"Dizzying heights..."

Rising up from the density of the urban landscape, giant stalagmites formed by the downward flow of steel and concrete from somewhere high up in the clouds assert their presence.

Reaching towards the dizzying heights where dreams reside, these monoliths guide all city dweller’s dreams upward like lighthouses in an urban sea.

New York Photography: The New York City skyline and the Empire State Building.

You can view this post along with information about where to purchase prints of this image if you wish at my site here:



Tags: #photography   #nyc   #newyorkcity   #newyorkcityphotography   #skyline   #newyorkcityskyline   #landscape   #architecture   #urban   #city   #cityscape   #nycskyline  
Bertrand le mancq's profile photoSathish Dhawan's profile photoDeepak Bhadkamkar's profile photoHamro Simanjuntak's profile photo
Edited since people have misunderstood this comment: The photo seems to lose detail here on G+ in its preview size compared to elsewhere (meaning, that the preview has lost detail due to G+'s algorithm compared to how it actually appears in previews elsewhere online in similar size thumbnails). If you want to see how detailed the photo is,  either click on it here to view it large or view it here on Flickr:

Great picture. Looks odd. Like miniatures. Was this shot from Top of the Rocks?
+Vivienne Gucwa  2 more questions. What lens did you use? When was this photo taken? World Trade One seems quite small.
Hmmm. I really can't tell why it looks the way it looks ;)
+Vivienne Gucwa The detail is amazing when you put this on full screen. Wish I knew more about the layout of NYC to pick out the landmarks -- I think I see some, but always second-guessing. :o) Love what you said about the dreams -- "these monoliths guide all city dweller’s dreams upward like lighthouses in an urban sea". Simply beautiful.
+Vivienne Gucwa  As I tried to say before, I really like this picture. It is the style that catches me. It really looks like all the buildings were miniature buildings. Maybe it is a certain technique. 
+Juergen B - There is a depth of field issue at play (the focus is on the foreground) + the post-processing perhaps. I went for a very specific feel :).
Sort of a tilt-shift feel to this one.  The strong vignette works here whereas I usually dislike post process vignetting.  Very nice! Thank you for sharing.
+Vivienne Gucwa OK, thank you very much for the explanation. I need to try this during my next visit :)
+Juergen B  - My pleasure. What is really funny is that only minutes ago on my Facebook profile where I also posted this someone said the same thing you said about it appearing as a miniature model. :)
+Kari Johnson - Thank you so much! This view is looking south towards lower Manhattan so in the far distance is the partially built (since this was taken last year) new One World Trade Center and the Statue of Liberty is a tiny little blip on the right hand side of the photo in the distance as well :).
+Vivienne Gucwa  I compared it with my pictures from last year (what a difference) and was amazed that I was totally wrong about the height of One World Trade Center in my imagination ;)
I think I blame it on the angle.
I am unlucky,I wont to see this place
+Vivienne Gucwa I thought that was the Statue of Liberty. :o) Is One World Trade Center, just barely to the right of the Empire State Building, but far in the distance? Also, there's a bridge in the distance about left-center -- at the risk of sounding like an idiot, is that the Brooklyn Bridge?
+Kari Johnson - You don't sound like an idiot. I know people who have lived here their entire lives who still get the bridges mixed up when viewing from a distance. The bridge that you see is actually the Manhattan Bridge and the Brooklyn Bridge sits directly in back of it (in this view) but is obscured by the haze a tiny bit. The Manhattan Bridge has a distinctive blue-gray hue and the Brooklyn Bridge is neutral-toned with more elaborate cables. They run side by side. One World Trade Center is indeed just barely to the right of the Empire State Building. I should re-take this same shot this year to show how prominent One World Trade Center is now (it's so tall). It was a baby here :).
I would have guessed, that it is the Williamsburg Bridge.
Thank you for the education, +Vivienne Gucwa. I appreciate your time in explaining things in such detail. I hope you do take this shot again this year -- it really would be fun to see how the "baby" has grown. :o)
+Kari Johnson - I probably will try again in the autumn when there is less haze. Not that I don't love the hazy look over the horizon but it would be nice to see the difference with that as well. :)
+Vivienne Gucwa there is nothing wrong with your image. It looks fine. Unless you are using a long zoom then pretty much all images will look like this. I have a very similar picture on my website (not trying to jack your post but rather trying to prove a point to others).

http://jmitchellphotography, .photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Landscapes/G0000o94J9CQv_uE/I0000b0OF_oEWTRo

The only thing I would have done differently would have been to expose off the sky to preserve some of the highlights that you have lost. My image was taken on a sunny day but I didn't want my clouds blown out. Lens selection may have played a role too. My image was taken with my travel set up: Nikon D90, grip and 17-55 f2.8. Again not trying to steal your post but overall your image is fine. As long as it captures the scene how you want it then it's all good. Preserve those details though.
+Jamal Mitchell - Not to belabor the point, but everything here was carefully chosen in terms of post-processing. I wasn't asking if it was fine. I was just curious as to why the original person seemed to be so curious about the depth of field which he ended up explaining. I put a lot of thought into my images and in terms of 'details' or lack thereof, believe me there is always a reason I end up processing things a certain way. Thanks!
+Jamal Mitchell - I hope that didn't come off as anything other than matter of fact by the way. Just sort of wanted to make a general statement about subjective artistic intent.
Well, it appears as though I have overstepped my bounds. One of your first comments mentioned something about your photo losing detail, hence my suggestions of preserving details. I am well aware you weren't asking, per say, if your picture was okay. I was merely just trying to give you a bit of reassurance that your image is okay despite what others have commented on hence the reason why i mentioned proving a point to others which did not include you. You were responding to comments about how your image looks (to them by the way) which is why i thought you would value the reassurance I was placing back into you. I was merely trying to help. When it comes to my work, I am always willing to learn and am very accepting of different perspectives - but thats just me.
+Jamal Mitchell - The view of my photo in the G+ preview has lost detail due to G+'s algorithm which is why I stated to click through the photo to view it larger in the first comment. I think that is where the misunderstanding is. It looks fine in previews (similar size) everywhere else online that it is posted. I have no issues with the level of detail in this photo at all. I am just disappointed that every so often G+ overcompresses the previews of images. Just a communication issue. I guess I should be even more clear than I thought I was. Lost in translation :).
hi. where are you? how are you? my name is theary.
Now I remember this look. Tilt-Shift. That was the term I was looking for. One comment here was pointing it out.
And thank you again +Vivienne Gucwa  for spending your time answering comments :)
+Juergen B - There is a slight tilt-shift feel to this. I didn't intend for that but I kind of love that it turned out that way. I think it is due to the depth of field and processing. :)
That's how we all know what `stand-out' means from the rest widespread & commonplace !
Add a comment...