I photographed frost feathers for a long time found the results to be bland. So brainstormed and come up with a way to juice things up. Put lights behind subject and took an extreme close up

I just cannot get past the effect of colored stencils on a window during the Christmas holidays.Thats not to demean what the photographer has done but the end product is so artificial looking that any technical achievment becomes null and void.

 

As Marc G said,a B&W rendition would probably have more visual impact but only with a better crop.As is too much negative space with really not much to focus on and agree that this genre should be explored more but with emphasis on texture and design.

Congratulations on your third picture of the week! I believe that's a record? In case people are curious, these are Glen's other winners:

 

Week of March 26, 2001: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=179311

 

Week of June 02, 2002: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=179791

The first challenge of these frost-on-window images is to keep the background from being a distraction. The second is to frame the composition to avoid small distracting elements around the edges. A third problem is in getting a sharp jpeg.

Samuel Arnfjell has a nice image that shows the restrained use of color.

I share the same sentiments as some of you here, I'm not really impressed by this shot in terms of juxtaposition and colours.

Glen there are a number of reasons I like your post:

 

- The Nikon FE has always been one of favourites.

- Anyone who can make winter look beautiful has my admiration.

- You've actually put in some mental equity into this image, instead of just snapping the shot.

 

Nice shot.

I actually like the strong colors, and the original composition. My only complaint is that I wish the light were slightly more centered rather than so heavily concentrated on the right side. But in my opinion it still works.

In keeping with the elves' comment, it helps to know a little physics on window frost formation.

 

Frost crystals form on the warm side of a window when there's sufficient temperature difference and high relative humidity on the warm side. What usually prevents the entire pane from being covered in frost is due to natural thermal currents - cold boundary air against the glass falls, replaced by warmer air in the room, thus creating a low velocity convection current from the top-down. This is the reason why frost usually forms in the general shape it does where air flow is relatively stagnant.

 

The most interesting shapes from a photographer's point of view will usually be at the boundary where frost crystals terminate. That's where detail branches and fingers form, and of minimal thickness to scatter light in a way revealing its intricate details.

 

In this case, the author had as many options as in a forest (and about as easy) to make decisions on composition, lighting, and the usual battery of things photographers encounter, and that's if one only desired to make a straight shot. Scientists usually prefer macros no more than a millimeter across for its beauty and scientific value, but aesthetically, a well composed image can be any framing up to including the entire window.

 

If one wanted to get fancy, how about taking advantage of ones knowledge of frost crystal formation and play with temperature, boundary humidity and air currents? Add that, variables such as long exposure while changing parameters, layer merging, and you'll have enough work to keep you busy for the entire winter.

"Add that, variables such as long exposure while changing parameters, layer merging, and you'll have enough work to keep you busy for the entire winter. "

 

In the end, will the result be that much different than what's already posted? I mean, to me, the difference between what Glen posted, and those images posted in the thread, is not much. The worst picture of frost beside the best picture of frost, there's not enough difference to be excited about, at least in my small mind. 100 years ago, sure. I'd be wild with amazement, but frost hasn't changed that much since then, and neither has the technology to photograph it. Adding the colors, that was a great step, and a great idea, but beyond that...What ??

Doug, " . . . The worst picture of frost beside the best picture of frost, there's not enough difference to be excited about, . . ."

 

That could be the basis for a serious philosophical discussion. You won't be offended, I hope, if I use a closeup of a post on a dock in the snow as an example. I would expect my reaction to such a subject to be very much effected by composition, lighting, etc. Is the potential for transcendence much greater for the post compared to frost due to it's more human scale? . . or what? Help me out here.

You posted "I actually like the strong colors, and the original composition. My only complaint is that I wish the light were slightly more centered rather than so heavily concentrated on the right side. But in my opinion it still works."

 

What you said it 'it still works, but not well. That's a good start to being able to 'fix it', by deciding something does not work.

 

That is exactly why I cropped it too, and why cropping is around for us to take advantage of (except for the gentleman who never does- see war pic a few weeks ago). Take a look a little further up to see it without the "heavily concentrated on the right side" effect. I posted an alternative rendition for you to mull over. Let me know, thanks, MS

Wait! Are we not allowed to have philosophical discussions here?

 

Maybe what I should have said was "Frost aint my cup of tea," but I like the way Marc G's comment echoes in my ear, that this is more of a decorative image, which is not a dishonorable descriptionm, it's done quite well, the only problem that frost shots leave me emotionally cold. (hahaha. I made a funny)

 

Ok, imagine the frost had taken the form of, or bore a likeness to, I don't know, the State Flag of Wisconsin, or Nelson's defeat of the Spanish Armada, or the pyramids of Giza. That would be different, and supremely better, in my opinion. Otherwise, it's frost, with jazzy lights expertly applied. It deserves its high marks, I think, but I wouldn't know what to do with it if it came to my door gift wrapped.

 

It's pretty. It's not asking me to look into it. It's asking me to look at it.

The one posted by Carl with the "restrained use of color" looks kind of like a flight of very large mosquitos. I guess that makes it good. Or different.

Sounds like an awful lot of photographers out there are suffering from a bad case of sour grapes. Viewing this image is a lot like hearing a great song on the radio and thinking "I wish I had written that!" Well, I wish I'd have thought to take the same photograph. The same nay-sayers probably don't understand modern art, either and view Jackson Pollack's work as only paint drops. Bravo! Great image! Beautiful to view, and lots of fun, too. THANK YOU.

You miss the point, Geoff. Many of us are not saying that this should not have been PoW. Many of us simply do not particularly like the picture, for any and all of the reasons given above. That does not mean that the photo has failed to stimulate discussion, the prime criterion for its being selected as PoW.

 

One of the other frost pictures pointed to by Mary Ball would have been a much better choice, in my opinion, if one were choosing only from among frost pictures. As for other subjects, Glen has done some great work and no doubt earned a third PoW, but perhaps for a different picture, again in my personal opinion. I believe that his folder is loaded with pictures better than this one.

 

Having said that Glen has made better pictures, does that necessarily mean that this was a bad choice for PoW? No, not if one goes back to the original basis for selecting a photo as PoW: the selection does not mean that it is the best picture, rather, that it has the potential to stimulate dicussion.

 

If that was the intent of the elves, then they have succeeded admirably with this selection, since there have been many insightful comments offered. "Great image!" is not among those insightful criticisms. This is a critique forum, not a cheerleading contest.

 

Many of the persons you accuse of "sour grapes" are among the best photographers on the site, also past winners of the PoW. I am not among that august group, but I still enjoy the opportunity to participate in a meaningful critical discussion.

I am going to jump into this frozen quagmire all the way and take the position of Doug here Carl.Even though I do not know jack sh...frost about this I would say the human element does take transcedence over 'cutsey'images such as this.Visualizing a shot of snow on a dock(with proper light and composition)would stir up many more emotions that are meaningful and thought provoking..more than this POW that only screams'where did you get those colors?'

 

I struggle on a daily basis with my love for saturated colors and eye candy shots as opposed to more natural,well thought out compositions that are enduring.So often we are duped into the wow factor not only on images such as this, or even the previous POW, by superficial stimulation that is not unlike drug usage.When a truly good image comes tagging along with it's tail between it's legs we are left wanting more than we think it has to offer..all this in the true Pavlovion spirit.

well after seeing all the comments and I realise abstract images do garner a lot of negative comments but I think the idea is unique. I think I do have better examples of the same subject.It is not an easy subject to take. Scanning the window of frost feathers one has to find the translucent ones which are in the minority. The majority are grey and not worth photographing. The set up takes about 20 minutes step ladder plenty of duct tape duct tape electrical leads.The hoping that what you finally see has the necessary esthectics. Then once its all set up one has to work fast as your subject is melting in about 45-seconds max. The refracted light is awesome never seen anything so pretty in my life. every image is utterly unique and can never be repeated. This image was alsouniquein another way as you cannot see my floodlights perhaps thats why it was chosen. It was an old style window much thicker than the others. I have an old house which has lots of heat loss so I blessed in a strange way. There are no end of throways perhaps the keepers are about in the 5% range. Then you have to wait for the frost feathers again.most of time I am thinking or breathing photography its been this way for over 30 years. I am still passionate about seeing my results as I was with my first roll of film all those years ago. Thank you all for your comments and I just thank the good lord for his help over the years. May god bless you all if you have taken time to comment then you also love photography like me so we have something in common

I like the thought behind Michael's crop. I like the way the orginal shot 'breath's though. I think more lighting in the grey left side would have completed this fully for me. I really like this because it shows me the beauty in nature at a magnification I don't generally see. Nice image... Dave

Flowers, sunsets, things like that, carry too much of an emotional response to the subject itself that, in my opinion, hinders an appreciation for the photographic image of the subject. The baseline reaction to any picture of certain subjects is high to begin with due to the subject matter, not the photography of the subject matter. This subject matter is difficult, as Glen explained, and his result is exceptional when compared to other images of the same subject. It is certainly better than my best effort, let Geoff rest assured, and I obviously quit long before the spark of genius struck and prompted me to add color gels. My hat is off to Glen for that, in all humility.

 

However, is it better than an equally successful shot of a beautiful woman? An erupting volcano? A quarreling pair of eagles? A pepper? When measured against other genre's, this image, in my opinion, can't raise a high flag.

Michael Seewald - I saw your crop and agree that in a side-by-side comparison it is the stronger image. I just don't personally care for the squarer format, and I like the looseness of the original framing (with regards to the frost). I'd rather fix the darker left side of the photo by moving the light instead of cropping, but since it's too late for that, I think Glen still has a great photo. Just my preference for the 2:3 ratio I guess.

Glen, I would like to see this prior to resizing and upload. We all know what a mess those processes can make of some very fine photos. I am convinced that the genius is in the details in cases like this, and the detail is precisely what my monitor will not show me.

 

That said, my guess is that I would still prefer some of your other pictures, but I appreciate what you are trying to do here.

Has anyone read the childrens book, Snowflake Bentley?

He photographed snowflakes and ran into these same problems.

I love the way you solved yours, and I think it would have made a larger impact to the eye if we saw this image take up our whole screen. What a impact that would have made!

I always liked this picture Glen, congrats with your POW photo and discussion.

This picture stood out for me the first time I saw it, similarly to Dave Nitsche's reasons, it does bring you in close detail to the wonderful mystical nature of nature :) Your lighting endeavours certainly enhance the overall aesthetics for me, but I do agree with some of the compositional concerns. The trouble is there are little formation on both left and right side which do intrude on the frame. It's a shame as you surely couldn't wipe them off, and cropping either in cam or after would impinge on the edges of your chosen ice formations. Personally I like the crop offered up by Michael Seewald, and I also considered the square suggestion, which works on it's own level but with some heavy and to me too blunt cropping of the overall natural shapes.

What I like most about this image seems to be what most people have criticised, it does not intend to carry too much of a deep message. Hey we all have our preferences with photography, but even though I enjoy simple and pretty designs I still wouldn't call it eye candy, because this is a natural phenomenon and it is amazing, and you did get creative shooting it. Plus I just like looking at it, it makes me wonder if you could place the glass outside to form the ice, and bring it under the microscope for even more magnification!

.... I can't deny those that have mentioned jpeg artefacts, as they certainly do detract for web display. But it's few pics that make me think "Oooh, I would love to see this in LF print".... UV inks on archival art paper....Hahnemhule Photorag ;)

I read the Bentley book Sue is referring to. Or, I looked at the pictures, actually. I didn't read it. This guy Bentley spent his life photographing snowflakes, figuring out a way to catch them on an appropriate background, and keep them from melting long enough for an exposure using the technology of the day. During the summer I think he taught piano, or something. Anyway, strange enough, the pictures aren't that much different than this one, and they were taken about 80 to 100 years ago. The major difference is the color.

http://snowflakebentley.com/index.htm