In case you are starting to wonder where black spruce actually live, this photograph will hopefully give you a better idea. We arrived at this site about three weeks into our canoe trip. The previous four days paddling wound through thousands of hectares of forest burn. This spot (actually a portage) is a bit deceiving. Along the creek bed and straight ahead it appeared that we’d finally come to the end of the burn. But moving left and right from the creek bed and up the low cliffs on either side, everything was burned. I have other pictures of what the forest is like after a burn like this. The trees are all standing. But the trunks are black and there is no foliage whatsoever except on the forest floor, which by this time (probably two or three years after the burn) had plenty of low plants, flowers and very young trees competing for the light. Quite eerie. That being said, we loved this spot and after so many days of paddling, decided to stay over for three nights. This is one of many pictures I took there.
I wanted this picture to show the rugged drama of this northern wilderness – a kind of black and white version akin to the romantic vision of the Hudson River School. What I love about black and white is the way in which you can push the contrast for added drama and not worry so much about whether it looks “natural”. I mean, most of us don’t see in black and white to start with. But here, I wonder, have I gone too far or, perhaps, not far enough? I also went back and forth with the aspect ratio. Originally it was going to be 4:5 but in the end I settled on 8.5:11 to get a bit more that sky in. A little off the top, or does this ratio work for you? Your feedback on these questions and others are always most welcome.
I too have come to appreciate higher contrast B&W images Kerry, for the same reason. I think it gives us a lot more artistic license.
This is beautiful…there is a kind of silvery look to me that is appealing. So I don’t think you’ve gone too far. It might be fun to push the blacks even more for even more contrast, just to see how you like it. I think I might like it too!
The amount of sky works for me. The top-most clouds are dark so they provide a boundary to keep my eye in the frame.
What a nice scene to come across!
Really nice scene, Kerry. I like it as is, I can’t see a crop improving it. You could even make the contrast a bit more dramatic, but it works very well as presented. In B&W, it is hard to tell it is a burn area. This one works for me.
I am totally intrigued by this scene. The amount of sky is just fine. The clarity of the clouds just above the horizon takes my eyes there as a vanishing point. The ghostly trees in middle tones have a blend of strength, tiredness, and death. Wow - no soil … these trees live in post-glacial rock?
The center sky has a hot spot that could be toned down. Personally, I would like to see a bit more of the trunk of the tree on the right edge.
Nicely composed, Kerry. The b&w definitely provides a lonely, desolate mood to the image. Wouldn’t mind seeing a color version either. In the large version the foreground stone looks a little soft.
It is interesting to see the wider view of the ecology of this place. The topsoil here looks very thin, these black spruce look like they are more or less growing out of the rocks. I think fire-blackened trees can often make for very interesting, graphic subjects, it has worked well for you here. I have had a lot of fun working with burnt trees in places like Yellowstone and Glacier NP. I think the aspect ratio works fine BTW. I also like how you have the distant ridge in the gap, beyond what I assume are an unseen rapids or waterfall. The foreground rock is also a very effective anchor to the scene.
I could see adding some more contrast in the rocks and water. But I would not do it in the spruce trees, in order to maintain more detail there. I could also see darkening the darker tones in the clouds, to add some sculpting to the sky.
@Ed_McGuirk, @Harley_Goldman had suggested I might give it a little boost so I gave it a try. It’s only a bit. I think it improves the image. Far enough? I’ve posted it above for comparison.
I like what you have done with the rework.
I like the rework with a bit more punch in the rocks. A 4:5 crop would work for me, as it’s really about the trees and the rocks. It’s interesting that the trees still have their needles and that they weren’t burnt off. At any rate, this stopped me in my scrolling tracks - it’s lovely.
The rework works for me.
The biggest issue this image has for me is the lack of tonal separation between the river and the surrounding rocks with the bright lichen on it. Some of the trees on the right side as well as the foreground rocks could use some dodging and burning to help give them shape or make some of the foliage separate out. Something like below is what I had in mind, although I’m somewhat hesitant to push my own view of the landscape on your image.
@Michael_Schertzberg Thanks for this, Michael. I did struggle to make a distinction between the lichen covered rocks and the water. The colour version makes that distinction by virtue of colour (although I don’t much care for it otherwise). So, I did go back and try to bring down the brightness on the rocks more and up it in the water. I think it is an improvement. I also added a touch more variation in the trees but not too much.
Wow, this is really good. You were talking a few months bad about the elusive something that images with a soul have. This has that. It’s hard to say what it is. It’s recognizing a feature that is the essence of a place. It may seem ordinary but for someone who knows the place, he immediately feels a warmth to it. Needless to say I like this very much.
@Igor_Doncov. So very kind of you to say. We’re always going for soulful, my friend, but so rarely hit the mark.