I’m sure you saw the television ads in the 90s where kids wanted to be like Michael Jordan. Well, this image is about being like Chuck - @Chuck_Kimmerle. Although Chuck usually creates in B&W, here I’m trying to capture some of the essence of his vision. Since he is scheduled to be a guest here at NPN shortly I thought it would be a good time to make this post.
Two questions for the viewer:
Which of the two image do you prefer and why.
Do these images come close to a Kimmerle image in your opinion. If not, then what’s missing.
It may be that I am in a B&W frame of mind today (I’ve been playing around with some bird images in B&W) but I had to download your images, convert them to B&W before I could get a sense of comparison to Chuck’s images. The color ones seemed too different to compare. So I did a simple conversion to B&W with no other processing.
The B&W of image 1 (my preference) feels most like a Chuck Kimmerle image, specifically: Rocks and Receding Storm
and Happy Trash
I think that’s because the hills are so small in the scene, more as a framing boundary.
Number 2 in B&W has the feel of an Ansel Adams image.
I think both images are stronger in B&W and I can see doing some work on both in terms of dodging/burning to bring out the luminosity of the water areas and increasing drama in the sky.
So, this is simply my opinion…I thank you for posting these images with the questions. What fun.
First, both images are strong and well composed images; each with a slightly different impression.
To your first question, my preference is the first image, and it wasn’t a question for me. The first speaks of vastness, space and location. I really get a feel for this place. Both images are excellent near/far comps and I think the first also provides a bit more depth. “I can see for miles…” or “I could walk for miles”
The second image, dare I say, is more classic. Incorporate a foreground element against a interesting or compelling background. I do really like the warm/cool combination in and surrounding the reflecting pool. To me, it’s the stronger element in this image; including the ripples in the mud flats.
To your second question, I am not one that studies other photographer’s works very much (maybe I should…), but I did peruse Chuck’s images for reference. David points this out, but the obvious thing is that all his work is in b&w - which of course doesn’t necessarily speak to style, vision or comps, but right off the bat the comparison leans towards apples and oranges? If I can be overly simplistic. Having said that, I found that “Brush in Salt Flat Flow” more closely compared to your first image; that similarity of vastness, space and of course the near/far composition (the higher key processing/presentation isn’t the same of course, but vision/style is similar to what you’ve captured in the first image. I also saw that in the “Rocks and Receding Storm” image David linked.
I definitely think b&w could work well with both images. I tried, but given the lower rez web versions, not so easy to work with converting. But for sure, strong candidates for conversion.
Thanks for posting - a good exercise in thought and critique. Thanks!
Igor, I like the first image more, but I think both are very nice. As @Lon_Overacker mentioned, the first one speaks to the vastness of the scene. The color versions you posted have a nice subtle tonality, which I think works better with the first one. I think the second one could benefit from a little more contrast in the sky and brightness in the pool of water. I’d like to see your B&W versions to compare apples to apples, so to speak.
Maybe I should comment here. I was more interested in how this compares to Kimmerle’s vision, not a similarity in appearance. So converting these to b&w would not address the goal.
Independent of Kimmerle’s work, or the fact yours was in color and his images in b&w, I simply think your images would work well in b&w. Not necessarily as a comparison to other works.
I guess what I hoped would come out of this is ‘What is Kimmerle’s vision’. We can see it’s different but how would one pin down on what he’s after. I think my images seem to be in the right direction. But how to put it into words. And it’s not just him that’s difficult to describe. I guess I feel there is value in understanding the works of some photographers, personal value.
Interesting question on a couple of fronts. Both images have their own merits, but to answer directly, I would choose the first because it is playing the size, shape, and luminosity of the water against the size, shape, and texture of that distant mountain. That sort of juxtaposition plays an important role in much of my work.
That said, I trust this is an exercise in understanding someone’s style rather than a template for how to copy it. I am an advocate for photographic promiscuity and think we should look at as much work and as many photographers as possible. We are all, in part, products of our surroundings, so why not expand those surroundings. The trick is to only take small ideas from each one, combining them into our own unique styles.
Hi Igor, if I had to choose a favourite, I would go with the first image simply because of the vastness that it portrays. That’s not to say that I don’t like the second image because I actually had a hard time choosing. In the second image I really like the added warm colours that are visible in the puddle as well as the nice sidelight that is more visible on the mountains.
As for your second question, I think that they’re approaching Chuck’s vision. Honestly, I wasn’t well versed in his work so I had to have a look at his website and the first thing that struck me, other than that the images were black and white, was the relatively strong contrast he has in many of his images. These images of yours give me a similar feel as some of his but with less pop. I opened up you first image in photoshop, added some brightness and contrast and I immediately felt the same feel as when I looked at Chuck’s work.
I like both of them for different reasons, but if i had to choose, it would be #1. The sense of both place and space is greater, which I find appealing. #1 also feels more like a Chuck K. image because of the mood. I’ve always found his work to have a slight melancholy tinge, or maybe it’s stoicism. I think that may be due to his choice of subjects combined with his b&w treatment.
I can only say what my response is to his work, not what he’s after.
I feel that an explanation is in order. I find Kimmerle’s images to be somewhat disturbing, purposely so. Parts of his images seem to be slightly incongruous with other parts and that tension causes you to take notice. I tried to do that in this image. Unlike a David Muench image the foreground here is not meant to flow smoothly towards the background. The water is meant to stand out as though suspended in front of the distant mountains. That’s what attracted me visually to this scene. There’s an alien feel to it. In order to emphasize this I darkened the sky (#1) further than it would be naturally and I made the water lighter. I feel that both images have that alien look but the first has it much more.
“It is often the intent of the artist to make us perceive, think, and feel in new and different ways” - A. Shimamura
