[SI] Some "Weather" Comments

Got some extra time this week, so here goes...


Dave Sibbett (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62475260)

First thing I noticed was the excellent use of empty space. The most
noticeable shape to me is the silhouetted dock structure, which is placed on
the relatively insignificant extreme right edge of the composition. This
placement, combined with the dock's relatively small scale, lends the
photograph a sense of atmospheric vastness which is very much in tune with
the mandate subject.

The second thing noticed was the use of muted colors. This is how the real
colors of nature appear in... well, nature. Trained in geology, I was
taught to use nature's understated true colors to assist in the field
identification of rocks and minerals. As a result, I have always had an
appreciation for the beauty to be found in the subtle pastels of the real
world. I've never been a Velvia person. I can remember when Kodachrome was
considered hopelessly saturated. Times change, I guess.

And as far as the flare mentioned by others goes, I think it enhances the
composition of this photograph. Just because the book says that flare is
generally bad does not mean flare is always bad. Just my take...


Jim Kramer (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62475333)

A perfect day for - what is that? - kite surfing?

I've been to San Francisco more times than I can count and I can't ever
remember seeing the shadow of the bridge on the water. On most visits I
couldn't even see across from one side to the other due to the ever-present
fog.

Most people's word association blurt to "weather" would be "storm." In this
regard, I applaud your choice of good over inclement weather as a subject.
Compositionally, I like the sense of scale imparted by both the surfer (if
that's what it is) and by the light-scattering haze in the distance. This,
I think, is the strength of this picture.

Just now I held up a piece of black cardboard to my monitor. I think that
the foreshortened scale effect could be dramatically improved if the
building rooftop and tree tops were not included. However, in fairness, I
*think* I know about where you were standing. If I'm correct, you may not
have had much flexibility in where you could plant your feet.


Walter Banks (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62475335)

The drama here results from the intense colors (sunsets/sunrises are one of
the exceptions to the muted colors in nature rule) and the peculiar vertical
distribution of the sun's light.

I don't think I've ever seen this effect before. Is it related to intense
cold winter weather? I've seen the ice halo around the moon, but not this.

I do sense something missing here, but I'm not sure what. Beyond the sun
effect itself, I'm looking for more context I think. Perhaps use of an ND
grad would have allowed more shadow detail in the foreground. (Sorry, I
don't usually think in terms of digital solutions.) Or maybe some other
secondary point of interest is required. Hmm...

I think if the photo were able to first stand on its own as a compelling
landscape without the vertical effect, then the addition of that effect
would make for a spectacular photograph. I'm not sure that's the case here.
But I do really like that solar illusion.


Bowser (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62475338)

No need to apologize. This is the weather most people know and love.
Well... know, anyway. After seventeen years in the Great Pacific Northwest
this is what I see for 9-10 months out of every year. Around here summer
begins on July 4th and ends on Labor Day. Don't blink now...

The curve of the brick walkway and lawn border, together with the color
contrast they create, is what makes this a pleasant photograph for me.
Glistening pavement, raindrops and the general gloominess complete the
picture I know only too well.

This entry resonates with me. Makes me want to go down to the basement and
sit by the wood stove - except that it was a rare 92F/33C here today. But
this too shall pass quickly.


Bret Douglas (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62475341)

I suspect that this scene was probably more dramatic in person than is fully
captured here. Knowing in advance that it was an almost-hurricane helps
make the case for this picture.

The thing that strikes me first are the two different sets of converging
lines. The land-based vanishing point is just to the right of center on the
horizon. The cloud-based point is over the distant land mass on the left.
The difference in these two points lends a little tension to things for me.

And I do like the prominence of the darker underbelly of the clouds in the
distance. It gives hint of bad things happening somewhere beyond that
island. As I mentioned with Dave earlier, I personally equate weather
phenomenon with a sense of vastness. And vast things, like the weather, are
uncontrollable. That sense is evident in this photograph. I like it.


Ken Nadvornick (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62475343)

I maintain a list of pre-scouted sites where I know the photographs I wish
to make. Each site has a missing dynamic of some sort that requires me to
wait for the proper moment. This picture was made from one of those
locations.

I can see this composition from where I live, but cannot set up a camera
from there. For that I must drive about ten minutes away to a certain spot
on a small country road above a river valley. This location affords the
panoramic view you see here.

I had been waiting for some dramatic thunderstorms to materialize, walking
outside every day for a look up at the canyon. When I eventually saw some
excellent ones forming I grabbed a camera and drove to my spot. The cloud
forms had begun to deteriorate by the time I arrived, but were still
reasonably acceptable and I had no more days to wait.

I'll try this site again, as I do with a number of others. Next time I'll
do 4x5. Unfortunately, that camera was unavailable this time around.


Al Denelsbeck (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62475345)

Unlike some others, I don't mind the dark foreground. My submission has an
intentionally dark foreground as well, intended to serve as a lower boundary
to the main weather subject above it. Presumably you have approached your
weather similarly.

I like the vaguely similar shapes of the clouds, with the nearer one looking
angrier. I also like the subtle color contrast between the cooler sky and
the warmer cloud tints.

If given sufficient time for fine-tuning, I think more visibility of the
darker undersides could have enhanced the composition. But it sounds as if
you, too, were rushed. Cloudscapes are not easy. At a glance they appear
to be motionless, but in reality they are changing extremely rapidly.


Duncan Chesley (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62536797)

Duncan gets the award for the most strikingly three-dimensional rendition of
clouds submitted. And although I do like the "weather(ed)" angle, I think I
would have preferred a pure cloudscape absent any foreground elements.

The light reflecting off the undersides of the clouds is very delicate and
could easily have substituted as the main focal point of interest. The
overall effect is almost tactile. For me, the inclusion of the building
corner gives to the photograph a sense of angle, placement and scale that I
do not wish to know.

Even so, this one is my favorite of the set.


Ken

Ken Nadvornick wrote:

Walter Banks (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62475335)

The drama here results from the intense colors (sunsets/sunrises are one of
the exceptions to the muted colors in nature rule) and the peculiar vertical
distribution of the sun's light.

I don't think I've ever seen this effect before. Is it related to intense
cold winter weather? I've seen the ice halo around the moon, but not this.

I do sense something missing here, but I'm not sure what. Beyond the sun
effect itself, I'm looking for more context I think. Perhaps use of an ND
grad would have allowed more shadow detail in the foreground. (Sorry, I
don't usually think in terms of digital solutions.) Or maybe some other
secondary point of interest is required. Hmm...

I think if the photo were able to first stand on its own as a compelling
landscape without the vertical effect, then the addition of that effect
would make for a spectacular photograph. I'm not sure that's the case here.
But I do really like that solar illusion.


Thanks for the comments. I used to see this effect a few times a winter
where I grew up on the Canadian prairies it requires very cold with suspended
ice crystals (like the moon halo) often with an almost perfectly clear sky.
Your points are well taken on composition. Lightening up the image reveals
an open farm field with nothing of particular interest. This is a mennonite
area and not a buggy in site. As soon as the sun was up the effect was
gone. 3 or 4 minutes earlier the light column was a intense red with no
light cone at the horizon.

It spent a few months as screen background on my computer mostly
reminding me of my youth

Thanks for the detailed comments

w..

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:25:43 GMT, "Ken Nadvornick"
wrote:

The light reflecting off the undersides of the clouds is very delicate and
could easily have substituted as the main focal point of interest. The
overall effect is almost tactile. For me, the inclusion of the building
corner gives to the photograph a sense of angle, placement and scale that I
do not wish to know.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Ken.

I took a bunch of photographs that day, before the rain, and some were
of just clouds with no foreground. As often happens, they looked too
flat. But I'm sorry to say I didn't get one of those clouds at that
moment. I was too focussed on my preconceived Weather(ed) idea for the
mandate.

After reading this I made a crop of just those clouds, cranked the
contrast, and got a pretty interesting view. So if my eyes had been
more open at the time, I might have made a good one.

Your comment nicely (and Mark's more succinctly) presents me with a
long term personal challenge to make more weather photographs without
a foreground. I've done some of those that I like, but the challenge
is much greater and the opportunities much less frequent.

Cheers,
DuncanC

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:b8Mog.9928$Yk.1772@trnddc06...
Got some extra time this week, so here goes...


Dave Sibbett (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62475260)

First thing I noticed was the excellent use of empty space. The most
noticeable shape to me is the silhouetted dock structure, which is placed
on
the relatively insignificant extreme right edge of the composition. This
placement, combined with the dock's relatively small scale, lends the
photograph a sense of atmospheric vastness which is very much in tune with
the mandate subject.

The second thing noticed was the use of muted colors. This is how the
real
colors of nature appear in... well, nature. Trained in geology, I was
taught to use nature's understated true colors to assist in the field
identification of rocks and minerals. As a result, I have always had an
appreciation for the beauty to be found in the subtle pastels of the real
world. I've never been a Velvia person. I can remember when Kodachrome
was
considered hopelessly saturated. Times change, I guess.

And as far as the flare mentioned by others goes, I think it enhances the
composition of this photograph. Just because the book says that flare is
generally bad does not mean flare is always bad. Just my take...


Thanks for the comments. Jes cause your trained in geology heres a tid bit,
the Photo is of the Tomales bay just north of San francisco. The San Andreas
fault runs right smack down the middle of the bay.

Dave Sibbett

Ken Nadvornick wrote:
Got some extra time this week, so here goes...

Sure looks lke it :-)

Jim Kramer (http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/62475333)

A perfect day for - what is that? - kite surfing?

I've been to San Francisco more times than I can count and I can't ever
remember seeing the shadow of the bridge on the water. On most visits I
couldn't even see across from one side to the other due to the ever-present
fog.

Most people's word association blurt to "weather" would be "storm." In this
regard, I applaud your choice of good over inclement weather as a subject.
Compositionally, I like the sense of scale imparted by both the surfer (if
that's what it is) and by the light-scattering haze in the distance. This,
I think, is the strength of this picture.

Just now I held up a piece of black cardboard to my monitor. I think that
the foreshortened scale effect could be dramatically improved if the
building rooftop and tree tops were not included. However, in fairness, I
*think* I know about where you were standing. If I'm correct, you may not
have had much flexibility in where you could plant your feet.

I expected most people would aim for the storm shot and tried to steer
away from that vision. You almost got a bright yellow back-hoe up past
its axles in lovely orange muddy water.

They were indeed kite surfing. San Francisco fooled me, my first day
there was bright sunny and pleasantly warm, at least after a couple of
days of mid 90's in NC, and then the fog came in and stayed the rest of
the trip. Geographically the fog in that area was very interesting;
photographically it left a great deal to be desired :-(

The building is Fort Point, this was shot about 20 feet down the path
from the lower portion of the upper tourist trap; another degree down
would have included vegetation too.

Thanks for the comments.

Jim

"Deputy Dog" wrote:

Jes cause your trained in geology heres a tid bit, the
Photo is of the Tomales bay just north of San francisco.
The San Andreas fault runs right smack down the
middle of the bay.

Yes it does - or pretty closely, anyway. In fact, the bay itself is the
topographic surface expression of the fault.

It's one of a number of locations in California where one can dramatically
"see" the actual fault line, or one of its closely associated branches,
right at the surface. IIRC, the women's clothing department of the J.C.
Penney store in Hollister, California is another...

For anyone interested, here's a rough map provided by the USGS some of the
major fault lines in the San Francisco Bay area:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/where2.html

And here's a good index map showing the location of Tomales Bay:

http://www.parks.ca.gov/lat_long_map..._id=107&type=3

The general USGS San Andreas fault primer is at:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/contents.html

Ken