frigid pacific. This wave retreated quickly giving the soft silky look that made it unique.

 

[runnah]

Not that I can do as purty pictures as Majeed but I can say that more than half the enjoyment of landscapes is the journey, discovery, timing and production of the image.

I'd much rather be treking in the woods than doing coke with some models in a studio.

 

[Derrel]

I just did a Google search on the term "important photographs". Here's what it returned. important photographs - Google Search

One thing I notice....the vast majority of these are older pictures, shot back before digital was even invented. Huh.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Not that I can do as purty pictures as Majeed but I can say that more than half the enjoyment of landscapes is the journey, discovery, timing and production of the image. I'd much rather be treking in the woods than doing coke with some models in a studio.

Diet or regular?

 

[NancyMoranG]

With models, it's always Diet.
beautiful image.....again... zheez.
Nancy