# Tetons Sunset



## bulldurham (Oct 26, 2016)




----------



## bulldurham (Oct 26, 2016)

It's not haze, it's pure light washing across the face of the peaks.


----------



## bulldurham (Oct 27, 2016)

Bump...I do not understand why it is so hard to get a response in the B&W forum...


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 27, 2016)

It's rather boring to be honest.  People may not be responding because you tend to be very critical and harsh in your comments with people learning. You do not pay attention to these people normally and all of a sudden you crush them with your comments, right or wrong. Then on top of that, you can not balance your knowledge and insult supporting members (you have no idea how much they support). So do you need kid gloves? Nope, just better common sense, sensitivity, and the appearance of a true desire to help someone improve. You just did that perfectly in my healthy thread mum.  There are various levels here and you are in the lower to middle part I suspect based on what I have seen. Think about where you were a year into photography as me? You may want to consider asking for critique because the more I learn, the more I see whats wrong with your images.

Oh, and you don't have to post inferior images either.


----------



## Causapscal (Oct 27, 2016)

Sorry, the picture is overexposed and lacks contrast. Black and white is not dark grey and light grey.


----------



## bulldurham (Oct 28, 2016)

You crack me up. You post on a forum and ask for critique then take the critique personal. Really.  The picture is not overexposed nor does it lack contrast, Causapscal. Have a look at the histogram. JCD you would have never survived one of my classes. I taught in an International program, named the Photography Teacher of the Year, USA two years running and had a 94.6 pass rate over a period of 17 years. All film and Alternative processes for the first 8 years before we moved into digital which still only accounted for 25% of their grade. I critiqued my students (said exactly what was wrong and directed them toward what was right) exactly the same way I critique everyone on here because the schedule to which we had to comply there was little time for niceties; I gave out the kudos in the grading folder. My students knew going in I wasn't a warm fuzzy kind of guy but they also knew that if they wanted to attend the better photography schools in the country, this was an avenue. They took it on the chin and they learned. Over the course of 17 years I placed over 270 students in schools like RISD, SCAD, Ringling, Art Center School, Haystack, UMass...yadda, yadda, yadda on full ride scholarships. 

Do I know everything..not hardly, but rather than whine about a critique, harsh or sweet, I endeavor to move forward every day. You might want to give that some thought. But to alleviate any further anxiety from one future critiques, I shall make doubly sure not to ever critique you again. Learn from Causapscal as he seems to know what he's talking about. Just as an aside, with the exception of one really good filmmaking professor in college, I cannot say I liked many of them., I found most to be very harsh, and demeaning and at times quite full of themselves but I LEARNED something from every one of them.

If you are going to take critiques personally, then why post at all? Oh, and all that crap you hear about the best way to critique...I suggest you not do graduate work.


----------



## waday (Oct 28, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> It's rather boring to be honest.


I agree with this.

While I wasn't there, you mention this was an evening shot (_edited from morning to evening_). So, I'm thinking warm colors, nice colorful trees, golden/green fields in front of the building, probably a nice rustic color to the building...

But, instead, it is black and white, taking away all that interest. What vision did you have when you converted it to B&W (assuming it's digital)? Also, I'm not sure what the subject should be? The building, the mountains, the trees in the field? Maybe it's the crop that's throwing me off, I don't know? But when I look at it, my eyes dart all over, and I lose interest quickly.

But, take my comments with a grain of salt, because I'm not a professional.


----------



## bulldurham (Oct 28, 2016)

And boring is fine..I didn't ask for anything other than a response. I converted because I didn't think the light translated as well in color as it did in the  B&W version. In color the light looks more like haze and that's what I was trying to avoid.


----------



## sw_ (Oct 28, 2016)

My eyes just don't rest anywhere. In my mind I want to explore the nooks and crannies of the peaks but that depth is lost with "haze" light. It is understandable though, we had this same light issue at grand canyon on Sunday. That's my 2 cents, so grab another 4.98 and you can get a small coffee lol.


----------



## MSnowy (Oct 28, 2016)

bulldurham said:


> You crack me up. You post on a forum and ask for critique then take the critique personal. Really.  The picture is not overexposed nor does it lack contrast, Causapscal. Have a look at the histogram. JCD you would have never survived one of my classes. I taught in an International program, named the Photography Teacher of the Year, USA two years running and had a 94.6 pass rate over a period of 17 years. All film and Alternative processes for the first 8 years before we moved into digital which still only accounted for 25% of their grade. I critiqued my students (said exactly what was wrong and directed them toward what was right) exactly the same way I critique everyone on here because the schedule to which we had to comply there was little time for niceties; I gave out the kudos in the grading folder. My students knew going in I wasn't a warm fuzzy kind of guy but they also knew that if they wanted to attend the better photography schools in the country, this was an avenue. They took it on the chin and they learned. Over the course of 17 years I placed over 270 students in schools like RISD, SCAD, Ringling, Art Center School, Haystack, UMass...yadda, yadda, yadda on full ride scholarships.
> 
> Do I know everything..not hardly, but rather than whine about a critique, harsh or sweet, I endeavor to move forward every day. You might want to give that some thought. But to alleviate any further anxiety from one future critiques, I shall make doubly sure not to ever critique you again. Learn from Causapscal as he seems to know what he's talking about. Just as an aside, with the exception of one really good filmmaking professor in college, I cannot say I liked many of them., I found most to be very harsh, and demeaning and at times quite full of themselves but I LEARNED something from every one of them.
> 
> If you are going to take critiques personally, then why post at all? Oh, and all that crap you hear about the best way to critique...I suggest you not do graduate work.


 
I was just thinking the other day how soft TPF has become. When I started photography 6 years ago I would come on here and get great critique from experienced photographers .  Unfotunately most of them have moved on from here.  They were very direct and to the point. Did I always like it no, but it pushed me to get better. The last 6 months or so I've noticed a lot of flattering comments for very substandard images. Telling people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear won't make them any better. I appreciate the way you critique, to the point with no bs.


----------



## waday (Oct 28, 2016)

What about using dehaze on a gradient filter?


----------



## bulldurham (Oct 28, 2016)

Possible...but not sure the image is worth that much work. I'll have to open it in the Cloud version as mine doesn't have the dehaze feature.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Oct 28, 2016)

Just chiming in. I think the B@W conversion is good and also see what you're trying to do which is quite difficult.

The main problem is keeping scale and depth together. You can use a wide angle, but then your foreground is large and your mountains become small and distant. Then you could use a longer lens, and although this keeps the scale of small foreground and large mountains it also introduces another problem.





Our bi-nocular vision really only works at it's most effective at closer distances. We therefore see near objects as having more '3D'. Far objects tend to be percieved as flat and their sense of scale and distance is because we have a direct comparison with the foreground. However when you use longer lenses and isolate the background to maintain the scale of the mountains you also isolate the distance from any foreground reference. Then it is difficult to imply a sense of depth.
I like the way you've kept the impression of light to enhance this, but there's no sense of rhythm in the image. The foreground barn is not the central point in the image as you're trying to draw the eye to the distance, and the distant mountains are random. You have a nice tension between the barn and the trees in the field, so have you considered trying to balance the distant skyline and just seeing how the foreground pans out (it also brings the foreground closer without changing the perspective)?





BTW, B&W is scales of grey and actually rarely B&W, and I don't mind your style, though I do think you've got it wrong on a couple of occasions.  ;-)


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 28, 2016)

In my mind a sunset should blaze with fire. This just fizzles.
If it was pure light washing across the faces of the mountains, the image doesn't capture that, it looks hazy and faded.
Wouldn't be a great print, IMO.


----------



## bulldurham (Oct 28, 2016)

It is a grand print...but it is one where I did clone out the ranch house and did some dehazing. I'm working on another image I took moments later where the sun finally dipped behind a more distant peak. We'll see.


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 28, 2016)

bulldurham said:


> You crack me up. You post on a forum and ask for critique then take the critique personal. Really.  The picture is not overexposed nor does it lack contrast, Causapscal. Have a look at the histogram. JCD you would have never survived one of my classes. I taught in an International program, named the Photography Teacher of the Year, USA two years running and had a 94.6 pass rate over a period of 17 years. All film and Alternative processes for the first 8 years before we moved into digital which still only accounted for 25% of their grade. I critiqued my students (said exactly what was wrong and directed them toward what was right) exactly the same way I critique everyone on here because the schedule to which we had to comply there was little time for niceties; I gave out the kudos in the grading folder. My students knew going in I wasn't a warm fuzzy kind of guy but they also knew that if they wanted to attend the better photography schools in the country, this was an avenue. They took it on the chin and they learned. Over the course of 17 years I placed over 270 students in schools like RISD, SCAD, Ringling, Art Center School, Haystack, UMass...yadda, yadda, yadda on full ride scholarships.
> 
> Do I know everything..not hardly, but rather than whine about a critique, harsh or sweet, I endeavor to move forward every day. You might want to give that some thought. But to alleviate any further anxiety from one future critiques, I shall make doubly sure not to ever critique you again. Learn from Causapscal as he seems to know what he's talking about. Just as an aside, with the exception of one really good filmmaking professor in college, I cannot say I liked many of them., I found most to be very harsh, and demeaning and at times quite full of themselves but I LEARNED something from every one of them.
> 
> If you are going to take critiques personally, then why post at all? Oh, and all that crap you hear about the best way to critique...I suggest you not do graduate work.



You didn't read a thing I said teacher... Good teachers are in tune to their students, I assume I am your student since your rambling on about it... 

" The picture is not overexposed nor does it lack contrast" I said it was boring. But it does lack...

" Have a look at the histogram", I am trying to learn histograms but there you go again, bashing a newbie. I don't understand them and on top of that I thanked you for helping me. So a teacher bashes a student who asks for help....

You are one of these old timer bully's that degrade members with promise and the websites traffic. You think you are better than everyone on here and your pics prove you are not. Get off your high horse teacher. You also play games by posting crappy pics to see how people respond. 

Snowy is not on here enough to see your motive, I am on here too much and your motives are crystal clear. You are better than everyone and God forbid someone has promise and they need help, you are going to crush their journey. You almost did mine but a long time member here told me you were a bitter teacher... She was right, I didn't know you were a teacher. Makes sense.

Yeah, your not warm and fuzzy but more back stabbing envious teacher that the system continually employs while destroying their confidence and settle down in another field. I assume you never placed a professional. 

Good luck to you but you are not fair at all. Just full of anger, envy, resentment.

I would have aced your class, I would have given you exactly what you wanted. Think about that for a minute if you have the time.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 28, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> bulldurham said:
> 
> 
> > You crack me up. You post on a forum and ask for critique then take the critique personal. Really.  The picture is not overexposed nor does it lack contrast, Causapscal. Have a look at the histogram. JCD you would have never survived one of my classes. I taught in an International program, named the Photography Teacher of the Year, USA two years running and had a 94.6 pass rate over a period of 17 years. All film and Alternative processes for the first 8 years before we moved into digital which still only accounted for 25% of their grade. I critiqued my students (said exactly what was wrong and directed them toward what was right) exactly the same way I critique everyone on here because the schedule to which we had to comply there was little time for niceties; I gave out the kudos in the grading folder. My students knew going in I wasn't a warm fuzzy kind of guy but they also knew that if they wanted to attend the better photography schools in the country, this was an avenue. They took it on the chin and they learned. Over the course of 17 years I placed over 270 students in schools like RISD, SCAD, Ringling, Art Center School, Haystack, UMass...yadda, yadda, yadda on full ride scholarships.
> ...


I don't see many framed histograms in galleries anymore.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 28, 2016)

bulldurham said:


> It is a grand print...but it is one where I did clone out the ranch house and did some dehazing. I'm working on another image I took moments later where the sun finally dipped behind a more distant peak. We'll see.


Then why didn't you post the good version?


----------



## bulldurham (Oct 28, 2016)

Because I finished it after I posted this one and got the feedback.


----------



## Didereaux (Oct 29, 2016)

bulldurham said:


> It's not haze, it's pure light washing across the face of the peaks.



Yes, that is haze.  Trees give off moisture and some gases.  Hence the 'Great Smokies' etc.   I noticed you said you did not have de-haze on your version of LR.  Do a search their is a FREE dehazer out there that is actually better than Adobe's.   there is another one, but I forget what it's called.
A link to the one that works on LR6   

A polarizer would have done a lot of good as well.


----------



## Didereaux (Oct 29, 2016)

Played around with the 1st one.  Nik SilverFX and LR/w prolost dehaze.    I rather like this @ a 9x16 aspect.


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 29, 2016)

Didereaux said:


> Played around with the 1st one.  Nik SilverFX and LR/w prolost dehaze.    I rather like this @ a 9x16 aspect.
> View attachment 129475


That one.looks more dynamic


----------



## bulldurham (Oct 29, 2016)

Well, beg to differ and I understand what it looks like to you, but it was not haze, it was pure light. It was the purest sense of light I think I've ever seen. It just didn't translate like I wanted it to. I don't use LR, either...not all things work even when I think they do or should. C'est la vie


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 30, 2016)

A photograph of pure light doesn't work. The light needs to be reflecting off of surfaces and into the camera in order to take a photograph light in the air is just ugly, mostly.


----------



## bulldurham (Nov 3, 2016)

Your opinion....and again, it is just possible you had to be there.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Nov 3, 2016)

502 Bad Gateway.

I cant see page 3! 

In only saying this to incite; kinda a joke, take with lots if salt: 

If you can't do, teach!

Haha?

PS I dont overly care for the photo. Its ok I suppose but doesnt make me want to talk.


----------



## bulldurham (Nov 3, 2016)

OGsPhotography said:


> If you can't do, teach!



Says all the illiterate Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Engineers who learned everything they know all by themselves...yeah, right!


----------



## Destin (Nov 3, 2016)

bulldurham said:


> Your opinion....and again, it is just possible you had to be there.



There is no such thing as a photograph of pure light. Shine a flashlight in a smoke/dust free environment, and you won't see the beam. Turn on a smoke machine, and the beam reflects off of the light and becomes visible. 

What you're seeing in the photo isn't "pure light." It's sunlight reflecting off of water vapor or other particulates in the air, also known more simply as.. you guessed it: Haze. 

This isn't an opinion. It's an entry level scientific fact that most middle school students understand and could have explained. 

Why do you ask for C&C if you're just going to tell everyone they're wrong and refuse to learn from it?


----------



## bulldurham (Nov 3, 2016)

Well, I just guess it was what I saw and what I saw was sunlight..what you see is whatever you want to see...the edit was not suitable to what I saw. I cannot learn from that edit and I could have done the same but did not.


----------

