photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Two: Travel Incongruities > On the Road, Beyond Sonora Pass, California, 2004
previous | next
17-OCT-2004

On the Road, Beyond Sonora Pass, California, 2004

After threading our way through the snow-swept Sonora Pass in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, we descended into a valley of rolling hills and undulating wet roads that cross the land where California and Nevada come together. I made this image, one of the most unusual perspectives I’ve ever photographed, with my 432mm telephoto lens. Looking back into the mountains we had just traversed, the rain-slicked road glistens in the late afternoon sun, and the incongruous sense of compression offered by this very long lens gives the scene the look of an old watercolor. It offers us an unusual way to perceive depth perspective – as our eyes go back into this image, everything seems to flatten and bunch together. The road itself suddenly seems to end and not reappear. The image becomes impressionistic rather than realistic. It is, in essence, both a painting and a photograph, all in one.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20
1/500s f/4.0 at 72.0mm iso80 full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto
share
Phil Douglis28-May-2008 23:04
Thanks, Alina, for mentioning the luminosity of this image. It was created both the high altitude light and snowy road conditions.
Alina28-May-2008 22:23
The rainy road and sunny hills combine on one beautiful picture. I like the haze around the cars and luminosity of the pavement.
Phil Douglis17-Apr-2006 06:32
You are right, Jeremy. It is full of layers. Most of my images could serve as examples in some of my other galleries as well. Gallery placement depends on what I am trying to teach with them.
Jeremy24-Mar-2006 14:43
Wow! You are absolutely right in your descripton of the photo that this is, in essence, both a photo and a painting. In fact, the only objects in the picture that don't look like painting to me are the two cars. Well seen, as only a master photographer can do, and even more well captured. IMHO, this picture should also go into your gallery on "The Layered Image - Accumulating Meaning" as the keynote picture. There are at least 4 distinct layers in this image (or maybe even five, if we consider the two cars as a separate 'layer') in harmonious juxtaposition (this phrase itself is an incongruous term?), creating great depth of perspective and vision. A masterpiece of photographic art.
Phil Douglis28-Aug-2005 21:53
Your comment is as poetic as this image, Kostas. Thank you.
Kostas 28-Aug-2005 19:23
Sometimes it's the journey that counts and not the destination.
As soon as you realise this, road becomes a silver carpet into your soul.
Phil Douglis08-Apr-2005 22:57
You are right, Sonia -- it does look as if a modern highway has been pasted on to an impressionistic painting. In any event, the overall impression is impressionistic. The crispness of the road and the softness of the distant hills is incongruously striking. As for my return to reality, you are placing Phil in that car heading towards us. Actually, Phil is behind the camera, which would mean he is looking out over a real road into that unseen paradise in the distance. I assume from this comment that the image has grabbed your imagination, which was my intention.
Guest 08-Apr-2005 22:33
This looks like a pasted road on an Impressionist painting, and I'll have to agree with Hina that it somehow looks realistic to me. I think it is the color of the snow which makes the whole realistic, it makes the road crisp and sharp. Seems like Phil has been to an unseen paradise and coming back into reality.
Phil Douglis27-Feb-2005 07:03
Still working on it, eh, Hina? My goal is to make you think, wonder, and feel. If an image can do that, it is an expressive image and doing it's job.
Phil Douglis27-Feb-2005 07:02
Thanks, Hina, for enjoying this image so much. It seems that I've been able to reach your imagination with it, and that was my intention. You can see whatever you want it, which is a good start. It tells me your imagination is working on it.
Guest 26-Feb-2005 18:17
"I use the incongruous optical compression of a 432mm telephoto lens to build layer upon layer of meaning that draws us back into the image, where realism suddenly vanishes and impressionism takes over. "
Yes!! totally!!!
but, its kind of contradicting that i think it looks real too ...
i dont know why...
Guest 26-Feb-2005 18:15
wow !!!
yes you are so right!!!
they are all in one, this looks really like a painting rather than a photo, but on the other hand, surprisingly, i think it looks kind of realistic to me.. i actually could feel the atmosphere a bit..

:) btw, how are you, my professor?
i'm all fine and .. a little messed up with what's on my mind...
its like, recently i don't know what i am doing, what i want,
and i've not been in the mood for taking photos ...
but i guess this whole thing will be gone sooner or later :)
i'm reading the davinci code, and after that, i'll be going to sleep.

i love this photo phil, i have some photos from my last china trip too :)
take care see u soon :)
Phil Douglis22-Dec-2004 01:34
Thanks, Mikel, for bringing up the role of layers of meaning here. You will almost always find a picture built on layers whenever depth perception itself is at the heart of an image. You did this in in that candle shot you link us to below, and I tried to do it here with relatively good success. You identify each layer in this image and characterize its role in terms of making the image work. I like the fact that you said the road looks like a river of water coming down from the mountains. This is what probably struck me first as I framed this shot -- the effect of the light, reflecting on that long wet road that so abruptly ends, as it was interpreted by the optics of a very long telephoto lens.
Guest 21-Dec-2004 23:17
In this case Phil, I have to tell you the same as you said about the candle one:
http://www.pbase.com/laburu/image/37739225
It is true that this extreem tele brings all the scenary to the spectator, but the good thing of it are the 3 different layers I see in it:
The first one is the road that looks like a watter streem rolling down the mountain and brakes with the rest of the extreemly dark ground arround it. At this same point, the road leads to the second layer, the houses that have a more descreet paper in the image, they are half way the painting and the photo as you say but since it doesen't ocupay a significative portion of the image it leads easity to the background that with this slight mist, the distance and the sun hitting it it makes the sence of a full romantic painting... perhaps you can even add more layers with the second mountain and the bit of sky, but I feel that all of it enters in the painting part though.
Yes, it is a very used way to cause uncongruation in a photo, but this one has it's story well defined.
Phil Douglis08-Dec-2004 04:31
All photographs have two dimensions, Lara. They have height and they have width. However we add the illusion of a third dimension -- depth -- by doing what I have done here. I use the incongruous optical compression of a 432mm telephoto lens to build layer upon layer of meaning that draws us back into the image, where realism suddenly vanishes and impressionism takes over.
Lara S07-Dec-2004 20:20
So three-dimensional.
Guest 01-Dec-2004 19:38
it is very poetic. good composition and contrasts.
Phil Douglis18-Nov-2004 22:38
Thanks, Dave, for this welcome comment. Yes, you were standing right next to me as I made this shot. And yes, you probably choose not to "see" this image as I saw it because it was too damned windy and wet and cold at that moment to dig out your camera and take the time to study the scene before us as the camera saw it, not as our eyes did. You are an accomplished artist in your right, Dave -- your Yosemite and Sierra galleries show me that you see many things in ways that i could not. The important thing to remember is that our ability to "see" potential photographs that may hidden from us by our own lack of vision, is something that is not just given to us. It is developed over years of shooting and learning from our mistakes. When I looked down that long road through that new FZ-20 lens, I saw more than just a road. My eye, through experience, has been trained to look instead for ideas and meaning. And once we have the idea, the tool and the mechanics we use will naturally follow.

Thanks again, Dave, for bringing me to this wonderful part of the world -- and for your patience and thoughtfulness you showed me and the others who joined us. And for this comment, too. I will treasure it.
Dave Wyman18-Nov-2004 19:03
Phil,

This is a wonderful photograph. I thought about this picture a couple of nights ago when my wife and I visited an exhibition, "From Renoir to Matisse." The paintings were from the collection of Duncan Phillips, who was also an articulate art critic.

This exhibition displayed a few of Phillip's quotes, too. One said everyone can see as an artist sees, intellectually and emotionally, with variousness and selectivity. I don't know if this is true or not, but certainly you are an artist with a camera who does see in many ways.

More interesting to me was Phillips's assertion that everyone has the latent ability to see pictures in the world, and to see the world in pictures. You, as an artist, have manifested that ability, which is apparent in this picture.

Most people would not see this picture, even if they were standing next to you. In fact, I WAS standing next to you and I didn't see it. The actual view we saw with our human eyes was much, much wider than what we see in your photograph. Yes, you have a very long lens that helps you to see this sort of picture. But I think most people would be unable to see what you saw, even if they had the same lens on their own cameras. It's such a tiny slice of the "real" world, and yet it is crammed with information - light, color, composition. Others here have commented on the story it tells.

While I am tempted to purchase a camera like yours, I don't think it would do me much good. I'm not sure I'd ever see a picture like this one, where you have sliced off such a minute section of reality and done it so successfully. Your eye is very specially attuned to see pictures in the world, as well as seeing the world in pictures.

Great photograph!

Dave
Phil Douglis12-Nov-2004 20:22
One more point, Tim. Maureen and Nut both mentioned that this image seems to lead them from the present time back into the past. You, on the other hand, see the bright foreground as the solid present, and the hazy background as the uncertain future. I am fascinated by the twists and turns of this picture, and how it stimulates the imagination of others in so many different ways -- an indication that what we have here is an expressive photograph.
Phil Douglis12-Nov-2004 20:18
You are right, Tim. There is definitely a strong contrast in lighting effect here -- as you remember, we had just descended from a mountain pass into a valley and the weather was changing by the second. The play of light in the foreground (symbolizing "today") was strong, but because of the clouds, showers, and distance, as well as the compression characteristics of a 432mm lens, the light on the distant buildings and hills in the background (symbolizing "tomorrow") was much more faint. And this difference in intensity and clarity have created both contrast and meaning.
Tim May12-Nov-2004 19:33
Another aspect of this image, and I'm not sure that it is incongruity, is the light. The way the image's vividness fades into the background which is where the road takes us. The present, the foreground, is known and solid, the future is faint, looking possibly rich, but still unknown.
Phil Douglis11-Nov-2004 07:05
Thanks, Vanita, for this wonderful comment. I am always glad when one of my photos makes such a positive impact on the imagination of a viewer. That was my intention. I can't agree with you that this image took a lot of technical knowledge. I simply had a 432mm telephoto lens to use, which has compressed distance and altered reality significantly to create an image that becomes quite incongruous because of that effect. It also was more than just seeing something "interesting." I saw more than that here -- I saw the land as it changed and I saw the "now and the then" and I saw a message, as well as a scene.

I can see now why you have linked me to that image of your castle on the hill. Your spatial incongruities do not work as well in that shot because you did not use a lens as long as this one to compress the distance between the church or house in the foreground and the castle in the background. If your image had made that castle loom directly overhead, it might well have created a greater stir in the imagination of those who responded to it. I don't think it is a matter of "properly using your camera." Your camera was simply not optically equipped to create spatial incongruity on this scale.

You would have had to use other means to establish are more imaginative incongruent relationship between the structure in the foreground and the castle on the hill, such as working in a different kind of light at a different time of day, or changing your vantage point to create a more layered image as in this shot. See my composition gallery for even more examples of layering -- where you build in meaning by establishing powerful foreground information, then move the eye to a meaningful middleground, and finally add context for meaning in the background. That's what is happening here. The car is the foreground layer, the town the middleground layer, and the hills are the background layer.

I better keep hearing from you, Vanita. I want your ideas, comments, questions, and criticisms to become a regular part of my cyberbook, and I want the pleasure of seeing that experience translate to an even more expressive approach to your own work. Take John's suggestions seriously. He knows his stuff. And let me work your brain. But you must promise to work mine in return. Fair enough?
Guest 11-Nov-2004 05:35
I keep coming back to this image. I came to this gallery of incongruities because I know I would find reason to smile and maybe even chuckle or go, "HUM?" I found all of that, but the reason I keep coming back is because of this photo. There is something here for me to learn. You had technical knowledge to use the right lens and settings to get what you wanted- in addition to the eye and mind to see something interesting.
I tried to capture something that screamed, "Incongruity" - but others have not responded to the image in that way, I asked for comments from a photo group and nothing was helpful. Some said it was just "not a good photo", others said it was "nice" and several said things about cropping out the castle and just leaving the schoolhouse. With those comments I realized I had failed to present what it was I saw and felt. I realize that my image is lacking depth and the lighting is not great. I keep looking at this one of yours and know that I don't even have the basic knowledge of how to properly use my camera, the basic tool of photography. I need to allow John to teach me the technical things that - I have resisted with, "It's ok, I'm just playing around, having fun" - Here is the link to the image I'm refering to, if you want to look at it.http://www.pbase.com/vanitasview/image/35835930
You will keep hearing from me - Thanks!
Phil Douglis07-Nov-2004 23:20
Yes, Nut. this image does indeed contrast, through a shift in perspective, reality, to what appears to be unreality.
nut 07-Nov-2004 14:34
This is the incongruous photograph in term of perspective.
This unreal perspective is very incongruous with both dynanic cars.
Real and Unreal.
Phil Douglis04-Nov-2004 20:17
Yes, you did drive me through snow-swept Sonora Pass, white knuckles and all, and it was indeed a relief to see the bright light of better and safer weather beckoning to us through this image. Light does play with us here, it bounces off that road, and the long lens perspective of the scene is certainly affected by light as well.
Tim May04-Nov-2004 16:33
Perhaps not fair, but as the driver in this case, I bring the personal to the image - I see the gleaming road and the bright background as the "yellow brick road" leading me out of the tension of the pass and into the light and sun of the future. This is one of my favorite of your images from the trip and I think it is because of the light.
nut 03-Nov-2004 03:55
Thank you, Phil :)
Phil Douglis01-Nov-2004 22:21
Nut, I instinctively place my subjects off center, not to unbalance the picture, but rather to make it more dynamic. A centered image is very static and formal. An image that has its subject off to once side, stresses the relationship between subject and its context much more effectively. If you to my gallery on composition, you will see that I frequently do this. (http://www.pbase.com/pnd1/composition ) But not always. It depends upon what I am trying to say. There are no rules for composition, but rather a number of guidelines that I offer in that chapter of my cyberbook, that are always there for your consideration.
nut 01-Nov-2004 07:09
On this photo, it look like you put more weight on the right side. And I don't know why.
So it's a bit unbalance to me. If you have any reason about this, please clear my thought.
Thank you.
Phil Douglis31-Oct-2004 19:53
The unbalance you feel here is what Maureen points below. The image seems to be partly a photograph and partly a painting. That car seems t be driving from from the present time, back into the past. No wonder you feel unbalanced, Nut!
nut 31-Oct-2004 17:48
3D in 2D. Background told me how far between you and the mountain. It also make this photo
become perspective. I feel something unbalance on this photo. I don't know why.
Phil Douglis31-Oct-2004 03:18
I am delighted with your view of this image, Maureen. Having an FZ-10 I am sure you can appreciate the effect a long lens like this can have on such an image. I noticed the incongruity you did, and noted in my explanation that this image is seems to be part painting and photograph, but you've added a nice touch --the guy in the photograph driving that car is taking a route right back to the past -- the old painting! I love how your imagination works, Maureen, and it is a joy for me to get your feedback here.
Guest 31-Oct-2004 02:48
This is fantastic, and having an FZ10, I'm thrilled to see you shot this with your FZ20. When I look at this, I see an old painting in the upper 60%, and a photo in the bottom 40%. Drivers in the photo on the glistening road are driving right into the old painting. Modern day is moving back into what is now old fashioned. We're moving back into the past. Another wonderful work of art!
Type your message and click Add Comment
It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest.
Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help private comment