autumn

[David Kilpatrick]

Looks like ol' Charlie found at least few scenes that were not all *reddish*...



I guess you know/knew about this page?

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/hcou-4zlk35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, I got their press releases when all this was started. It does not always go the way they hope for colour, which is why so many of their photos are old and such a mixture. Also, a lot of it is completely misleading. I know several of the local forests well and if you want autumn colour in the Borders, you do NOT head for Glentress or anywhere remotely similar - they are monoculture pinewood forestry, and the best you can hope for in colour is a few oaks and beeches in remaining hardwood stands, and a scattering of larch amongst the spruce and fire. Glentress is dark, exceptionally difficult for photography, wonderful as a mountain bike trail. They have many similar mentions because this is, after all, the Forestry Commission - the people who planted entire hillside with spruce and not a hint of species diversity for decades of mismanagement.

The Jedwater valley south of Jedburgh can present the best colours in my area, combined with sheer river bluffs of red sandstone and a great diversity of old forest trees. But it's nothing to do with the Commission, it gets no mention. The woods they list would be serious disappointment to anyone hoping to find autumn colours in my own region (I know all of the places listed well). Non-commission woodlands, such as the estates of Mellerstain, Floors or Abbotsford or the private woodlands of Boleside, Glenmayne and similar large houses are infinitely more photogenic.

The climate of the Borders has been too mild and wet to produce many classic autumn pix this year (not that you would call it mild right now).

Charlie Waite has a massive picture library and of course has a great variety of shots - autumn colours are desperately sought after as they are so hard to get here. But his books, exhibitions and lecture shots emphasise the most natural rendering not the most dramatic.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Here is my most downloaded shot from iStockphoto:



This is one spot which produces consistently good autumn colours and light, and it's on the Mertoun estate (private woodlands and riparian planting - the poplars are there as a shelter belt and to stabilise a large river bend which was encroaching).

I do not use iStockphoto - I don't approve of its sales model - except for occasional purchases for non-commercial uses, and to fund these, I have put a dozen shots on the site. They produce enough money to pay for the two or three images I need each year. Example - I needed a copyright model release cleared really ugly portrait with bad skin etc, to do an article on Portrait Professional software. iStockphoto to the rescue! They have the worst portraits around, all guaranteed model released.

Here's what I used:

http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2008/07/25/ ... w-for-mac/

David

[peterottaway]

With the exception of bonneville who may never carry a camera again on a golf course !

I did find much of the debate instructive as it brought into the open how much of what is considered normal for where you are born and raised affects your choices in editing and presenting your works.

If you come from an area where mist and drizzle are common and most days of the year do not produce hard shadows this does affect your natural inbuilt colour palette and what is sharp enough. And vice versa.

Many early European painters didn't know what to make of the Australian landscape.It was so ugly and vulgar to their artistic sensibilities, it was black and white with so few shades of gray in between. The light was usually harsh and in summer absolutely brutal and forget about using pastel shading ! There you were with half a lifetime learning nuance and now it seemed half a dozen basic colours was all you needed.

And then there was the commercial reality if you painted it as it was, it wouldn't sell back home in Europe. After all people were after a hundred years still having trouble with kangaroo's - how were you to present the duck billed platypus ? No the sort of painting a gentleman would easily buy to fill a gap on the dining room wall. Life without the Discovery Channel was a real b.....

[KevinBarrett]

I tried a few more variations for our sensitive friend, Sonolta.

[alfake]

Kevin: Good series! Hard too pick only one. (If pressed, I would choose the 7th one…) By the way, where did you find such a photogenic subject? Never saw him in my life…
Alfonso
ps: Peter, very interesting post. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[peterottaway]

Straight after my last posting I said to myself - your silly fool you're preaching again !

But sometimes we do carry around a full backpack of assumptions that need to be aired.

[Greg Beetham]

Hmmm good post Kevin, I've been sitting here trying to decide which one I like the best....
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

Oh well, should have known better.

Bye Bye

I never got to see the original you posted, until Don re-posted the one he downloaded, it looks like a "mood" shot to me, if so, it probably is a tad subtile for some.
Greg

ps Don't worry about Don's antics, I get the impression he sort-of means well....it's the digital age thing, apparently you have to make loud pictures so you can be noticed.

[Greg Beetham]

Clueless or not, at least I don't edit someones photo for them and turn it into some tasteless carny coloured freak show....
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

While I can't be bothered to waste time seeing just how many times Don has repeated the same old already-seen material (relevant or not) in multiple threads, please see the rules now added to the Photo Discussion forums (overall).

In future, there is a limit to how many times the same image can be reposted on this board - three times.

David

[pakodominguez]

While I can't be bothered to waste time seeing just how many times Don has repeated the same old already-seen material (relevant or not) in multiple threads, please see the rules now added to the Photo Discussion forums (overall).

In future, there is a limit to how many times the same image can be reposted on this board - three times.

David

no more squirrels, tho?
:-/

[01af]

In future, there is a limit to how many times the same image can be reposted on this board - three times.

THREE times!?

Wow! That's generous. If it was my website then I'd say: once. I'd allow references but no re-postings.

-- Olaf