Walking along the side of the lower part of this Icelandic glacier, every so often there would be an area where melt had created a nice overhang. Sunlight, penetrating the ice above and reflecting off the rocks to the side of the glacier, would create these dreamy chambers of blue, miniature versions of the winter ice caves that draw photographers from far and wide. The undulating texture of the overhang; embedded silts of black, brown, red, and orange; air bubbles; and small lines of water droplets add quite a bit of texture to the scene. Several parallel drip lines, blurred over the 2.5 second exposure add a vertical dimension of texture and light to the image, too.
Many years of graduate school, extended periods of cold, wet fieldwork, and a lot of hard work mapping and analyzing and writing have been the price to pay for the glacier research I get to do. Getting to bathe in this luminescent blue is one of the reasons I have stuck at it.
Specific Feedback Requested
As with almost all of my images at this point, I feel like it’s almost but not quite technically there. The slow downward tug of gravity of the water droplets renders them less than tack sharp, and some areas of top area of the image also look soft due to having insufficient depth of field (f/14). Are these issues too distracting?
I also appreciate any feedback on post-processing. I try to keep a relatively light hand, but am always concerned I go to far.
Technical Details
Is this a composite: No
Sony a7r III, Tamron 70-180 mm 2.8 at 95 mm; ISO 400, 2.5 seconds at f/14.
Initial processing on Topaz Sharpen AI (moderate to reduce out-of-focus blur); modest tonal adjustment in LR with +10 vibrance and +5 saturation. Contrast and dodge/burn adjustments in PS to enhance distinctiveness of each ice layer.
To my eye this is a very nice semi-abstract image. On my screen I am not seeing the less than tack sharp droplets or soft areas of the image. Perhaps it might be more noticeable in a large print, but even then I’m not sure this image demands tack sharpness throughout.
I have been looking at this image and the thing is that it doesn’t look like a glacier. I feel like I’m looking at rocks under water. I don’t sense that light is passing through the blue but rather being reflected off the blue.
To be fair, @Igor_Doncov, the ice looks so blue because the shorter blue wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum are reflected while the longer reds are absorbed, so you are right about there being a reflection component to that color, and the farther back you go into that overhang, the more the blue is derived from reflection of light from adjacent surfaces than from transmission through the ice above. Sorry for the nerd moment, there, but your comment made me realize that my initial explanation wasn’t exactly right. Furthermore, in a way, you are looking at rocks under water, just a vertical cross section of water frozen in place, with lots of very tiny rocks embedded in it. And, well, technically ice is a rock in and of itself. Sorry, sorry! I’ll stop. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the image.
Ever hear of JIRP? I got my son into their summer program when he was in high school. I thought it might pique his interest in glaciology. He came back with a ton of amazing images. Made friends for life.
JIRP? Of course. Excellent program. In fact, I was just discussing this with one of my research students and trying to encourage her to apply for 2022. I also have a secret wish to be a guest instructor in that program at some point. But, I’m sure that list of JIRP wannabes is already long and much more distinguished than me. Fantastic that your son was able to have that experience.
I think that this is a very unique and mesmerizing image, Jeff. I would not have know this was a glacier without your explanation. I thought I might be viewing some rocks underwater. I could see backing off the cyan just a touch, but I wasn’t there and this may have been the actual color. BTW, the pano format works nicely here.
