# Here's one for Schwettylens In a format he will hopefully like! (Mountain Porn!)  ;)



## cgipson1 (Jun 8, 2012)

way too small to see well here.. but here goes:




Another take on the Walden Mountain by CGipson Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 8, 2012)

Way better.  You must be crazy to think the other one is better.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 8, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Way better.  You must be crazy to think the other one is better.



The fact that I am crazy has never been up for debate! lol!  Glad you like it! lol!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 8, 2012)

I copied the shot to Flickr... that way you can see it better if you choose to:

Another take on the Walden Mountain by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

So is the OLD Photograph Framing too Hokey?  lol!


----------



## amolitor (Jun 9, 2012)

Formal composition is ok. I like the strong lines leading to the visual center. What I am not a big fan of is that the visual center is centered. Pushing it even slightly off to one side or the other would make the image a little more dynamic, to my eye. I'm not a "rule of thirds" fanatic, but it's a rare composition that really works with the critical bits centered up. If you clip just a trifle off the right hand side, for instance, the image suddenly becomes a set of echoed shapes in contrasting tones, with the pile of cloud echoing the mountain/slope on the left.

EDIT: The more I look at it, the more I am not sure. Maybe it is framed just right after all. I'm not quite feeling it, for some reason, but I'm not sure I've put my finger on why. It's still startling how different the image becomes with 10 percent chopped off the right, but I'm no longer sure that it's BETTER. It's just different.

I find the tones to be completely horrible, though. Thank you for not turning the sky black, but I do not think you did yourself any favors by turning the rocks and trees black. When you alter the image to this degree, I find that you obscure the underlying image and we tend to see instead the processing choices you have made. To be fair, this style is more and more in fashion, so perhaps eventually even I will fully absorb the new visual vocabulary, and not even notice the processing choices. I actually wrote a blog post about this sort of thing, if you're interested in one man's crazy theories: Photos and Stuff: The Evolution of Realistic


----------



## KBM1016 (Jun 9, 2012)

This makes me miss Colorado 

Nice job


----------



## sm4him (Jun 9, 2012)

I still think I like the other one better, but this take on it is nice, too.  And yes, the framing is kinda hokey, lol.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 9, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Formal composition is ok. I like the strong lines leading to the visual center. What I am not a big fan of is that the visual center is centered. Pushing it even slightly off to one side or the other would make the image a little more dynamic, to my eye. I'm not a "rule of thirds" fanatic, but it's a rare composition that really works with the critical bits centered up. If you clip just a trifle off the right hand side, for instance, the image suddenly becomes a set of echoed shapes in contrasting tones, with the pile of cloud echoing the mountain/slope on the left.
> 
> EDIT: The more I look at it, the more I am not sure. Maybe it is framed just right after all. I'm not quite feeling it, for some reason, but I'm not sure I've put my finger on why. It's still startling how different the image becomes with 10 percent chopped off the right, but I'm no longer sure that it's BETTER. It's just different.
> 
> I find the tones to be completely horrible, though. Thank you for not turning the sky black, but I do not think you did yourself any favors by turning the rocks and trees black. When you alter the image to this degree, I find that you obscure the underlying image and we tend to see instead the processing choices you have made. To be fair, this style is more and more in fashion, so perhaps eventually even I will fully absorb the new visual vocabulary, and not even notice the processing choices. I actually wrote a blog post about this sort of thing, if you're interested in one man's crazy theories: Photos and Stuff: The Evolution of Realistic



thank your for your comments! I did try several different framings... and liked this one best.  As far as the tones go.. on my monitor here, it is much lighter than the way it looks on TPF, or even Flickr. I do prefer contrasty B&W's in general, and have been know to over do it!   To be honest, I have always been relatively strong on the technical side, and much weaker on the art theory side of things. I have read many books (some make sense.. some don't) on art theory and application. I do know that my reading has modified my shooting and processing over the years in a very gradual manner... but I often end up doing what I like. 

The Overton Window effect you speak of is interesting.... there is always an acceptable range to the majority, and it is catered to in the form of commercialism! I have not seen the term applied to Art before, although the concept is valid. Your reference to Adams is pertinent also... I was fascinated by his work as a young boy, and sometimes find myself using his work as a gauge.

I would love to hear what other "Art Educated"  TPF'ers have to say on this!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 9, 2012)

KBM1016 said:


> This makes me miss Colorado
> 
> Nice job



Thank you! Colorado is lovely, and diverse!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 9, 2012)

sm4him said:


> I still think I like the other one better, but this take on it is nice, too.  And yes, the framing is kinda hokey, lol.



Thank you, Sharon! Please define HOKEY in the sense you are using it... I am curious! I did attempt to make this look like a postcard (obviously), is that part of it?


----------



## sm4him (Jun 9, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > I still think I like the other one better, but this take on it is nice, too.  And yes, the framing is kinda hokey, lol.
> ...



Well, admittedly I'm not generally a fan of these kinds of photo "frames" anyway; but *IMO* (which is worth at least half of what you're paying for it!) it's just kind of cliché. As you said, you made it to look like a postcard--which made you think of this kind of frame, because it's so "typical" of a postcard. But, again IMO, this photo deserves more than the cliché postcard look.

Mostly--I just don't like fake frames, I guess.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 9, 2012)

sm4him said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > sm4him said:
> ...



Gotcha! lol! It was intentional!


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 9, 2012)

the detail in those clouds (even at this small size) is great, it really adds to the personality of it all...


----------



## unpopular (Jun 9, 2012)

KBM1016 said:


> This makes me miss Colorado




Why wouldn't you want to be Miss Colorado?

Oh wait.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 9, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> the detail in those clouds (even at this small size) is great, it really adds to the personality of it all...



Thanks! I keep going back to look at it on my 30" monitor.. and the detail blows me away! I think I may have to do a large print or two!  lol!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 9, 2012)

unpopular said:


> KBM1016 said:
> 
> 
> > This makes me miss Colorado
> ...



LMAO! Not bad!


----------

