ICE MUSHROOM Iceberg in Greenland More photos in my Galery of my website

DM,

Congrats on the photo. One could almost be fooled into thinking it was some massive ice-berg. That translucent quality of water ice is well captured here.

 

Paul Greenwood,

You're on about pixelation. Even after viewing the large version - I don't see any of that. Are you mistaking water droplets on the centered mushroom shaped piece of ice for pixelation? Much like the condensation on a beer bottle. Other than the standard pixelation that comes with uploading images for the net - I don't find such massive pixelation you're on about. Not even on the large viewing size. However if you have downloaded the image and then zoomed in via Pshop. LOL - then yes you will get your pixelation.

 

Sorry - but didn't find the Wallmart image you were talking about.

 

Also having shot with the same lens (and yes, also... z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z- over two thousand images as well - z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z) I am also well aware of it qualities and I think the image shows that DM had some kind of idea how to use the lense.lol.

 

As for DOF on the mushroom piece of ice... you say it's lacking?!

It sharp front to back - as much as can be seen on an internet upload at the large viewing size. How do ya figure?

I can't see any pixelation either. The image looks technically excellent to me, though personally I'm not as bowled away by it as some - it's pretty, but not intriguing in any way.

Never see such a perfect shape!

Not pixelized either on my monitor... But... I'm a lot more interested in other comments I read in this thread, especially this one:

 

" I don't understand why people always have a problem with something being in the dead-centre."

 

My view... I don't have a problem with centralized images either. And yes "Sometimes it works - sometimes it doesn't - I think it does here." This is all agreed, but when I asked myself what a non-centralized square or panoramic format of such a subject would look like, although I can't see what's not included in the present framing, I thought the result would likely be better.

 

Reading further in Rich's comment...: "People that always follow 'rules' tend to make very boring and predictable photos."

 

This may or may not be true, depending for a large part on the subject's originality itself. An original subject with unusual and beautiful lighting will certainly not become boring because the composition is not centralized !

 

I'll say it once again after so many times on photo.net, rules are not meant to be broken, they are at best meant to be understood, and what matters is to capture the essence of the subject in the best possible manner. Here, sorry to go against the (supposed to be) "rules-breaking" (??!) centralized composition, but I'll say this: it works fine and adds PEACE to the image, or MAJESTY to some extent, and yet, I'd quickly get bored with such a composition after half an hour of viewing on my wall. WHY, that's a more interesting question...

 

Well, it is easily noticeable that the "mushroom" is a lot brighter than the rest of the image. Therefore, the emphasis is ALREADY on the mushroom, with or without centralization - due to the light. Centralizing the mushroom is in this case ADDING DOUBLE EMPHASIS on the main subject. I find it unnecessary, and I feel it "kills" the rest of the photograph. Emphasis on the main subject was imo overdone.

 

This being said, what I really like in this photo is that I can see details in the extreme highlights as well as the extreme shadows, and I suspect a print would be very spectacular in this sense.

 

All in all, this picture is great for a POW discussion, because it raises important questions about composition, and because it is a very nice photo in terms of colors, light and contrast. Subject is wonderfully original as well. Still, in terms of aesthetics, it's good, but not great imo - in terms of composition.

In German Romantic, there was a symbol for perfect beauty. It was callt the "blue flower". I think I finaly may have found it....

I'm with Marc G on this one. I agree that the subject is stunning but I also feel the composition is not that great. But perhaps it's not that easy to get access to try different angles for this type of shot?

 

It is a beatiful location and thanks to Dionys we can all witness it, but would I put this on my wall? No. Although technically good (apart from composition IMHO), this picture evokes no emotions in me. Is it a good POW? Sure.

Lovely image to see once.........after that? I think it has been picked because the subject is

unusual and the image

technically well done. Not inspirational to me just nice and move on.

All i am saying is....looking at this image in either small or large on the monitor theres an obvious texture...save it, zoom it just ONE time and you will see this "texture" is actually just pixelation with no bearing on the object at all. That is what i'm "on" about. And no it doesn't resemble a bottle of beer from here....What you are blindly willing to accept as "dropplets" is a rationalization for what you really know is going on, the shortcoming of "digital" itself to be able to resolve the complex reflections inherent in this object...yes i can hear the howls now BUT tell me why a D100 or other top end digital cannot even deal with reflections from a window?....take a close look at D100 shots of buildings...they are black. It comes down to a memory trade off i think. Add reflections to a computer game graphics and you better be having major memory to handle that...these cameras are currently 6 megs? Thats where the trade off took place.

 

Photography is the capturing of light. Light can ONLY be seen as a reflection. Here we have probably the most complex light refraction object on the planet and we are capturing it with a camera that can't even show reflection from a window glass????

 

As for the 20,000 zzzzzzzzz shots...just emphaphizing i know the lens capabilities..coupled with a D100 gives clear definition at a huge distance...this looks like 200 feet away...therefore the "wallmart version", meaning a very low rez posting...or a small crop out of a larger scene. Only DM could clarify this and congrats DM on POW.

> Add reflections to a computer game graphics and you better be

> having major memory to handle that...these cameras are currently

> 6 megs?

Paul, LOL... reflections screw up game graphics engines because they're difficult to _generate_ from scene data, NOT because they're any more difficult to record as an image.

I suspect the "black windows" you refer to are due to something completely unrelated to the digital sensor -- some sort of polarizer maybe, or the angle of the incident light?

It's foolish to draw any conclusions about pixelization in this

image, camera or digital photography in general from a downsized web image.

 

Personally, I find the mushroom iceberg image to be a great image.

"Add reflections to a computer game graphics and you better be having major memory to handle that..."

 

No, you'd better have the processing power (CPU and GPU) to render everything twice (or more). I'm not sure what you're going for with this.

This is a very interesting scene, but I would have liked to see different compositions and/or have seen something else in the picture to complete it.

 

I'm not sure I'd say following the "rules" and moving the iceberg out of the center of the photo would detract from the picture.

 

However, I feel that a lower/higher angle that could somehow show scale might have made this a much more incredible photo. Or perhaps catching a boat in the foreground (or a penguin or something if this is actually a small iceberg).

 

As it is, it seems like a purely abstract photo that is difficult to put into context.

Let me just add to my previous comment the fact that I have never seen an iceberg in person.

 

If this was my photo, that I had taken, I'm sure I'd look at the photo differently, as I would understand the setting and my questions would be answered.

Congratulations on a great photo and getting onto POW. The hardest part of POW is having your photo (and equipment)critiqued down to the finest detail.

 

I think the composition is nice (the centering works here), the texture is great, and there is nothing wrong with your gear. Of course it could have been better with a 100mp large format digital camera and a fixed 200mm lens with infinite DOF that we can all buy at walmart for $20... not!

What an incredible portfolio! So much light, so much shadow, earth, wind, water, fire, you made them all! Congratulation!

Just in regards to the pixelation. I did save it and zoom in on the image and i can see where all the comments about the droplets being pixelated has come from, but personally i don't think that's what it is.

 

If pixelation is a texture in it's self why can't these droplets just give the illution that it's pixelated (It is a texture after all)?

 

Just a thought

Alan,

 

The D100 closes shutters automatically so they won't have to be rendered. :-) "Shutter release" has a whole new meaning. Hehee...

 

As for pixelation-- I don't see it. The edges are sharp-- I would think that pixelation would be most apparent there. I also don't see any banding. Did we go through this sort of thing last week with the boat/silt picture, too?

Wonderful photograph, simply, I love the whole idea of it, the color we see is nothing but beautiful, the blue tone here is so great

 

You've done an awesome job here, you sure deserve the feature

If the pixelization in the POW is as bad as your putting forth it'd be most apparent in the contrasty edges. But it ain't there. The main texture you see on the central 'ice mushroom' is condensated water - if you consider the enviroment/subject it's pretty simple highschool physics really.

Nice work! To me, it appears as a small piece of ice sitting in an ice cave.... but that's just my eye....

 

The picture gives me a sense of loneliness, yet appears peaceful, like its happy in its solitude.

 

- @k

The rule was made by artists that noticed some things worked and some things did not, like putting the center of interest in the middle makes it static. This image suffers from trying to break the rule and not succeeding, as all will. The comment 'it works for me' does not mean its good art; it means you looked at it for 1.9 seconds and like some things just like I and most did.

 

By cropping you look at it 2.9 seconds, which makes it 100% more successful at holding the eye. Crop one side or the other and get negative space working for you (I?d personally crop the left and get the nice repeating lines working for me on the right side- it?s cleaner over there too).

 

Nice range of blues and greens. Just needs that little improvement, crop wise. I like the complimentary color/border too.

Blessings, MS

I like this photo. I would have composed it slightly different, but as it stands it's a very nice image.

 

It's pretty obvious some of you guys are really trying hard to put digital down. Stop it, don't do that. Trust me that digital can capture a scene with reflections just like film. And when you upsize any image, it's going to show pixels. Try and appreciate an image for it's emotional reaction, etc, instead of looking at how it was made. Is it little wonder we see so many people that no longer put any comments of data on their photos these days.

The centered image works - it grabs your attention, but doesn't keep you from exploring the rest of the image. IMO, any attempt to crop, reframe or change position left or right to put the subject off-center would have been paying too much attention to subject and not enough to the entire image. The darker "snaking" form immediately to the right of the "mushroom" due to the nearly parallel line in the background ice makes for a brilliant composition ! Looking at that shape, I started to see a dancer, then I could almost make out a scary face right about where you'd normally put your subject in the upper right "thirds" crossing ... ignoring that, the curving forms in the background ice are what make this picture, and I can't see any way in which it could have been better composed simply for the sake of subject placement. If the composition doesn't work for you, that's one thing ... but I'm inclined to believe there may not have been a stronger composition available.

 

- Dennis

The best way to test your theory is to check out the images in the rest of Dionys' singles folder. Although I find may of them are well lit with attractive subjects, I see a clear tendency to put the point of interest in the center of the frame. Some work, but most aren't nearly as effective as I imagine an alternative framing would be (this being different from cropping).

 

I agree that some of the background detail of this POW, especially on the right, adds interest, but it should be clear that the symmetry of this composition keeps reflecting your attention back to the center rather than having the subject share the frame with a couple other areas of interest.

I would have been interested to see what a vertical composition (off center) would have looked like. Without revisitng all of the comments made so far, this arrangement just doesn't grab me... and I do like ice/snow photos.

 

The "desert in Egypt" photo in the portfolio jumped right out.