Lavaltrie

Good shot. Lighting is beautiful!

Perfect composition! For me the best aspect of the picture is the glare on the door and the consistence of the snow due to the backlighting. I like also the trees trough the railing, it is a picture by itself. Probably the brightness of the sun is excessive (is just my modest opinion), and I sould have reduced it with a filter. All the best. Salvatore.

This image has an interesting geometry. The effect of the darker lines and shapes is enhanced by the broad reflection at the left side. In all, there's an asymmetrical, abstract balance that "works".

The sun is unnatural. Its whiteness and intensity are at odds with its low position in the sky, with its mild and diffuse ground effects, and with the the sky's dimness and grayish color.

Such a fireball in such a position would likely create a brilliant, broad, straight white path of reflected light on the (snow-covered) ground, from the horizon directly to the eye of the viewer--just like the sun's reflection on a lake, or on the sea. Yet the earth's surface in this photo is reflecting only weak, hazy light--light dispersed evenly and gently throughout the foreground, as would be normal with a much, much redder and weaker sun. If the sun were actually this intense in a cloudless sky, one would expect the entire sky to be bright blue.

For all these reasons, when looking at this image, my first thought was "nuclear burst": i.e., an image meant to evoke early, above-ground nuclear bomb tests, perhaps? The swelling corona around the white-hot fireball in a dim sky adds to that visual association, as do the barrenness of the terrain and the simply constructed rails and steps of the building.

Anyway, an interesting image. It does NOT cause me to feel cold, however, or to think of winter at all. Instead it creates (in me) an uneasy feeling that something very unnatural, and very bad is being depicted here....what, and why?

 

i think there is nothing interesting in foreground and the sun in background seems unreal and overexposed , the only thing that looks good to me is reflections of light on the wall and the trees in background . i dont know why this chosen for PW !!!

i think there is nothing interesting in foreground and the sun in background seems unreal and overexposed , the only thing that looks good to me is reflections of light on the wall and the trees in background . i dont know why this chosen for PW !!!

i think there is nothing interesting in foreground and the sun in background seems unreal and overexposed , the only thing that looks good to me is reflections of light on the wall and the trees in background . i dont know why this chosen for PW !!!

In response to Ernest's comment; the sun does not reflect off of snow in the same way as it reflects from the surface of water. The surface of water is reflective like a mirror, the surface of snow is matte and absorbs and refracts light in a completely different fashion. Also, as can be seen closer to the horizon in this photo, the still air is filled with ice crystals which act somewhat like fog in respect to diffusing bright light. I find nothing unatural in the appearance of this scene.

The biggest positive this image has going for it is that hazy diffuse warm light and the effect it has on the distant tree line and the frozen lake. While not really being my cup of tea it certainly is the stuff of p.nut pow fancy.
I like the inclusion of the sun in the scene although I wish it was a bit less overbearing in the frame, a wider lens, a smaller f. stop, a split density filter.

Since this image seems a deliberate attempt to create a pretty picture in a fairly postcard cliche manner I have to evaluate it on that level and this is where it fails for me. The idea of a slightly oof foreground element to frame a nice landscape in the background as well as to add depth to the scene can produce that classic look particularly with such a nice background and this type of light. I see the foreground building and stairs less as a frame and more as an unwelcome intrusion. If a section of the rail had been used as a frame for the background scene it would have made a nice postcard. Even if less of the building and stairway had been placed in the frame it could have worked nicely as multiple frames for the background, introducing several strongly geometric elements. As stands, the foreground is too overbearing given its overall lack of aesthetic appeal. When I look at this photo I have a strong desire to take several paces to the right to achieve an unimpeded view.

There have been numerous comments to "tone down the sun". However, the sun being so radiant may be why this picture works. There is not strong subject/interest matter and the balance is off however the picture works as a study of contrast. A very cold landscape is illuminated by a very warm sun. Almost a 50% - 50% composition. Secondary support comes from the over-abundance of light versus the dark of the railings. All this contrast further pulled together in the wall of the building (obviously cold but reflecting warm colors). The combined effect is almost Rosicrucian in feeling and may be why the elves and us like it so much.
There is much more to this image than just the above however the argument is the sun, as presented, is a key element and should not be altered.

Gordon, here's an example of what I was referring to:

http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/media/30/ad_32870n.jpg

A brilliant sun, barely above the horizon (less than two sun-diameters above it, in the POW photo) would tend to create a strong reflection on a flat, snow-covered foreground, even though the reflection would not be mirror-like. It's the odd darkness of the sky, surrounding the localized brilliance of the sun and its corona, that made me think of this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6-IIXAF5HOE/SfQgATaWhgI/AAAAAAAAFdg/rHt_vq8bxzI/s1600-h/NukeTest.jpg

It is well executed and the foggy background is nice. I also do not mind too much the big bright sun.
I just find the foreground distracting and with no purpose. But this is a matter of taste.

Thanks again for all these constructive comments and discussion, I like all this feedback.
For the color tone I have look at the example from ernest and the sun is a lot higher in the sky then in mine. My photo was taken about 15 minutes after sun rise.
For the foreground that was distracting there was another photo in my portofolio that has only the background and that I prefer also, you can also see alll the ice crystals in the air since this was a very cold morning.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9044328

"Since this image seems a deliberate attempt to create a pretty picture in a fairly postcard cliche manner I have to evaluate it on that level...I see the foreground building and stairs less as a frame and more as an unwelcome intrusion. If a section of the rail had been used as a frame for the background scene it would have made a nice postcard."

It doesn't strike me that way. I think the geometry of the POW "works" not as a scenic postcard, but for the same reason that some of these do:

http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=mondrian&sa=N&start=18&ndsp=18

To me it is a balanced, ambiguous abstraction, one that is more than the sum of its parts. The viewer's eye is drawn to multiple suggested forms in the interior of the image, and almost involuntarily, the eye begins to complete them--only to be interrupted by the awareness of other, competing incomplete forms, which also "need" to be completed--and all of this happening within the context of an odd sense of overall harmony. My only quibble is with the excessive brightness of the orb of the sun--if its color temperature were simply lowered to match the rest of the image, I think the photo's impact and effectiveness would increase..

Ernst;

Thanks for those links they certainly help to illustrate your point. As Luc mentioned the sun is considerably higher in the sky in your example, without even getting into the fact that in your example the sun had to rise above a mountain to be in view. The air is also much drier in your example with a clear blue sky making for much stronger and more direct light. I understand and respect your view about this looking like a nuclear aftermath, it just does not strike me personally in that way. Having lived for many years on the shore of one of the worlds largest fresh water lakes at a latitude where it is frozen for a good part of the winter, I have seen every manner of reflected sun and snow and this perhaps is why Luc's photo does not strike me as unusual in that regard.

As for Mondrian; if the photo had been shot minus the building and from a different angle to utilized the geometry of the stairway as I suggestion in the sentence following the statement of mine which you quoted, I may have agreed with your reference, as stands I do not see much similarity. There was an opportunity to go for that type of geometric composition however unlike yourself I see it as an opportunity missed.

Luc;

Thanks for the link. I particularity like the way the trees appear to materialize from out of the mist. That sliver of lake at the bottom with its horizontal bands serves as a terrific anchor for the scene. Let me take the opportunity to say that you have a lot of lovely landscape images in your portfolio. Congrats on your fine work.

Gordon, Thanks for your perspective from a more wintry place. Different people see differently, for sure.

I feel that the building's solid, dark edges contribute to this image, by generating some of its many visual tensions: emptiness/solidity, cold/heat, darkness/light, near/far, vertical/horizontal/diagonal. The narrower lines and spatial forms of the railing help to frame and divide the whole composition, and help organize the various tensions in a way that seems both balanced and incomplete, calming and slightly disturbing (to me).

Technically, if I'm not mistaken the color temperature of the sun, 15 minutes after sunrise (in winter, in a northern latitude) is still very warm, its color still very reddish. I wasn't trying to say that the sky should be blue in this POW, in order to match the brightness of the sun; only that the sky WOULD be blue, if the sun were actually as bright as it appears in the POW. My intended point was simply that the sun seems unnaturally bright, given its location just above the horizon.

 

The colour of the sun shortly after sunrise in mid Sept. at the 45th parallel.

Ernst,

The colour of the sun shortly after sunrise in mid Sept. at the 45th parallel.

I tried to attach a linked image and the server gave me an error message and did a double post instead.
So I'll do it with words. Yes Ernest the sun would be quite warm and reddish near sunrise in winter at a northern latitude.

Great light,I really like the back railings my eye is drawn to it it looks a picture within the picture,great photo....

Gordon, that was my only point.

And once again, I think the color and brightness of the sun in this photo is simply a reflection (no pun intended) of an inherent weakness in today's digital sensors. Rashed brought it up in the very first POW posting; I agree with him and I do think that film would have produced a better rendition, something other than a bright, white orb. As for the other discussions on the color of the sky and comparisons with similar photographs, I think the differences are due largely to varying atmospheric conditions and focal length of the lens used.

Regardless, these are almost trivial comments relative to the composition that Luc has chosen and the interpretations and feelings that this composition may generate in different viewers. I probably would never have thought to include a portion of a building and stairs with pipe railings in a landscape shot of the sun close to the horizon with woods and a large, snow-covered field in the foreground. The sense of incompleteness mentioned above (sorry I can't get the name -- it's hard to flip back and avoid multiple postings) is interesting. For me, it's the stark contrast between the built environment of hard, angular materials and the natural environment of soft and varied forms. The fact that I have to look through the railing to see some of these natural elements makes the photo more compelling. The contrast alone is enough for me to appreciate this photo; others may choose to read more into the contrast, perhaps with a comment about development and the natural world. It's an interesting photo with many possibilities for interpretation (well beyond the discussion of technical aspects), and therefore it makes for a great selection as the POW. Congratulations to Luc.

Stephen, I agree with everything you just wrote. You've boiled it all down in an eloquent manner.

I'm warm...No, I'm cold. Whatever you may be from looking at this photo, it has an AFFECT on you! Very Good.

I especially like the lighting on the building and on the snow at the top of the steps. I also appreciate the way the texture of that snow is captured and the soft colors of the light in the foreground. As has already been noticed, the outline artifacts along the railings are severe. Those railings have no sense of roundness. They almost appear as graphically drawn straight lines, no depth, very two-dimensional elements.

I think the points Stephen is making about the juxtaposition of the building and staircase against the landscape is why the photo may have a strong initial impact for some viewers. It does make me stop and catches my eye.

That impact wears off quickly for me. Though the juxtaposition is strong, it doesn't keep revealing more and doesn't hold my imagination.

Picture of the week???