Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: After years... success!

  1. #1
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default After years... success!

    Here's a picture I've had in mind for years. But until now it just never worked out.



    I see this old wooden boat at least once almost every day, and have always figured there was a picture there. But the results were never quite what I had in mind, mostly because of the surroundings and the angle of light. But I've almost always been looking at it from the other side, at the bow of the boat, and since that bow points north the light from the sun is rarely anything dramatic. It just never worked.

    But I wanted to get some shots of the construction site for the new Top Of The World hotel at night with all the flood lights on it. Well, it turns out there is a light in the area where they are storing materials, and it's maybe 100 feet from the back end of this boat and pointed right at it. So in the late evening the boat is illuminated in a really dramatic way from both the flood lights and a little skylight.

    I guess being patient paid off. I've always been afraid the boat would be trashed, though that is unlikely as there is a local effort to preserve all of these old boats and put them where they are easy for tourists to photograph. Somebody apparently is possessive of this old relic because it stays right were it has been for decades.

    Here's what the new hotel looks like at this point. It was prefabbed with more than 60 some modules. They currently expect it to open next May.


  2. #2
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    Nice photo Floyd! Some things are worth waiting for
    "Grin and Bear It"

  3. #3
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Nice shot. I'm curious as to what the main reasoning is for building the hotel?
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  4. #4
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4merguide View Post
    Nice shot. I'm curious as to what the main reasoning is for building the hotel?
    Well, the old hotel was old, too small, and has nearly been washed into the ocean at least once every three or four years for the past 20 or so.

    The hotel is owned by the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and they started looking for a site to build on a few years ago. They put in the piling this past spring before breakup. I'm not sure what their actual schedule was, but everything changed when Pepe's North of the Border caught fire. The two buildings were joined and while the hotel didn't actually catch fire it was seriously damaged by smoke and firefighting activities. There was a strong west wind at the time (the prevailing winds here are from the east) and the old hotel is directly west of Pepe's, otherwise it would have burned too).

    I'm not privy to exactly how the thinking went, but it is pretty clear that restoring the old hotel as a hotel, only to be very quickly replace by the new one anyway, probably didn't make financial sense. They decided to make the new hotel a priority for completion earlier than planned, and work on the old one when they know what makes sense. As far as I know they don't quite have a full evaluation of the damages and what it will take to renovate. I do not imagine they can re-open it as a hotel before the new one is ready, and expect that instead they will just renovate it as office space and either lease it out or sell it.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile Suggestion . .

    May I offer a suggestion/opinion?


    See the cropped photo below:

    Attachment 74809

    In my opinion, too much going on in the initial photo . . first thing that hit my eye was the blob of snow in the foreground . . looked like a corpse . . too much building . .


    . . just my two-cents worth . . thanks for posting . .

  6. #6
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    I like the original un-cropped version of the photo myself. The one with the ~ Copyright 2013 Floyd L. Davidson ~ at the bottom
    "Grin and Bear It"

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default One more . . .

    Floyd,


    Hope my suggestions/opinions aren't offensive . . they are, after all, just one person's opinion. Amateur art—pastels, printmaking, colored pencil—is a hobby of mine.


    Anyway, for whatever it might be worth, here's another image, cropped even tighter . . it appeals to me . . all the lines want to converge in the boat, leaving it the center of attention . .


    John


    Attachment 74810

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    I don't see an improvement by the cropping except for that it now doesn't show what looks to be some racially motivated graffiti on the shed door.....

    I like the effect, it looks like it's a model in a train set kind of scale.

    Just what good is a copyright these days?

  9. #9
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch It View Post
    Just what good is a copyright these days?
    You are correct...a copyright is no good these days. The graffiti could easily be removed with photoshop.
    "Grin and Bear It"

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down



    Judas Priest . . !


    First of all, I didn't even see the graffiti, and my suggestions/opinions were not offered as a means to get rid of it. My suggestions for cropping constitute one person's opinion of how to improve the image . . nothing more . . sheesh . . .


    Second, a discussion, conducted on an Internet forum, of Internet images posted on that forum, does not in any way, shape, or form constitute an infringement of copyright.


    If someone prints a copy of the copyrighted image/photo or uses it electronically without credit, that's different . .



    *Floyd, sent you a PM . . check your mail . .

  11. #11
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    Wow, didn't know a guy like you would be into heavy metal rock bands like Judas Priest. I didn't even notice the graffiti till Catch It pointed it out, my attention was drawn to the old boat.
    "Grin and Bear It"

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Red face Whoops . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearbear View Post
    Wow, didn't know a guy like you would be into heavy metal rock bands like Judas Priest. . .

    And you still don't . . .


    . . "know," that is . . Attachment 74816


    "Judas Priest" has a long history as a euphemistic, pseudo-blasphemy . . .






    . . which may be why a punk band chose to use it . . . ?

  13. #13
    Member EMoss#83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    511

    Default

    I Like Both versions,and I like Judas Priest-reminds me of my high school days
    "f/64 and be there"

  14. #14
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    And you still don't . . .


    . . "know," that is . . Attachment 74816
    Yes I did and still do know...Judas was an Apostle who betrayed Jesus, then later committed suicide...oops is that considered a religious sort of post?

    Judas Priest is also a heavy metal rock band...I don't believe they had 'punk' rock bands back in those days, though I could be mistaken about that fact.
    "Grin and Bear It"

  15. #15
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Can't say I know much about art or photography. I paint fishing jigs not paintings.
    But my personal opinion is that the original version of the photo looks the best.
    Nice job Floyd.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  16. #16
    Member Hunt&FishAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Valley trash
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearbear View Post
    Yes I did and still do know...Judas was an Apostle who betrayed Jesus, then later committed suicide...oops is that considered a religious sort of post?

    Judas Priest is also a heavy metal rock band...I don't believe they had 'punk' rock bands back in those days, though I could be mistaken about that fact.
    Judas Priest was a good band until they lost rob halford, who is said to have one of the most powerful voices ever heard on stage in this era. And there were quite a few punk Rock bands coming up. Nothing like today's punk though.



    Release Lake Trout

  17. #17

    Default

    I think we should recognize whether a person is looking to share an image or to solicit comment/critique. The title of the thread suggests to me that the author was celebrating an instance where they captured something in a manner in which they were pleased with the results and they wanted to share.

    Each of us brings a perspective of what might possibly improve an image or strengthen it. I would hope that a person starting a thread would include that in their welcome (c&c appreciated). This person did not and often will not. There are enough strong and informed opinions in here about what good quality photography looks like that this forum might be a place to solicit input on how to improve an image through light balance, crop, or perspective. Floyd did not ask for that input. I, personally, would not have presumed he wanted input unless he asked for it.

    my $0.02.
    There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

  18. #18
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Wow, I just checked in and found all of this discussion. My primary purpose for posting to this forum is always to encourage discussion about photography, so I'm rather pleased with all the back and forth in this thread. And trust that none of it is offensive to me, and in fact it is very interesting.

    As to editing and reposting an image of mine, go for it any time that it makes a valid point about the image and as long as the reposting is where I have posted the image (don't copy it a another webpage or post to a different forum). Technically that makes it "editorial" and Fair Use applies, hence my approval is not required. Of course for some people that would still be a horrible social blunder regardless of its legality, and it isn't something to do without considering the owner of the image and how they appear to think about it. I have a long history of asking if I can edit, and commenting on the philosophy of doing that, so anyone who looks into it would know that I'm okay with my images being used for editorial/educational purposes.

    And the copyright notice is another interesting topic too. Putting a copyright notice on a published work does not affect copyright, but it does affect abuse of copyright law! Just a few days ago I sent DMCA take down notice to the folks at wordpress.com because one of their customers had copied 4 of my images to their own webpage, cropped out the copyright notice, and was using them inappropriately. Removing a visible copyright notice in that way is a criminal violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The notice also helped prove conclusively that the misuse was not done with permission.

    All that said... shortly I'll post an article with comments about the framing and composition of the boat image in relation to the purpose of what it is supposed to communicate to the viewer.

  19. #19
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post

    In my opinion, too much going on in the initial photo . . first thing that hit my eye was the blob of snow in the foreground . . looked like a corpse . . too much building . .
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    [...]here's another image, cropped even tighter . . it appeals to me . . all the lines want to converge in the boat, leaving it the center of attention . .
    In the context that these are Marcus' opinion of what he likes and what he would want the image to communicate to a viewer, these are excellent comments! Let's put it into a much broader perspective than just what I like and what Marcus likes (the difference is an interesting discussion too, but for now lets think about how to get whatever it is that you like).

    Rudolf Arnheim (1904-2007) was a perceptual psychologist who laid much of the groundwork for modern analysis of art. He wrote the classic text, "Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye" originally published in 1954, and then revised it in 1974. And in 1971 he published an essay "Entropy and Art" with this quote taken from the introduction:

    "When nothing superfluous is included and nothing indispensable is left out, one can understand the interrelation of the whole and its parts, as well as the hierarchic scale of importance and power by which some structural features are dominant, others are subordinate."

    And that is exactly what Marcus is talking about. The difference isn't so much an "improvement" as it is the question of exactly what the photograph is going to communicate to a viewer, and how to emphasize that "message" by making it less ambiguous through removal of entropy. Marcus likes one particular message that can come from the original scene and that exposure, I like a significantly different message. Both are reasonable.

    I crop and frame images rather aggressively, and manipulate detail within an image just as aggressively, all with the intent of moving the "structural features" up and down in that "hierarchic scale". The amount of the door that is visible was very carefully considered, as was the relationship between the brightness of the snow and the brightness/saturation of the boat. A number of small distracting details were removed, and only parts of the image were sharpened (in this case I didn't blur anything, but commonly I do).

    The scene of course had more of the shed door available, and there is a building on the left side too, that I totally cropped out both with framing and perspective. There was also a considerable amount of thought about how much of the snow in the foreground worked best. This particular exposure is one of several that were taken. Some had more or less of the environment cropped out and some had flash for fill light. The intent was to allow those decisions to be made while post processing rather than limiting myself to what I think the viewfinder image will look like when viewed full size. Oddly, all exposures were made from virtually the exact same spot, as the perspective I wanted was just extremely clear cut.

    Hence obviously I did consider what the image looks like when cropped tighter. But my purpose in photographing the boat is not just to make a pretty picture of an old boat!

    I photograph Barrow, not boats!

    The picture as I framed it communicates something very specific, that isn't there when cropped further, to residents of Barrow. They see history, not just a boat. The boat is just the most prominent of several symbols within an image about Barrow. When cropped there are then several symbols within an image about the boat. It's just a very different photograph!

    Hence what I want is very specific, and what Marcus likes and would want is too, but they are also very different. It's really hard to compare apples and oranges... especially if they grow on the same tree as happens to be the case here!

    Here is another image that demonstrates the same distinctions. I just love this picture, but what you see in it and what everyone in Barrow can see is very different. Look at all that detail, with a baby, teenagers, young adults, middle aged people and even an old guy with a cane. But that is not what the picture is actually about!



    Everyone here looks at that and says, "Wow, a great picture of Warren!" The old man with the cane is the late Warren Matumeak. This image will transform with time though, because it is, like the boat image, a photograph of Barrow Alaska.x

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
    . . that is exactly what Marcus is talking about. The difference isn't so much an "improvement" as it is the question of exactly what the photograph is going to communicate to a viewer, and how to emphasize that "message" by making it less ambiguous through removal of entropy. Marcus likes one particular message that can come from the original scene and that exposure, I like a significantly different message. Both are reasonable. . .

    BINGO . . . . .

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •