[Jordan Wall]

If every single picture you have ever seen of a course is a great picture, whether taken by a pro photographer or a regular golfer, something must tell you the course is great.

The reason I bring this up is because I have been looking at Sand Hills and Cypress Point pictures a lot over the past few days.
I have not seen one ugly hole, one hole that does not seem to fit its surroundings, or any hole that was not visually spectacular.

Take CPC 18 for example.
How many holes in this world have a green that is bunkered so well?
A hole that has huge, beautiful Cypress trees lining the fairway?
How many holes have a tee box ten feet from the Pacific Ocean?

I am convinced that just by pictures I have seen, Sand Hills and Cypress Point are amazing golf courses.
And all I have seen is pictures.
I have heard to not judge a course until you have played it.
But, I am convinced Sand Hills and Cypress must be two of the greatest courses in the world, just by pictures I have seen.

Am I flawed in my thinking that if every picture of any hole of any given course blows you away, it must be a great course?

[Andy Troeger]

Jordan,
The problem I have is not so much with the all-time greats, and especially the very photogenic all-time greats such as the ones you mention. Its fairly obvious to tell those are special settings.

That last word's the key to me though. You can tell from the pictures if the setting of the course is great, but you can't necessarily tell the details of the course itself. It also depends on the quality of the photographer too, there's a few gentlemen on here that could make just about any course look special!

[Tim Bert]

Visually stunning, I think you can tell from pictures.  Great course, I think is probably harder to gauge simply from photos.  

Point in case (for me) is Sand Hills.  Now, I from the photos and the commentary I had read on the course, I certainly believed the course was going to be great.  It didn't disappoint, but many of the things that made it great in my mind were ones that I didn't decipher from the pictures.  For instance, I had no inkling just how severe the undulations in the fairways were going to be (#9 and #14 comes to mind, though examples are all over the course.)  Not just elevations changes on holes, but rather wild, undulating fairways.  Looking back at good photos and having experienced it, I have a little better sense of the greatness, but I don't think I could have gained an appreciation for the true greatness without at least walking the property.

[Mark_Fine]

Jordon,
Of course you can judge courses from photos but that doesn't mean the conclusion you draw is always a good one.  I'm sure I could post a photo of a hole from a course that I, along with many others on this site, would consider one of the best in the country.  But to look at the photo, it wouldn't make you jump out of your seat, grab your golf clubs, and buy a plane ticket?  

Side bet  
Mark

[Bill_McBride]

Take CPC 18 for example.
A hole that has huge, beautiful Cypress trees lining the fairway?

Lining the fairways?

Did you say "lining the fairways?"

Jordan, those Cypress trees are IN the fairway!  

It's the best 17-hole course in the world.  Not to mention one of the best 18-hole courses.

[rjsimper]

Jordan,

You can judge beauty by pictures.

You can't judge greatness by pictures, and if you say you can, nobody around here is going to take you seriously.  You can surmise greatness, but until you play it, you won't KNOW it.  Hell, you may not even know it upon playing it either, but you've at least got a fighting chance.

The problem you and many others are finding in assessing what is great is not that you have photographs at your disposal, but rather that you are immersed in this pool of 1500+ talking heads that demand to a point that the impressionable minds fall into lockstep with the party line.

Keep looking at pictures, keep dreaming, keep coming up with guesses in your mind about how a hole or course might play, but remember every step of the way that until you play a course once at an absolute minimum, your "conclusions" remain just that: guesses.

[cary lichtenstein]

Jordan:

Talk to a photographer, or better yet, spend a day with one. Lots of tricks, lots of shots of holes that aren't even actual holes. They go out early am or late pm to catch the shadows, shoot across fairways, take pictures from behind greens, etc

Cary

[Mike_Young]

You can't judge from pictures.......IMHO

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan:

Talk to a photographer, or better yet, spend a day with one. Lots of tricks, lots of shots of holes that aren't even actual holes. They go out early am or late pm to catch the shadows, shoot across fairways, take pictures from behind greens, etc

Cary

Cary,

I understand this.
In my first post, I had stated that if pictures even non-photographers take are great, and all the time, then the course must be something special.

[Brad Tufts]

I think that pictures go a long way to illustrate a point.  But without comment and reasoning, I have a tough time deciding if any course is "great".

I mean even at CP, which I have not seen or played in person, looks to me in pictures to be beautiful and very much worth seeing.  However, I don't think one can see that a green complex or bunker is "so good" without seeing why they are strategic, or playing the shot to see how difficult one angle to the hole is vs. how easy it may be from another spot.

I'm sure that people on here will tell you that cypress trees lining the fairway, bunkering that "looks good," and even a tee box 10 ft. from the Pacific (heart be still) might not indicate a great golf course or hole....and probably cite examples....

So my answer is no....I like course pics to point me in the right direction and illustrate a point someone is making.  I take them myself to help remember where I have been.

[Jeff Taylor]

Hanging out on this site will help you get a feel for what greatness might be but I recommend that you start taking your own pictures. You will learn much from what you see in the frame. Eventually you get beyond the aesthetics and start seeing the golf hole as it was designed and meant to be played. Even if you dont see it, you will still have great pcitures.

[Jim Thompson]

Jordan,

One of my best friends in this business is a golf photographer and he has told me a number of times that the better a courtse is the harder it is to shoot.  I'm sure he'll read this post in the next few days and let me have it too.  I had to bend his arm to get what he calls architectural shots of our course and even then we had to do boom shots that flatten out all of the features for my "My Home Course" piece. I find it very hard to get the lay of the land of good features without a few pics from different angles.  I'm currently thinking of doing a set of shots taken from the four corners of my green complexes at about eight foot of elevation to really give folks an idea of the flow of the green sites, but am struglling with doing it in winter dormancy.

Cheers!

JT

[Chris_Clouser]

Jordan,

Did you see the thread by Patrick Mucci about unfamiliarity?

That ties in with this to a large degree.  And as I said on that thread, you can learn a lot about a course through pictures, maps and other sources, but that is no substitute for what you can learn on the site.

[Mike Nuzzo]

If you know what to look for, pictures can tell a lot.
I agree it is no replacement for playing the course.
But from pictures I most often know what courses I'd like to take the time to visit.
Cheers

[Kirk Gill]

Well, there's two elements to this discussion - how beautiful is the course, and how great is the photographer? There are those courses that anyone with a digital camera can snap and make look good, and then there are those require the services of Aidan Bradley. Yes, I'm continuing what is apparently an ongoing lifelong love-fest for Mr. Bradley's pictures. He made a course I'd played (and thought to be pretty average) look like a must-play.

Still, I hold to the notion that looking at pictures of a course and attempting to judge some small element of its worth is a somewhat valid pursuit..............at least for the sake of discussion. If you publicly make a judgement based on photos, at the very least it can prompt someone who HAS played the course to come forth and provide a more informed insight.

[Jason Topp]

This is a really severe green:



This is a relatively flat green:



I've never figured out a good way to demonstrate the difference in pictures.

[rjsimper]

Yes, Jason brings up (and provides photographic evidence) of one of the major shortcomings in photography - the difficulty in seeing elevation changes, both large and subtle.

I played the Wolf course at Las Vegas Paiute (Pete Dye) Sunday and the 8th hole there has a virtual cliff off the back right of the green that drops down to a gravel waste bunker maybe 40 feet below the putting surface - I took pictures from every conceivable angle, and it looks like little more than a molehill in every one of them.  

Same holds true for video - I've never set foot on the property, but every person I've ever spoken with says that you would not believe the difference between what the elevation changes appear like in video and photo, and what they really are.  The only hole I feel gives any fair chance is my favorite video angle in golf - the shot from 2 fairway as players hit their second shots down to the green.

[Chris Kane]

Jordan, how much is the perception of what you see coloured by the knowledge that Sand Hills and Cypress Point are world-class courses?  

If someone showed you the same photos, but led you to believe that they depicted a less than stellar course, would you perceive them differently?

[Aidan Bradley]

Ryan....."Yes, Jason brings up (and provides photographic evidence) of one of the major shortcomings in photography - the difficulty in seeing elevation changes, both large and subtle."

I respectfully disagree............below are a few examples of subtle undulations where I believe the viewer can see the contours of the green. Large elevations changes are even easier to illustrate.

Aidan

[Steve Lang]

 
Look down and out..

but smile

[rjsimper]

Aidan,
While you are a professional and I am an amateur photographer, I still have to say that having not played any of those courses in the photos you posted, I can only imagine the slopes are more severe to play and to see in real life than what is immediately apparent in your photos.

Examples from your site of courses I HAVE played (sorry, I cannot post directly in the thread like you did, please feel free to add them if you'd like to discuss)

http://www.golfcoursephotography.com/results.asp?KW=Hunter//Ranch - This photo shows a gentle downhill par 3.  In reality, this hole falls quite a bit more than the photo would indicate.

1st column, 2nd from the bottom - #18 pano
This one betrays the fact that the tee shot on 18 is significantly downhill, and the approach plays uphill.  At a glance, the hole looks mostly flat.


http://www.golfcoursephotography.com/results.asp?KW=La//Purisima
2nd Column, 4th down - taken from the 3rd green, the 4th hole looks almost flat in this photo, when in reality the tee shot falls maybe 50 feet, and then the approach climbs back up maybe 60 to the green.  This photo in no way reflects the topography of that hole

2nd column, 2nd from the bottom - #3 green
As I said above, the third hole is significantly downhill - from this perspective, it looks like a gentle descent.


http://www.golfcoursephotography.com/results.asp?KW=Luana//Hills//GC
The photo of Luana Hills 11 here shows a slightly downhill hole - the truth is the hole tumbles down a pretty decent sized slope and dives to the green.  Again, the photo doesn't show it.

http://www.golfcoursephotography.com/results.asp?KW=Cross//Creek

2nd column, 2nd from the bottom - Cross Creek 17 - this hole is FAR more downhill than it appears here.  It looks almost flat or even uphill here.

I am not trying to be contrarian here, and far be it from me to argue with a field professional, but by my eye these are just a few examples of where photos do NOT show the elevation changes as they really are.

I'm not saying you CAN'T show it - certainly as you've said you can sometimes capture more detail, but this calls for a few pre-qualifications - 1, the photographer is shooting with the sole intent to show them, and 2, the photographer is shooting in the first 2 hours after sunrise or the last 2 before sunset.  90% of the photos we see (and judge) are not taken under these pretenses.

If you disagree with me and my assessment of your photos, please post them and we can discuss it, but photos generally are a poor substitute for what you can see with your eyes and feel with your feet.  

[Doug Sobieski]

*** Analogy Alert ***

I would think that just about any photographer could make Christie Brinkley look VERY attractive, even in less than ideal conditions. But judging by the number of divorces she's accumulating, she might not be a club I'd want to join. There's got to be something you can't tell from pictures. Maybe she doesn't possess the proper maintenance meld, nor any Lines of Charm.

[Aidan Bradley]

Ryan,

" but by my eye these are just a few examples of where photos do NOT show the elevation changes as they really are".

I don't dissagree with you, I was merely illustrating what photography CAN do.

"but photos generally are a poor substitute for what you can see with your eyes and feel with your feet."

This is a silly statement as I would much rather play a golf hole than stare at one of my images. Photography is not meant to be a substitute for the reall experience but hopefully on occasion it just might succeed in luring one on to a golf course. Happy Holidays.  

[rjsimper]

This is a silly statement as I would much rather play a golf hole than stare at one of my images. Photography is not meant to be a substitute for the reall experience but hopefully on occasion it just might succeed in luring one on to a golf course. Happy Holidays.  

Aidan,
Of course - photography is an immensely powerful tool for luring someone to a golf course...I've never disputed that fact, nor do I think anyone would disagree.

BUT

It's a huge leap from saying "photography is a good marketing tool" to saying "Photos are great ways to determine whether any given golf course is of world-class quality"

You disagreed with my statement that photography has limitations in showing elevation changes, and I've shown examples in your own work that I believe support my position.  Again, I am not trying to be a contrarian here, but I think Jordan is making an enormous blunder in supposing that one can determine greatness from photographs, and there are some extremely important pieces of information that photos miss (which prevents them from succeeding as merit-judging tools, but does not prevent them from succeding as marketing tools).
 

[Jason Topp]

I respectfully disagree............below are a few examples of subtle undulations where I believe the viewer can see the contours of the green. Large elevations changes are even easier to illustrate.

Aidan

Aiden - Is the angle of the sun the key?  Any other tricks of the trade?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()