The Wrangler - Working Man's Work

[Radtech1]

No treatment done other than to clone out about a million dust shadows that I accumulated when changing lenses in this environment for a week. Marcia and I were at a ranch in Wyoming. I took 1416 shots during the week and this was the third from the last one. I am glad I waited, but I am interested in your input.

http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/78486/Canon/WranglerS.jpg

Two things in particular: does the dust over the wrangler present a problem? That is, can the subject of the shot be obscured like this and still be effective? Second, any problem with the horses in the foreground being out of focus? It was very early and I really couldn't tighten it down and manage to keep a short exposure time as well, so I settled with this. Right choice?

[c0ntr0lz]

i think it's perfect!!!
looks like an ad shot, I wouldn't change a thing.

[HJMinard]

i think it's perfect!!!
looks like an ad shot, I wouldn't change a thing.

I agree :!: This shot really has a nice "mood" to it ... can almost taste the dust. Nice work!

[12345Michael54321]

does the dust over the wrangler present a problem?
Exactly the opposite - it's the juxtaposition of the dust-shrouded wrangler with the relatively contrasty horses that makes the photo. If the wrangler were clear and distinct, the image would be greatly weakened.

Besides "dusty" and "cowboy" are two ideas that are closely linked in our cultural psyche. So it works at that level, too.

That is, can the subject of the shot be obscured like this and still be effective?
Certainly, since the photo isn't so much about the wrangler (the subject), as it is about the relationship between wrangler (primary subject) and his work/environment (as portrayed by the horses - secondary subject). Contrasting the wranger to the horses via indistinct/distinct depiction strengthens the picture and ties the composition together nicely.

Second, any problem with the horses in the foreground being out of focus?
No problem. It might even be argued that it helps provide a sense of depth, or at least a sense of motion. It's a perfectly reasonable aesthetic choice.

[Ballen Photo]

Two things in particular: does the dust over the wrangler present a problem? That is, can the subject of the shot be obscured like this and still be effective? Second, any problem with the horses in the foreground being out of focus? It was very early and I really couldn't tighten it down and manage to keep a short exposure time as well, so I settled with this. Right choice?

I like the semi-silhouette look of the Wrangler in question.
As far as the lead horses being slightly out of focus, I dont think this hurts a thing, in fact, I think it helps somewhat by directing attention to the Wrangler where it belongs. I dont smoke(anymore :wink: ) but I think this would have made an excellent Marlboro Ad. :D
-Bruce

[lomond]

First let me say I love this shot, and I'll be honest this is the type of photography
that I aspire to.
As far as dust over the wrangler I agree with the previous post, it makes the shot.

Can I ask one question. Why is it so important to many photographers that little
or no "treatment" is done via Photoshop. We manipulate the shot in so many ways inside the camera when we take the shot.
I would agree that the better the shot is out of camera the better the finished article will be. However, even when slide or
film is sent for processing a certain amount of "treatment" is applied, so why shouldn't
we as digital photographers.

Again wonderful shot.


Cameron

[12345Michael54321]

Can I ask one question. Why is it so important to many photographers that little or no "treatment" is done via Photoshop.
Many people seem to believe that post-capture manipulation of the image is somehow "cheating."

I've never bought into this idea. I was taught, long ago, that great photographs are frequently made or ruined in the darkroom. That the process of creating an image didn't stop with pressing the shutter release, but continued all the way through developing, printing, mounting, etc. Consequently, I never regarded manipulation in a wet darkroom to be cheating, and I refuse to apply a different set of rules to the use of a "digital darkroom," ie. a computer running some sort of image editing software.

This having been said, excessive image manipulation is often distasteful to me, particularly when it is used to portray a distorted reality, or when it devolves to the level of mere trendiness of effect. And excessive image manipulation is typically much easier with a computer and Photoshop, than in a darkroom.

I would point out, though, that many of the classic photographic images we think of as presenting "pure" reality, are the end result of dozens - sometimes hundreds - of hours of darkroom manipulation. A significant portion of Ansel Adams' work, of example, was carefully and extensively manipulated, both in processing the negative and then in printing, in order to achieve some desired result.

[lomond]

Can I ask one question. Why is it so important to many photographers that little or no "treatment" is done via Photoshop.
Many people seem to believe that post-capture manipulation of the image is somehow "cheating."

I've never bought into this idea. I was taught, long ago, that great photographs are frequently made or ruined in the darkroom. That the process of creating an image didn't stop with pressing the shutter release, but continued all the way through developing, printing, mounting, etc. Consequently, I never regarded manipulation in a wet darkroom to be cheating, and I refuse to apply a different set of rules to the use of a "digital darkroom," ie. a computer running some sort of image editing software.

This having been said, excessive image manipulation is often distasteful to me, particularly when it is used to portray a distorted reality, or when it devolves to the level of mere trendiness of effect. And excessive image manipulation is typically much easier with a computer and Photoshop, than in a darkroom.

I would point out, though, that many of the classic photographic images we think of as presenting "pure" reality, are the end result of dozens - sometimes hundreds - of hours of darkroom manipulation. A significant portion of Ansel Adams' work, of example, was carefully and extensively manipulated, both in processing the negative and then in printing, in order to achieve some desired result.

I couldn't agree more.
I believe post processing is a must in the digital age, however excessive processing often ruins an image.

Ansel Adams is, I believe, that rarity I mentioned on another thread tonight.

Cameron

[12345Michael54321]

Ansel Adams is, I believe, that rarity I mentioned on another thread tonight.
I don't think I saw your other thread.

In any case, Ansel Adams was hardly alone in obsessing over how his images were processed and printed. I mean, somebody must have been buying all of those books on the zone system. :)

[Radtech1]

Can I ask one question. Why is it so important to many photographers that little or no "treatment" is done via Photoshop.
Many people seem to believe that post-capture manipulation of the image is somehow "cheating."


Just to add my bla bla bla, here is my opinion.

(Just a bit of Hx as to why I think my opinion means something - I got my first camera, the above mentioned Kodak Instamatic C-30, at age 12 and started processing 4" x 5" B&W in my garage. Moved through a no-name SLR and into a Canon FTb by age 14. In high school I experimented with color when Cibachrome home processing was first developed in the 70's. I KNOW the smell of acetic acid, the color of a safelight and the disappointment of pushing your film too far. :( )

I feel - for me - that photography has two equally important parts. The vague and ill-defined "eye" and the quantifyable measurable darkroom skills. Put another way, the heart and the head. For me, there must be a balance between the two. The "eye" is what gets me to pick up the camera in the first place. It is my desire to see my universe in a particular way. To try to find the scrap of the sublime hiding in the ordinary. My darkroom skills (and now, digital darkroom skills) is what helps me to move what I saw in the viewfinder onto paper - for others to see.

The problem with the digital darkroom - more so than the chemical darkroom - is that it can do a pretty damned good imitation of the "eye". I could have just as easily cobbled together that shot from others that I took on the trip. The reason why I pointed out the lack of manipulation was that I was, in fact, proud of the shot.

They ran those horses up every morning, just about sunrise. One day was dreary and overcast, one was too too bright. Another I had my white balance set wrong and so on and so on. This shot was taken 10 minutes before we left. We had the car packed and Marcia wanted to see them run just one more time. I knew that that gave me one more try. The morning was perfect. The light was not too harsh, but still strong. The rain of 3 days before had completely dried out, so there was dust on the trial. I kept firing and firing, and - I swear to God - the instant I fired this shot I gasped. It *took my breath away*. I knew that I had the one that I was looking for. Yes, I was proud of it. I was proud of the fact that I recognized the moment in time as something almost sacrosanct. Joseph Campbell talks about the eternal instant, and for just that flash of a second I felt I was there.

So for me, the capture, the "eye" is what is so satisfying. My photoshop skills show that I am a fair engineer. But that, and that all by itself, is not enough.

Rad

PS. My tally might have gone to 11 now.

[rick barclay]

Woooo. Great shot, Rad.

[CDickinson]

This is REALLY nice shot! Great eye for the cowboy thing....
Thanks for posting it.

C

[evidence tech]

I really like it. It gives you a rugged feeling. very well done.

[Sailor Don]

Radtech,

Looks like that could be the Marlboro Man from the advertisements. Good photograph.

One reason I haven't gone to digital SLR is because of my concern about dust on the image sensor when changing lenses. How do you cope with that? Can the image sensor be cleaned in the field, or do you have to take it to a camera repair shop?

[flyfishnj]

Looks like that could be the Marlboro Man from the advertisements. Good photograph.


I was thinking the same thing - Well done

[Digital Prophet]

Looks like that could be the Marlboro Man from the advertisements. Good photograph.


I was thinking the same thing - Well done

I was thinking the same that Fly was thinking that Sailor was thinking. Makes me want to go buy cancer sticks. That or steak. Or steak sticks. Mmmmm ..... steak on a stick ........ arrggggggghhhhhh.

As for the picture, stunning. So good in fact that you are on the hate list now.

- Digital Prophet -

[manncer]

:D


Really nice! This I would put on my wall.

manncer

[Meerkat17]

[quote="Radtech1 I swear to God - the instant I fired this shot I gasped. It *took my breath away*. I knew that I had the one that I was looking for. Yes, I was proud of it. I was proud of the fact that I recognized the moment in time as something almost sacrosanct. Joseph Campbell talks about the eternal instant, and for just that flash of a second I felt I was there.[/quote]

Rad,
It's a great feeling when that happens and you have every right to feel proud of this shot - its wonderful, it captures the moment and the subject gives a strong statement of movement, heat and dust - you can almost taste it !

Well done

David