jasper/banff -- june 2008 Peyto Lake Sunset

A slightly different view of this oft-photographed lake. All comments

and critiques are welcome. Thanks for viewing.

Thanks to Joseph Tury for his comment on the previous un-cropped image (a small 1/6 off the top) which helped me decide to crop and repost.

Compliments for your portfolio , me and my family we have visited the Canada , and there are in love of your town Toronto.

Roberto

 

Thank you Ciceri.

 

I love living in Toronto. It is a very easy community to call home as it function well as a city. The diversity of people and cultures here also makes it an interesting and always changing place.

I would love to hear your own thoughts on this. It strikes me as a very different side of you, more painterly, even graphic, than what I might expect. The fancifulness of the color, the boldness of the very solid reflection in the absolute turquoise water, the purple light on the mountain. The rainbow of light forming the sky adds to the imaginative quality of what you've presented. This, to me, is as much about presentation as it is about the scenery and that feels like a departure for you. Although it seems to grow out of the context of the color and astuteness of your recent (travel) works, it seems to go a step further into a land I've not seen you travel before. You must be very excited by it.

Fred, I've been mulling over your comments this past weekend quite a bit. I can certainly see what you are saying about this image being more about 'presentation than scenery'. It is more about my personal take on the scene than the scene itself. I might include the Athabasca Twilight shot (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7591441) in the same category -- it really could be a stream just about anywhere.

 

I must admit that this is largely by accident in this case. I was at this site at sunset when it is usually recommended for sunrise or mid-morning. I couldn't afford the time to come back and I hoped that a photo from the "wrong" time might stand out from the rest (this is an exceptionally frequently photographed view -- google "Peyto Lake" to find out). I have never seen a sunset photo from here and I have seen nearly a hundred photos of Peyto Lake (or maybe more).

 

So, I tried my best to get a handle on the extreme contrasts present in the scene. I took many frames before I had an acceptable combination of grad filters. It then took more work dodging and burning than I have ever done for a single image. The foreground was way too bright and the mid-valley was almost black.

 

I had taken a series of images to try and blend (I haven't had a chance to try that yet) -- either manually or if I learn to get good results from HDR Photomerge. I looked at the shots from that series that were exposed for the foreground and tried to recreate the sort of contrasts in them. The facing mountain seemed to be getting a fair bit of "fill light" from the reflections off of the lake and I tried to keep that. The rainbow in the sky was entirely present when I was standing on site. The grad filters just made it more pronounced by enriching the colours (by lowering the brightness) considerably.

 

So, much of what you see here is simply my attempt to make an almost untenable situation into a portfolio-worthy image. I really feel I succeeded and it seemed to be one of Rachel's favourites too when I showed her some early proofs when I met her and her family on their way to Montreal (P.S. did you get my last email to you? I wrote to you once I found your email to me in my junk filter).

 

--

 

So, I don't know really know what to make of your comment. I agree this is a bit of a departure from the rest of my travel images. And, I also feel it is probably a step in the right direction and I hope to continue down a path that includes more of me in my landscapes. I am excited by it.

 

But, it was largely unintentional. Or, at least, subconscious.

 

The only other thing I wonder about is your comment that it goes into an area: "I've not seen you travel before". I would argue that in my intimate landscapes I often have more of me than simply the subject in the final image as is the case here.

 

I can point to the surreality of my "Fallen" (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6316746&size=lg) or my take on the pitcher plants (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6533909) or my "Spiral" snail and rushes image. Those are perhaps the strongest examples. But, I rather felt my dead-wood images as whole had much of that quality.

 

In fact, that is what I was really struggling with doing these grand landscapes and what was frustrating me when we talked in SF. I kept wondering how I could bring what I knew and felt working with small-scale landscapes in Ontario (particularly in swamps and marshes) and apply it to mountains and broad sweeping scenes. In the small-scale landscape I know that I can change my camera angle, my position to the subject relative to the sun, my lens choice and framing and all have a strong impact on the feeling of the final image. Well, on the grand landscape all of those techniques are either impossible or much harder. I think that is why the object (usually flowers) in the foreground, mountain/vista in the background is such a well-worn framing device -- it allows you to put something of your perspective into the scene through the choice of foreground and its position/relationship with the background.

A good start towards understanding what I'm getting at is to read my response to Jeff, Pnina, and Donna on Ian-2. (It's towards the end of the comments, and you may have already read it.)

 

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7598522

 

We are used to responding to Fred's mysterious use of light and direct exploration of eye connection in order to feel that we have "come to know" his subjects. Now, we are being asked to also consider the backgrounds, colors, textures, accoutrements, and actual technique not just as storytelling but as part of the personality of the portrait itself. I get the feeling that some are not quite seeing it that way and are separating these latter considerations from what they see as the portrait. Why else would it be said that Ian's personality is receding into the shadows, therefore it's not about Ian? Why aren't the receding shadows very much about Ian? (It is, of course, possible that the author of the comment is trying to say that the shadow work and technique overwhelm Ian's character. I would disagree but have to consider that was the real meaning of the comment. Alternatively, the author might not feel it as overwhelming but simply doesn't see the humanity because of all that's going on.) Why, additionally, would my considering it a portrait be questioned?

 

In your "Fallen," the low perspective, the intimacy of your depth of field and shooting distance, giving such personality and "personalness" to the log's place in the "crater" are more akin to my prior (b/w) emphasis on lighting and how it directs itself to the eyes of my subjects. Your *technique* itself -- and my idea of "technique" will become more clear (I hope) as you read but has to do with more explicit manipulations -- doesn't seem as present or obvious in "Fallen" as it does in this photo.

 

Let me interject that some of the ideas I have are new for me and not necessarily honed or well formulated in my mind. It's stuff I am working with at present and some of it is hard to articulate.

 

All the examples of your more personal work are excellent examples and I agree with you that they exemplify your putting yourself in a more personal way into the "narrower" landscapes or nature images. I think you have done that, with the photos you mention, through your own relationship to these subjects, through how you approach them, think about them, capture them. Now, of course, for me to recognize that you have approached them personally means that you have presented them in such a way that I get it. Nevertheless, I don't feel they utilize or are about presentation or style in the same way that I think this photo is.

 

What strikes me about this photo is not only that your approach is different to other work (which it is, as regards your "wider" landscapes generally) but your *handling* of the photo seems different. I don't see as much "personality" in the *technique* itself regarding those other photos, even though they do have a lot of personality. I see it more here. Now, to the extent that exposure, dof, lighting, are aspects of technique, of course they all have that. But I'm talking more about your color control, the more graphic quality this photo has (because of the handling especially of the white but also in the purity of the colors you've used), the way you've hardened the mountains on the left vs. the more transparent approach to the ones on the right. (This latter may have been done more with filters than post-processing, I don't know, but it reads to me as a more purposeful and direct manipulation -- in the *good* sense of the word -- than I am used to seeing from you.) Things like technique, texture, color control, contrast are playing more of an overt role in the character of the landscape itself which, to me, gives it a personal touch while doing more justice to a vision of the landscape that is more meaningful than simply a "great capture." In so many photos, a more "manipulated" "technique" is superfluous to the actual content of the photo. It's as if, "I like this technique and I'll use it here, not because it speaks to the content of the photo but because I'm ready to use it right now and it'll look cool." When techniques harmonize with subject (a sort of symbiosis), I think great photos ensue. That is what I think is happening for you here.

 

I often use the term "graphic" as more of a criticism. That's because when people allow whites to get too white and blacks to be flat, not rich, and solid rather than having depth, they often do that unconsciously and neglectfully. The justifications of creativity come later, and I see those justifications of "artistry" merely as excuses not to learn their craft better. Here, it is clearly an intentional decision to have that almost storybook or fantastical quality to the stark white of the water and the colors as well and I think, because the rest of the image is so utterly photogenic, it works quite effectively as an artistic or personal statement. It is your technical stamp on the scene in a way which I don't think many of the others you've pointed to is.

 

By the way, "Fallen" remains one of my favorites. It truly is surreal in many aspects but it works for me because the surreal quality comes through a very real and very honestly photographic quality. It does not feel faked or constructed.

 

I am sending you an email where I briefly continue the critique. I will compare your "Fallen" photo quite favorably to another photo by someone else which I think is quite unsuccessful.

Thanks Fred, you have given me lots to think about and I will write a fuller response soon.

HI Ian

 

Wonderful dynamics of shape and form in this shot which I believe to be the best in this series. The lake forms a star like shape balancing very well with triangular mountain forms- turquiose and orange add to this making a powerful image!

Top Shot

Ferg

Thank you Ferg!

Probably the most beautiful area I've ever seen, and your set does it as much justice as is possible. One of the places that can't be improved through photography.

Thanks Tim.

 

Yeah, Banff and Jasper are just about as stunning as places come on this Earth.

Slight reworking with a mild contrast bump.