After the Blizzard

This beautiful photo is at a first glance very simple with an almost minimalistic composition.

The main subject of the scene, the big naked tree in the foreground is presented to us by the

line of the smaller trees, which brings perspective and depth to the scene, and the horizontal

line of the fence in the background. The result is a scene frozen in time and movements. To

that is of course added a prefect treated of the dominant white of the snow.

 

Congratulation to Aaron for this highly deserved POW.

I like the liner perspective this photo offers with the small tree in the backgrown fadeing in the distance.Also the treeline near the horision cutting across at an angle also the two lines of fence post travling from large to small dissapring at an angle.I see everything in this photo black blacks and white whites and some mid grays.I like the lens choice, the camera angle,rule of thirds w/beautiful contrast.Everything fell in place for this sene.Good job on this one Aaron

A most thoughtful composition. As others have pointed out, the anchor subject in the front seemingly echoed in the successive trees is very well brought off. As a B&W, the contrasts are beautifully executed. The highlight at the upper right is a little distracting.

... oops , meant upper left!

It is subtle and aesthetic motive with poetic theme. The trees are perfect and they seems to me like a ballet dancers in their graceful shapes. Subtle silver background of winter period points out that rather melodramatic trees. This is all strength.

The weak part for me is that the trees looks like a graph. The bright shadow in the upper left corner is disturbing a little bit.

This is a wonderful picture!

 

I like the "graphism", the snow on the trees, like a drawing... the tone...

Thank you for sharing with us...

Congratulations Aaron for receiving this POW. As my denizen of the North country its

encouraging to see you grow abundantly through your photography over the course of

Photo.net, a new website created, and great landscapes under your tender aged belt.

 

 

John Ruskin on "BEAUTY"..........

In all things that live there are certain irregularities, and deficiencies which are not only

signs of life, but sources of beauty. No human face is exactly the same in its lines on each

side, no leaf perfect in its lobes, no branch in its symmetry.

 

This photograph gives much beauty revealing stark elements always at hand throughout

our chilly but essential Canadian winters.

 

Regards

 

Tye

i like how the snow goes up on the tree... like if someone put it there :D And i like it that it looks very... natural... no things added or something...

I think it's interesting how some, myself included, are noticing the bright upper left corner as a distracting feature. Wasn't that the way the light was at the time of the shooting? Why, then, should we be upset? Shouldn't we be satisfied to know that what is presented here is an accurate representation of what the photographer encountered?

 

Knowing, and accepting that it's the sun makes the picture into something quite different than if it had been burned down to match the rest of the sky. One version is more accurate, and breathes with more lively emotion, while a darker version entices the viewer to melancholy. Which is right?

 

Neither is "right", of course. One is clearly more true, but is it required that a photographer make a true representation of what he, or she, encounters? Of course not, but why stop at darkening the sky. Why not add a few Photoshopped, or darkroom extras? Textures, tones, buildings, birds, you name it. If it's not going to be 100% true, then how far can, (or should) a photographic artist take an image before it becomes more than what it was? (Or less than what it was, as the case may be...)

 

It looks as though Aaron had accuracy in mind as he prepared this image for viewing. But what if he hadn't? What if he darkened the sky to essentially remove the sun? (We would never have known, would we?) Suppose also that he went a step further, for example, and added a few bird silhouettes (either digitally, or by double printing, the technique is not what matters)?

 

My contention is that few here would object to making the sky darker, a clear departure from reality, yet I suspect many would be opposed, some strongly so, to more creative alterations.

 

What's the difference?

Doug makes a good point about the bright sky to the upper left, that of realism. Of course, Aaron could have selected an angle in which the brightness of the sky would have been more uniform (say, shooting from the east), at the expense of the windblown snow on the north sides of the trees. For me, the highlight at the upper left helps guide my eye along the diagonal from upper left to lower right. Of course, the trees do that, too, by their configuration. But I think a gradient of tone in the sky is very helpful for this image.

"But I think a gradient of tone in the sky is very helpful for this image." Precisely my thoughts, Erik. I'll speak to Doug's comments, when I have more time; I'm just stepping out to get some work framed...

Beautiful and poetic image Aaron. Looks like etching. The poesy of trees, naked in space of the winter atmospher , waiting for the spring....A lonely surrounding

 

I do think that the upper L bright blured corner is a bit of a sitraction, but otherwise, a very nice image. Congratulations.

So the presence of the sun's influence is in question?

I suggest reading Matters of Light and Depth, to gain appreciation for the concept of "motivated" light...

An argument in favor of reducing the effect of the sun on the tonal range of the sky and the "uneven' effect it creates, might be extended to those uneven shadows that define every aspect of this scene.

Why not entirely replace the sky with a completely even gradient?... go ahead and render the scene completely sterile. And hang some silicon enhanced breasts on that tree, as well... it looks a little too "twiggy".

I would not consider such alterations "creative" no matter what techniques produced them. Getting out after the blizzard, standing in the snow to frame this image and making the proper exposure is creativity. Burning down the sky to a uniform (boring) grey would be contrary to this excellent creative effort... t

In case it's not clear: I'm not questioning the print, nor Aaron's decision to leave the corner bright. Rather, I'm questioning our approach to it. How often are we too quick to judge a print based on the rules we've been taught from our earliest photographic experiences. A darker corner, in my opinion, would be more satisfying to the eye because the energy of the composition would be more contained. It would also fit our notions of what a good print is. The way it's presented raises questions, and leaves the eye wanting. Some find that uncomfortable.

Maybe it's not immediately apparent that it is the sun? Like Doug said, people are used to seeing pinched corners, I'm a pracitioner of it myself, but let's go in the oppposite direction and ask, what if I had included the whole spot? We would know it immediately as the sun, but given the range of tones (or lack thereof) in the rest of the shot, a big bright spot would be even more of a stumbling block. No sun, I think, would kill what little life there is in the shot. I'm all for stark, but man, that would be really flat and possibly too uniform.

"If it's not going to be 100% true, then how far can, (or should) a photographic artist take an image before it becomes more than what it was? (Or less than what it was, as the case may be...)"

My answer is: as far as he or she sees fit, so long as technique doesn't get in the way of appreciation. Even James Nachtwey, whose prime concern is real states of affairs, carefully edits his images for maximum aesthetic impact for gallery shows.

Am I above burning the sun? No, not at all. I make my aesthetic choices based on the shot, not adhering solely to the world outside. This is B+W film after all. But, going further, as Doug suggested, is that a no, no? I think a lot of this hinges on the seamlessness of the technique. If I had the ability to insert a snowy owl taking off from the tree such that there was no way to tell it wasn't infact there, I might just do it. Therein lies the rub. Few photographers are that good, and when it's spotted, the viewer feels cheated (unless the rest of the image is edited+altered to such a high degree it becomes graphic art). A dark sky is pretty seamless to create, even via film. Who's to say it wasn't dark, there is only a negative left - how do you interperet a negative? If I went overboard in darkening the corners, viewers might feel the same way as seeing some pasted in silhouettes.

So, what's the difference? Tom Ang distinguishes between "pixel processing," and image manipulation. The former, he suggests, involves improvement of existing content, while the latter stresses change. "Pixel processing" favors preservation and enhancement, while the other "exploits invention and elaboration. One aims at reserve in action, the other is not afraid of being booringly in-your-face" (Photoshop for Photography," London, 2003, p.10.). One test is that a statement about the subject matter of the image remains unchanged after "pixel processing," whereas it may not be ture in subsequent image manipulation. "'Pixel processing' changes certain qualities of the image - contrast, local and global brightness, sharpness, etc., while leaving its content - what it shows or what it appears to refer to - largely unchanged" (ibid., p10).

Excellent. I concur 100%.

"so long as technique doesn't get in the way of appreciation"... I share this view and have since I gained respect for the photo processes. When technique is the most prominent component of a photograph, I find my attention span severely diminished.

I prefer techniques that support the image over those that define it... t

Elegant and tasteful as a pencil drawing.

besides being technically excellent, the composition is arresting in its simple aesthetic beauty. is that the sun peeking from top-left?

At first glance, it would seemed like the picture is a combination of pencil and paper, awesome it's real. Nice technique. Excellent!

Fabulous....it makes me feel cold!