Meget bra - på mer enn én måte! Fin illustrasjon også. Akk, om en bare selv var så målrettet tidlig på dagen!
MVH CA

Kaffen, CA. Dessuten tar det ikke mer enn 8 minutter med bil fra kjøkkenkroken til dette stedet.

Du får det til å høres så enkelt ut! Men tenk om det hadde kommet et kraftig snevær i løpet av natten?
Flott resultat, det jeg likte spesielt godt, er måten lyset skinner gjennom isen i nederste h. del.
Må inrømme at Voluspå ikke er av de verk jeg kjenner spesielt godt. Noen spesiell del dette skulle illustrere?
Mvh Ann

Bra bilde! Det lønner seg å planlegge godt forstår jeg!

Herlig, fantasieggende naturbilde!
Lekkert utført!

Very very impressive.

Et av de bedre jeg har sett i den sjangeren, mest på grunn av fugle/dinosaurformen og det kalde lyset.

Ann: følgende utdrag;

Ser ho opp koma
andre gongen
jord or havet
atter grønnkledd.
Fossane fell,
flyg ørn over,
ho som på fjell
fisken veider.


Værmeldingen sa klarvær. En nødvendig forutsetnig for å få morgensola på bildet. Dessuten -25 i Oslo den uka.

BR: Takk, det passet jo riktig godt til teksten.
Ann

Meget meget meget bra!
mvh/MR

Det skulle jo som sagt være en ''illustrende'' illustrasjon. I layouten la designeren diktet i ''fuglefasong'' slik at rimlinjene fulgte ''hodet'' på isfuglen. Ble meget stilig.

Noen bilder gjør meg helt stum av beundring og dette er en av de. For å lære litt av dere PROFFENE, har jeg følgende spørsmål.
1. ''fulge/dinosaurformen '' til høyre er nesten glassaktig/sølv/metal, hvordan ble den slik, eller var den bare sånn.
2. Har du lagt flere bilder over hverandre?
3. Lyset som reflekteres i ''fugle/dinosaurformen'' reflekterer en sterk lyskilde, hvordan havnet den der? (Ser ut som at soloppgangen er lagt inn i formen)?

Hei Bjørn, fint bildet!
Tok du alle 36 bildene med samme blender og lukker, eller mange alternativer? hvilke Fuji brukte du?

RE: alle kan ta slike bilder, men forberedelser gjør det lettere.

Svar på spørsmålene dine:

1. Is har en ''våt'' overflate, derfor ser den glassaktig ut.

2. Nei. Et enkelt opptak.

3. Det er én lyskilde, nemlig morgensola som er i ferd med å gå opp over Maridalsvatn (i bakgrunnen). Som du ser på himmelen er den allerede lyst opp endel, og dette gir gjennomfallende lys inn i ''isfuglen''. Jeg har også en liten (sammenleggbar) reflektor med, som jeg holder i høyre hånd og som er vinklet litt nedover, slik at noe av morgenlyset ''løfter'' ut detaljene på den siden av fuglen som vender mot meg.

Vanskeligere er det ikke, dersom du husker å ta med et liggeunderlag også. Is i -25 er kaldt.

Marco: opptaket er på Fuji RVP (Velvia). Min F4 sto på +- 1/3 trinn bracketing via databakstykket MF-23. Eksponeringen er A (automatikk).

En siste saksopplysning før spørsmålet kommer: isfiguren i forgrunnen er 4 cm høy. Dette er altså et lite landskap inne i et landskap, som åpenbarer seg om du gidder å ligge på magen og kikke deg omkring.

16 sekunders eksponering?

Ja. Det er ikke så mye lys rett før daggry i januar.

Med stativ er slike eksponeringer helt trivielt.

Eneste jeg da lurer på er hvorfor det ikke er mer bevegelse i lyset i bakgrunnen. I tillegg lurer jeg på hvorfor dråpene er så gjennomsiktige når det er -25, da burde de se ut som dråper i fryseren, altså grå/hvit. Jeg spør kun for å lære.

Lyset er himmelvelvingen. Den beveger seg ikke mye på 16 sekunder.

Dråpene er gjennomsiktige fordi det mangler kondens på dem. Lufta er helt tørr og fuktigheten sublimerer, dvs. går direkte over til vanndamp. Typisk for iskalde netter med litt vind. Isen ser også helt ''svart'' ut.

Opptaket er helt reelt, ingenting er gjort med motivet foruten å ha litt oppletting på ''skyggesiden'' slik jeg har sagt før.

Ja, Ja, jeg gleder meg til jeg kan ta slike bilder. MEGET BRA BJØRN

Hvor får man kjøpt en slik (sammenleggbar) reflektor. Og holdt du reflektoren i hele lukkertiden, og er det viktig at denne holdes helt stille? (stø på hånden?)

Ta et stykke stivt materiale (papp, aluminium, etc.). Skjær til i to passende deler. Sett tykk tekstiltape langs skjøten, så blir den hengslet. Du kan klistre på værbestandig papir (finnes papir du kan skrive på uder vann, det er utmerket til formålet). Kostnad for slike ting er tiden det tar å lage dem.

Størrelse: helst ikke altfor liten, men så liten at den går ned i en bag, innerlomme etc. og du har den med bestandig.

Reflektoren behøver ikke å være ''med'' under hele eksponeringstiden, og du behøver ikke å være veldig stø på hånda heller, med mindre det er direkte sollys på reflektoren. Da skjer det for mye med lyset som reflekteres om reflektoren virrer frem og tilbake.

Ok, så det er ikke en rein reklektor type aluminium, men alt som egentlig reklekter lys. Hva slags ''papir'' brukte du her?

Vannfast. Aner ikke hva betegnelsen er, men det kan sikkert en papirhandel/grossist opplyse om. Papiret gir et veldig bløtt og fint, littegran varmt lys. Ren aluminium gir et litt kaldt reflekslys som ikke passer i alle sammenhenger.

Du kan også få kjøpt Lastolite runde, sammenleggbare reflektorer i ulike størrelser og de minste går ned i en (romslig) lomme, men dette koster noen hundringser da.

Noen hundringser for et bedre bilde, det er billig det.
Takker for mye god hjelp.

Jeg tenker litt på Odd Nerdrum når jeg ser bildet.

Taking another longer,more critical look I find the small very light element at the bottom slightly right of centre disturbing. It takes attention away from the all important ''picture within a picture'' on the right. I also wonder if an alternative composition might not have strengthened that ''picture within a picture''. I appreciate that this may have been impossible. However my (hypercritical) judgement is that this image like a great many ''competition winning images'' has a very strong first impression but lacks real depth. It wouldn't stay on my wall for very long.

You are entitled to your opinion, the essence of which you have detailed in your comment. However, this is an image that has stood the test of time extremely well, and I'm not talking about my own impressions (which hardly count as being unbiased). I have shown this image at lectures and had been contacted by people afterwards saying they ''lost sleep'' over pondering about this very image.

Perhaps we're discussing the duration of impact of an art expression? Will vary from nil to a life-time. As always, time will be the ultimate judge.

Det finns inte så mycket mer att tillägga till övriga kommentarer,tycker jag..suverän bild..kort och gott..Tur att inte något av 1-talen strulade,speciellt kaffet,hehehe..
Detta exempel belyser också att det finns motiv som många kanske går förbi..
Angående reflexskärm så finns det en del fruktjuice-förpackningar med glansig insida som är användbara och tar väldigt lite plats i bagen.Tåler följdaktligen även vatten mm.
Jag har själv ett tyskt mjölkpaket !! som skärm..
Kanonbild Björn !!
mvh/gunte..

Bjørn, I would never take the reaction of ''the public'' at lectures seriously. They (the ones you get feedback from) tend to be flattering in the extreme. God forbid that the poor souls should lose sleep over a photograph :-)

The test of time in blunt terms is that we are all dead which means ALL art critique is, at best, a rather shallow thing .

Regardless I can't see this image being among the 100 most important art treasures taken home by the inhabitants of the Planet Zog when they visit in year 8002 and this is after all the standards we should apply to our work if we are serious about it?

Scott: you are not in the mood today, are you? In fact, the person referenced to is somebody who really cares, and I place quite an emphasis on his enthusiasm.

I said it before and it stands repeating; you do read too much science fiction. Couldn't care less about the planet Zog. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and don't forget the cultural aspect of this either.

Bjørn: I have never read any science fiction, the ''real world'' is crazy enough for me!!! Please don't take my comments in any way personally, I am only suggesting a sense of perspective in relation to the pictures posted on this forum . My heroes are people like Man Ray, Cartier Bresson, Sebastio Selagado (spelling?), Jim Bradenberg, William Neill and Kurt Diemberger. In comparison the pictures posted here are unworthy of serious comment.

Normally I wouldn't have a problem with that but in my opinion people like yourself, Jeanette Landveld, Aleksander Jacobsen and others have the talent to be truly great but you will never achieve that so long as your are limited by your egos.

Like you said in your comment to my Swan picture (which I think is a load of meaningless crap BTW) ''Unfortunately, the harshest criticism is directed at the best pictures / photographers.'

For a person never having read sci-fi you are remarkably well versed in its idosyncrasies....

I think you have an attitude problem, Scott, and am sorry I cannot help you with that. When you classify a comment to your picture as ''meaningless crap'', this indicates an aspect of your personality which I find not too appealing. Read my comments again - are they written in incomprehensible English, or do they express pure nonsense? Why are you soliciting comments and critisms when you think no pictures are worthy of ''serious comment''? Why are you complaining about ''ego limitations'' for myself, Aleksander Jacobsen and Jeanette Landfald when the underlying problem might be found elsewhere? I'm just asking, you can provide the answer.

Eg er imponert over bildet, og har lært mykje av kommentarane. Takk..

Bjørn; I have always had an attitude problem hope to keep it.

Personally I have a big issue with nature photography because of its role in our society. My swan pictures are a good example: Because of accidents of birth and lucky economic circumstances I was in a position to take those photographs. If we lived in a sane society they would have a value in their own right but as things are the only way I can make money out of them is by selling them or using them to produce a product which presents a totally one-dimensional view of ''nature''. Nobody wants to buy a coffee table book with pics of pollution, traffic accidents and other man generated horrors do they? In my view this reduces their value to meaningless crap.

As regards my other comments I am following your example in your critique of my Swan pic and setting high standards here: We live in a world dominated by a set of unacceptable materialist values which result in an intolerable pressure on our environment and inequality which impoverishes a growing percentage of the world's population. As talented and priveliged photographers you may be in a position to do something about that and at the end of the day I will judge your work (and mine) on that basis and that basis alone.

Of course we are all psychologically limited in our ability to address these challenges (ego problems) and in all probability will fail. However if we for once looked beyond our own needs and thought more in terms of the interests of what we take pictures of (nature) we would immediately set ourselves a different agenda. Where this would lead I have no idea although it is certain no marketing specialist would recommend it.

Of course this is all largely hypothetical and on a daily basis we have to live so compromises are made. However on forums like this we choose to raise the bar in regard to our technical and æsthetic judgement of images so why not also raise the ethical bar and look at those issues as well? After all there is no reason why we have to compromise here.

I'm none the wiser. You have pleaded your alleged case with an argumentation I can follow or agree with to a large extent. Most devoted Nature Photographers in Norway would agree, as well. However, you have - a prudent move perhaps - carefully avoided the issue which I addressed. You characterised my picture comments as being a ''meaningless load of crap'', didn't you? And, uncalled for, commented upon ego-limited photographers. True or false?

I'm not impressed by your answer. Maybe I should have expected this, and rejected such ''comments'' just as being expressions of frustration. Not addressing photography at all.

And for your information, I have made shooting the kind of nature photography you wanted one of my speciality fields. Such pictures even sell, put through the right channels.

Hei Bjørn
Kjempefint bilde og gode muligheter til å lære engelsk :-)

Mvh Ronald

Har skummet igjenom komentarene over og får intrykk av ensidig ros fra galleriet.
Bildet er bra, men synes det mangler interessepunkt. Et par lysreflekser trekker også ned.

mvh morgan

Bildet er komponert som et flatekomposisjon. Interessepunktet er her en avgrenset flate og ikke noe punkt. Refleksene kan man sette pris på (det gjør jeg, skaper liv i flatene) eller mislike (det gjør du). Smak og behag.

Bildet er forøvrig en favoritt blant tilskuere når jeg viser det og et mareritt for reprofolk ved skanning.

Bjørn; I did not say your comments of my picture were meaningless crap what I said was Like you said in your comment to my Swan picture (which I think is a load of meaningless crap BTW) by which I meant that I think the picture itself is meangless crap. Reading it again I can now see how you could draw that conclusion but that was NOT my meaning.

Scott: A pathetic and delayed clarification.

The language is a two-edged sword. Properly used and honed to perfection, it can bring forth the finest subtleties of Man's mind; used carelessly or sloppy, you end up twisting the logic beyond repair.

I am NOT a telepathic. I cannot read your mind. However, I have a fairly good command of English and can read the message of your statement. Perhaps your statement ''happens'' to convey exact the opposite of its implied meaning, perhaps not. The ambiguity could have been resolved by you many hours ago, because you should have understood what I reacted too, instead of bringing forth wild accusations of over-reaction etc. After all, English is your mother-tongue, not mine; I can write a passable English and have no trouble following your written comments, but once again: I cannot read your mind. Hopefully, you can, although I'm not entirely convinced. What a mess you have caused.

Whoops: Scott Johnson has just recreated himself as Reginald Heath. The confusion thickens.

And to add further to the mess, Mr. ''Heath'' has deleted all his (Johnson's) pictures and with them, all comments that made up part of the discussion above have disappeared. Some persons cannot stand by their actions.

A brief explanation:

1) The comments I have made here and elsewhere were intended to stimulate a discussion on issues in photography I consider to be important and relevant.

2) I agree that my comment regarding meangless crap was ambiguous and misleading. I apologise for that.

3) When I realised you had misunderstood I replied immediately to clarify.

4) I can see from your reaction that the way I chose to introduce my points must have been insensitive. I thought having read your own comments here over the last couple of weeks that you would have responded differently.

5) Very briefly my point is that as photographers we have a tendency to be obsessed with technique at the expense of content. In my opinion we should look much more closely and critically at what motivates us, the role our work has in the society we live in, and its implication for the rest of the world. My original “meaningless crap” comment was intended as a self critique of my original Swan image from this standpoint.

6)What rather depresses me about the trouble I have started here is that you (and another) have not responded to the serious points I am raising and have instead chosen to make a big issue of a few comments and misunderstandings. I admit that I have given you that opportunity by my choice of words. However, if you had chosen a different more constructive approach the outcome would have been very different. Yes my postings were strongly critical and provocative but if you believe in something (your photography) then you ought to be able to defend your work against that kind of critique without simply trying to win the argument by shooting the messenger.

7) I have removed my pictures from the forum because I do not believe I have a contribution to make here. I also feel language and cultural differences will always cause problems in situations like this.

8) My name “change” to Reginald Heath results from my trying to delete my registration to the forum by changing all my personal details. I cannot find any other way to do this and perhaps if you are a moderator of the forum you could delete my registration for me.

Thanks and best wishes

Scott

Scott: You did choose the easier way out, didn't you? Not a wise move if you believe in your own views, in my opinion.

You have answered many of your own questions by the statements (1) to (4) above. The crucial ones being no (4) in relation to (1), and (2). No. (3) is put forward wrongly because you did exactly the opposite, delayed clarification instead of rectifying the situation immediately, thus further stirring up troubled waters. I do accept your apologies for having confused a wide audience including myself, I do not accept that you solved the issue.

I, and likely a majority of people on this forum as well, are committed to similar questions about photography as you've raised in statement(1). We live on the same planet [NOT ''Zog''], Scott, and are worried about the same issues as you are. We are, or should at least be, concerned about how the images communicate and what their implied contents are. In this context, I do agree we should look further than technical solutions of photography. However, please understand a fair number of people at foto.dot are newcomers to the field of photography, they are interested in how images are created and in fact need such information to improve their own picture-taking. So, a certain amount of technical matters will be present and prove useful to some people at least. I agree 100% that the technical side should not overwhelm a discussion of the merits of a picture.

Language and cultural differences will always cause problems. It works both ways. Both parties have to show a willingness to close the gap in order to communicate successfully. You have done a questionable effort in this respect, Scott, and I shall not quote any of the rather strange (or insensitive, in your words) comments you have published on this forum. If a message was intended it surely more often than not was well hidden. No wonder the messenger was ''shot'' instead of the message being addressed. To sum up, you haven't presented your case clearly and succintly enough, or misjudged the intellectual capacity of your audience. Select your alternative at will.

I wish you a good photographic future and regret your decision of leaving fotodotono. You could have contributed a lot to this forum.

Et utrolig flott bilde, nesten teatralsk.
4 cm høy? Hvordan fikk du da et så lavt standpunkt? Gravde deg ned i isen, eller er det fiskeøyet som gjør det?
Forstår at bildet kan være en utfordring for reprofolkene.
Egoistisk hilsen Aleksander.

AJ: isfiguren er 4 cm høy. Det betyr ikke at den stikker 4 cm opp fra den frosne vannflaten, siden disse ''skulpturene'' dannes ved at isen skrus opp over steiner i strandområdene (Maridalsvatn er regulert, vannkilde for Oslo by). Det var ikke så høyt opp likevel så det å bruke et Sachtler stativ flatt ut hjalp mye. Fisheye brukt her simpelthen fordi jeg trengte dette vide og samtidig ''bratte'' perspektivet du bare kan få ved å kjøre en vidvinkel tett innpå motivet.

Hadde det vært nødvendig så hadde jeg gravd ned kameraet i isen (jeg har lang erfaring med å grave ned kamera i den isfrie sesongen). Alternativt, siden jeg brukte en F4, kunne jeg ha tatt av søkeren og brukt kameraet snudd opp-ned. Denne løsningen må jeg stundom ty til når kamerat *ikke* kan graves ned, f.eks. når underlaget er grov stein, asfalt og slikt. Praktisk tilnærming til praktiske naturfotoproblemer kaller jeg slikt.

Du fikk med deg Scotts ''hilsen'' om våre ego, Aleksander? Plager meg ikke altfor mye.

Alldeles flott fotokunst. Alt stemmer, både lys komposisjon og stemning. Tror det er det beste bilde jeg har sett på denne siden. Gratulerer!!!

Alldeles flott fotokunst. Alt stemmer, både lys komposisjon og stemning. Tror det er det beste bilde jeg har sett på denne siden. Gratulerer!!!

Jeg bor snaue 10 minutter med sykkel unna Maridalsvannet, så kanskje jeg skulle benytte årstiden til selv å kikke på denne og andre skulpturparker, men snøfallet siste dagene har vel skjult alt sammen (er altfor lite flink til å ta med fotoapparatet opp til marka).
Jeg fikk ikke helt med meg hva slags ødeleggende ego Scott siktet til.

Kan vel ikke si noe annet enn at dette kan du, så til de grader også.

Klarer faktisk ikke å sette fingeren på en eneste ting.

Aaaaaagh!!! Can't let your remarks go unchallenged Bjørn.....

Quote from me: 4) I can see from your reaction that the way I chose to introduce my points must have been insensitive. I thought having read your own comments here over the last couple of weeks that you would have responded differently.

Your reply: You have answered many of your own questions by the statements (1) to (4) above. The crucial ones being no (4) in relation to (1), and (2).

Answer: My whole point is that your argument is based on taking account of sentence 1 in my 2 sentence reply while ignoring the second.

To spell it out more clearly. Yes, many people here are new to photography and therefore to quote (approx) ''the most severe criticisms are reserved for the best photographs'' I can live with that but my mistake was to think that others could too.

PS: another quote I just noticed Du fikk med deg Scotts ''hilsen'' om våre ego, Aleksander? Plager meg ikke altfor mye.

Reply: As I am aware that 99.9999999% of the population, myself included, are limited by the demands of our egos so my reference to ''ego problems'' wasn't intended as a criticism at all, Bjørn,. Instead it was intended as a challenge in the spirit of your''the most severe criticisms are reserved for the best photograph(ers)'' I am old enough to know that your ''Plager meg ikke altfor mye'' isn't true ;-)

A little hilsen to Aleksander... In the short time I have been on this forum there are 3 people who have caused me to ''do a double take'', You, Bjørn and Jeanette. My opinion (irrelevant?) is that your work is outstanding but lacks real focus because you are too much influenced from the outside. This is the ego issue. Get beyond that and you cease to be a reflection of the society you live in and become instead influential.

ROTFL!!!!!! (= Rolling On The Floor Laughing) Just noticed that I have metamorphosed into Reginald Heath!!

The wonders of the computer age!!

Reginald (Maudling) (Edward) Heath = the leader and deputy leader of the Conservative Party in Britain immediately before the Thatcher era. The significance of this is obscure.

Of course, you realise this could go on forever. The actual differences in opinion are in all likelihood negligible, but you have opted out of the discussion in a way that renders further argumentation futile.

I take it you yourself changed into ''Reginald Heath'', so you shouldn't act this surprised. Unless the transformation occurred in the random way some other incidents indicate.

Dette minner meg om en elller annen tegneseriefigur som har et nebb som er formet slikt som denne isformasjonen.
Meget bra bilde!

Du mener kanskje Daffy Duck?

Selv brukte jeg ''ørneprofil'' som utgangspunkt for bildeidéen, men vi ser vel alle hva vi ønsker å se. Kanskje.

BR: nei Daffy er en and...!
Riktignok er jeg rimelig sikker på at det er en Disney-figur jeg vil frem til! Ørn eller gribb! Jeg får gå igjennom Donaldblader i morgen. Kan jo ikke sitte her hele kvelden... he he

Trolig Ørnulf Ørn... he he

Men han er jo en skurk ... Nei takk, TB, jeg venter et mer høyverdig forslag.

Ingen tvil, dette er Ørnulf sin profil. Du brukte jo en ørneprofil som utgangspunkt, så du har lykkes. Skurk eller ei, han er jo bare en tegneseriefigur.... he he

Nog kunde denna bli sittande på väggen mycket länge, om den blev satt där...;-)
Bland det allra bästa jag sett på dessa sidor!
Ang. foto vid -25 : önskar just nu att min F-801 inte dör så fort det blir litt kyla (var på svenska rallyt igår, och både den och FE´n gav upp...i -10 grader...)

MVH/Mats N.

F4 standard er ikke altfor glad i kulde heller, men en F4S (som her) går ganske bra. D1 er faktisk slett ikke ille den heller (jeg har 3 batteripakker pr. kamera og har ikke klart å ''bruke'' dem opp på én dag).

Problemet med kulde ligger på det menneskelige plan. Vi holder ikke så lenge som utstyret. Iallefall ikke jeg. Derfor er planleggingen mitt viktigste ''våpen'' i forhold til kulda.

Glad du likte bildet Mats. Selv om det er noen år siden det ble tatt, så regner jeg det som ett av mine beste. Slikt man blir glad for å se når filmen hentes på labben (det var den gangen det, nå i digitalalderen vet jeg jo svaret umiddelbart).

Opplevelsen med bildet og følelsen av å kommunisere naturens indre skjønnhet oppveier det meste av kulde og forsakelser. Heldigvis.

Jeg har bare et ord: VAKKERT!

Vennlig hilsen
Torbjørn.

Supret utsnitt tatt fra et meget lavt standpunkt. Det gjør bildet spennende.
Synes det er litt mørkt, og dermed litt tungt å se på, men bra allikevel!

Gratulerer med 1001 treff! Du har et flott bilde her.. Skulle gjerne sett det i stort format!