I really need some feedback on this one. I have virtually no experience with this kind of high key winter photography. I’m finding it challenging to know what level of detail to leave in and what to take out. In the end, I took my inspiration from what, in my opinion, is just about the finest book of wildlife and landscape photography, Vincent Munier’s masterpiece “Arctique”. Sadly, for me, the only real similarity between his brilliant work and my photograph is that they are both shot in winter. But I was interested to see how he worked with white and the way he so beautifully left just enough detail to give his images depth and context. With this image, for example, I did my first go round pushing the white to the max. I found it too stylized for my taste and did a second run at it with this being the result. So, aside from standard feedback on composition and so on, I’d be very interested to get your take on the relationship between white and detail in terms of conveying a sense and feeling of the cold, stark beauty that surprised and delighted me (and almost cost me frost bite!)
A bit about this picture. It’s hard to believe that less than a month ago I was out shooting in -19 C temperatures and four feet of snow. From my friend’s home (about 3 hours north of Toronto) it was a half hour snow shoe hike to the beaver pond (I’ve included a quick shot I took, just to get a sense of this extraordinary setting. What you see in the picture extends twice the distance to the right and twice that again just beyond the trees in the mid-ground. I visited this beaver pond twice a day for three days, mostly by myself, just because of its incredible stark beauty. On the second day the light was perfect – high cloud, diffuse light. As I was wandering far from shore I began to see these wild “sculptures” rising up out of the ice and snow. Over the next couple of days, I shot many, many frames and ended up with 8 or 10 that I think might make a nice set. But before I go further with post processing them, I thought it would be helpful to get some feedback because I’d like them all to work together. They are all of various tree roots or remnants of weathered off tree trunks except for one, which is of cattails.
FYI. For those of you not familiar with Vincent Munier’s masterwork, “Arctique”, I have included this link, an amazing ten-minute “making-of” video that he shot himself as he sledged his gear and himself to make his photographs. A remarkable combination of courage and artistry. The book is like a Beatles album – just when you think “this is the most amazing photograph I’ve ever seen” … you turn the page and there’s another.
Wow! I love this one. Love she strong composition, the subtle light, the delicate detail, the subdue color. Beautiful.
Answering your question, I would lower the whites just a tad, so to give us more detail in the snow. Just a little… (We do not need a lot of detail in this photo).
You’ve shown the fragility of the snow layer very well here. One more step might cause it to collapse. Agree that the whites could come down a tad and for me, I’d like to see a bit more room on the upper left. The eye goes right to the texture of the stump and the echo of the smaller one is next, but then…I just keep pinballing back and forth. I need an exit point and I think logically it would be in the ULC. Beautiful area and congrats for getting up there and seeing this unusual view.
Kerry,
First off congrats for braving the -19 temps to come away with this wonderful image. The high key look works just fine here although I too would lower the whites just a touch for just a bit more detail. I am glad you included the stump in the BG as it is needed to compliment the one in the FG IMO. I like the minimalist approach you took here. Looking forward to seeing the others.
I am glad you included the link to the video as I found it hauntingly beautiful. He is an amazing photographer. His wolf images reminded me of some of Jim Brandenburg’s work in White Wolf.
Kerry, thank you for posing the link to Vincent Munier’s video, he has some amazing images, and I agree with @Ed_Lowe that his arctic wolf images reminded me of the work of Jim Brandenburg,
Your “Sculpture” image is really intriguing. I love how the hole in the snow reveals what is kind of a hidden world, with the grass underneath. The shape of the tree is wonderful. I like how its base curves both right and left, it creates a very elegant look. There is a tiny bit of clipping in the snow, but only in the upper half of the image. I tried using a TK Lights 4 luminosity mask and a curves adjustment layer to pull back the highlights, but didn’t like how that looked. Instead I’d suggest using a straight levels adjustment layer, and pull back the output level from 255 to like 251 or 252. This gets rid of the clipping, but otherwise leaves it looking very similar.
@Kris_Smith raises an interesting point on the second stump, and having an “exit point” from the image. I assume Kerry that you deliberately included the second stump, and recognized it creates the “Ping Pong”. I cloned it away in a copy and compared it with and without the second stump. I prefer it as presented with the second stump left in. I think the “ping pong” keeps my eye within the image, and keeps bringing me back to the good stuff at the bottom of the large stump. When I look at the copy with the small stump cloned away, my eye exits at the top of frame, and I don’t linger as long on the details in the bottom half of the image. I also think the small stump makes it easier to notice the subtle details in the high key snow. That’s how I perceive the image, but admit it’s subjective.
This is beautiful, in a melancholy way. I agree with everyone on bringing down the highlights just a tad, to give more detail. Maybe even cooling them a point or two to add to the cold feeling. Compositionally, I wouldn’t change a thing.
And thanks for the video link. There’s a school of thought that “it doesn’t matter how hard it was to make the photo”, only whether it’s “good” or not. I think that’s true to a certain degree, but we have to acknowledge Munier’s courage and artistry, as you said. Just amazing.
Kerry, this is superb in every aspect possible. I downloaded it so I could see it at full size to check out the detail. I disagree with those who are calling to bring down the highlights. When viewed full size it has exquisite detail and is plainly visible. Bravo!
Beautiful, Kerry. I would not change a thing, as I really like it as presented. The image and the processing are really well done. Love the minimalism and the tension in the composition, too.
Hi Kerry … I think this is a great composition … love the visual diagonal balance between the main subject and the small stump. I was hesitant about whether or not the whites needed to be lowered slightly until I viewed the full size version. And no, when viewed at full size you see the detail in the snow and I wouldn’t change a thing. Great image
@joaoquintela , @Jim_Zablotny , @Kris_Smith , @Ed_Lowe , @Bonnie_Lampley , @Bill_Chambers , @Harley_Goldman , @Jon_Norris , @Tom_Nevesely : Thank you all for your most welcome feedback and support. Some have suggested bringing down the whites a tad while others are for leaving it as it is, and this may have something to do with how it is being viewed. Obviously, the image is going to look different when viewed on an iPhone as opposed to 27" calibrated screen. At this point, for me, the only way to make a useful choice around subtle alterations such as this, is to print it and see what it “really” looks like. @Bonnie_Lampley - as to the back story of the making of a photograph not mattering to the reader, I think that is true to a point. The reader doesn’t need the back story but the back story, certainly in this case, has everything to do with the depth and power of his images. Let’s face it, the kind of pictures Munier is making couldn’t be done by someone on a five day Arctic boat cruise where they hop off with their tripods and grab the “big” shots. I think what distinguishes great photography from the rest is the level of commitment that the photographer brings to their subject because it’s the depth of that relationship that makes a great photograph, great, don’t you think? @Ed_McGuirk : Thanks as always, Ed, for your careful and considered analysis. As to the blown highlights. I often forget to check on that (and clipped shadows) but there is an easy way to deal with the problem, which I learned from David duChemin as an issue that comes up when printing. Personally, I’m not terribly concerned about blown highlights in a photograph like this in terms of viewing. But if I were to print it with blown highlights there would be areas of the photograph that would be bare paper. I don’t know if you’ve ever done a print where that’s happened but it looks like crap when everything has a slight gloss of ink except these bare spots. Anyway, the way I deal with it in Ps (although it can be done in Lr as well), as a final step before sending it back to Lr for printing is to create a stamp visible layer, convert that to a smart object and then open it in Camera Raw. Then I go to the “curve” module or (“tone curve” in Lr) and just nudge the upper right of the curve down a hair, and I mean, it need only be a hair, and voila all the clipping is gone with the image being affected in a way that is barely visible, if at all.
@Kerry_Gordon, yes, I absolutely agree with you. I do thinkg the “best” photos, ones that resonate with us, are ones with which the photographer has an intimate relationship. Munier’s photos resonate with us (well, I am assuming most of us) whether or not we know the back story. Which rather illustrates your point - his commitment and relationship to his subjects make for great photos. Knowing the backstory is just the icing on the cake.
Kerry - I just watched the video and was just blown away! I didn’t have time the day I commented and finally got a chance to watch it without being rushed. That video was just as powerful as Munier’s images! Thanks so much for including it!
