Black Mount, Pink Dawn

Brian Well done. I usually enjoy the POW discussions from the sidelines, however as a landscaper, who loves the moors of Scotland, I have to comment. Regarding the foregound/background issue, there is no doubt that the best way to get depth into a wide vista lanscape is to include strong foreground interest. I especially like the inclusiion of the ice as it fills a space that would have otherwise been too dark had it not been there. It also adds a nice balance from the darker mid ground to the mountain behind. The tree is superb, and it's this classic silhouette that draws your eye backward. The two dark rocks in the mid ground also moves your eyes backward.

 

And for any of you who are thinking this colour is hammed up, think again. The third picture I uploaded to photo.net 3 or 4 years back is a shot from rannoch moor, probably very close to where this was shot (right Brian?) and the colours are almost identical.

 

http://www.michaeljamesbrown.com/brisexhib/rannoch.htm

 

 

Anyway, I agree with Marc on this one. A classic landscape photograph. Well done elves on this one, and well done Brian for barving the cold....

Congratulations Brian on what I think is a well deserved POW. Having had my attention drawn to this image a second time now, I think I like it even more than when I first saw it recently, and in fact more than most images I've seen for a quite a while. The composition just couldn't be better in my view. The beauty in both form and colour that is pervasive throughout the entire image is wonderfully balanced. Although it has been suggested that the scene should have been divided into more than one image, I strongly disagree and think htat this a fine example of the whole being much more than the sum of the parts. As far as the light goes, it doesn't get much better than this either and I suspect that some of the comments from those suggesting the colours look unnatural might be the result of being unaccustomed to being out when the light really does its magic. I also for the life of me can't see how anyone could complain about your technical approach here, the choice of GND is spot on and thoroughly unobtrusive. As far as the elves question: "What would you consider to do, if you attempted to take a better picture of the same subject matter?", the only thing I would change is to shoot it on a bigger piece of film so I could print it larger!

LOVE the tritone version a couple crits above. Don't like the color at all. The sky looks like it doesn't belong. There is no depth to it what so ever. My eye does go right to the tree for sure. Not a good thing, or a bid thing. Just a thing. I remember reading an article by Fitzharris in Pop Phot "10 things to do when shooting a lanscape" or some such title. This follows it well. It think a little better foreground element would help.

It's only logical, but I still find it strange, how different people have different tastes. \\\

 

 

*Richard Van said*

|"I think I like it even more than when I first saw it"|---

The opposite is true for me. I find that the more I look at it the less I like it. I'm positive it has to do with the overall bluish cast and the "lackluster lighting", because, I do like the composition. Since the photographer is very receptive of other people's manipulation of this scene I took the liberty of posting a tweaked version. I can only hope that what I see on my screen is what you will see on yours.\\\

 

 

*marc G. said*

|"There is no rule saying that a picture should have only ONE point of interest; at most, there would be a rule of "unity" and a rule of "focus", which, combined, suggest that an image should have only one leader ("point of focus" of our attention), and that all parts of the image should "gel together well"|---

I think you've said this better then I ever could marc. I was actually going to make a comment about this but you beat me to it. I will add that cutting the picture in half would still be a good idea but imo only the lower half would be useable; the remanding background is just to plain to stand on its own. \\\

 

 

I too like Robert's B/W conversion above. However, I still feel he is trying to remain faithful to the subdued lighting in the original which I think is too muddled to begin with. It has to do with the fact that I'm a big fan of high contrast photography, so keep that in mind. I guess an A.A. deep, dark sky would make it much better.

Wow. The purpose of photo.net is to inspire the rest of us, especially those not as talented, and this keeps me striving for great pictures. I at first thought there was no way the light was like that, but the more I look the more I realize it probably was just like that. There is a good composition lesson here too. I was wondering, if I had seen this, would I have thought to shoot it. I am encouraged to realize I would. Just need to be in the right place etc.

Well, I must say I am enjoying the debate and appreciate all your interest. Not sure what to make of it all though! There seems to be no real concensus of opinion - for every view there seems to be an oposing one:love the colours, hate the colours, make it into 2 images, leave it as it is, etc., etc. Still, life would be dull if we all had similar tastes.

 

To help me with some of the comments I have been looking at the portfolios of all the above participants (at least those of you who have posted images on this site) and it is very interesting to see how many of your comments are reflected in your own photographic styles.

 

Just a couple of points, the shot was taken before dawn so naturally the lighting is a little flat ("lacklustre"). IMO this is compensated for by the colour which I continue to like. As one post alluded to, if you experience light this good you can leave the colours to nature. Looking at internet photography sites in general, I think some people have become too accustomed to overdoing the saturation and contrast in PS, and expect everyone else to do the same. I have been as guilty as anyone but am trying to be (a bit) more subtle.

 

There is no blue cast! If you see one you need to check your monitor. I have the original transparency plus 3 prints and can therefore vouch for this.

I make no apologies for using ND grads and WA lenses. These are tools of the trade for landscape photographers.

 

Thanks again everyone for your constructive criticisms. Look forward to reading some more.

Two phrases DON'T come to mind when looking at this image and they are "Lacklustre Lighting" and "Plain Background". In response to the elves question what would you do differently, given that I only have a pan camera, I would be forced to leave out the ice foreground if I wanted to have the mountain in it. So here is what I would have done if I were in the same place, and if the subject matter is considered to be plain with lacklustre light, then I have a very different opinion to that of the previous poster.

As usual, I am guilty of trying to remold someone else's shot into my own vision, but I guess that's how we learn from each other, by noting the methods we each would have used given the same circumstances.

 

Although I'm sure I would have wanted to shoot this as two images, as shown, I can feel the wonderful complexity of keeping them in one compostion, and I think it works, quite well in fact.

 

As a single image, and as Isidro pointed out, the top part is indeed a little on the bland side, saved only by the tree. The bottom part works well enough for me all by itself. Adding the sum of the top by itself, and the sum of the bottom by itself, might not be the same as the sum of them both within the same frame, so I'll sit on the fence with regard to the one shot/two shots debate.

 

Regarding the color, well, along with Dave N, the color is not as impressive to me as the elements of composition, and their tonal values, so I would opt for monochrome.

Brian, my only quibble with this shot is something that probably couldn't be helped, and that's the two protruting elements on the left side.

 

Some people seem to be confused about grad filters. They're used to compress the contrast range so it will fit on the film. Yes, they can be overused to the point where the FG and background light don't work together, but that's not the case here.

 

I don't think the role of the grasses in the middle have gotten their due. For me, they're the most interesting part of the image and therefore serve as more of link between FG and BG than would otherwise be the case.

Good job Doug of showing why, even though it could have been two shots, it does not have the impact of both combined. I scrolled the photo up and down to start with and checked it out yesterday noting this to myself but did not want to hassle with showing everyone that fact. Thanks again.

 

My concern has been the middle ground since day one. There is too much of it, and would have been shrunk to start had Brian squatted, or lowered his tripod a little more, when he created it. I think the foreground is very interesting, but don't think the completed roundness is so necessary. The reason is is that it won't let the eye wander easily through the rest of the image. (This thought will not register or be understood with many people here). It?s like a whirlpool dragging or eye down!

 

Brian, I too noticed it was a bit blue too, as mentioned by Isidro Acevedo. Because there are many colors involved in color photography, it's not too obvious to people who have not printed their own color. If you take the color correction sliders in PS you would see that sliding the blue to yellow the blue 'cast' changes quite a bit, and can be completely eliminated. One just has to decide how much one likes of it.

 

The right side is running down hill by a dash, and that bothers me as I know oceans and lakes don't run downhill, at least not any of the thousands I have ever seen and worked. I always crop them to get them level. We all make mistakes in this department once in a while, thank God He invented cropping (or at least let us).

 

I have (in my absolute beginner stage) tried to show how the image would look if it were straightened, color corrected, cropped and center area reduced in Photoshop. It was a good exercise as I had no idea how to take the center out, and then how to blend it to make it look natural, but I did my best and I must say for a novice it's not bad.

 

The 'place of focus', by the way, is actually called the 'center of interest' folks. You can have more than one in a photo, but it's best to have one overall stronger one so the eye can 'rest' on it. It's also nice for the eye not to get 'locked' onto one certain part of the image, due to excess heaviness, bright spots, tensions points, etc., or the viewer will quit looking at it pronto. That's what cropping is all about, trying to balance all of the elements so the eye flows comfortable inside of image.

 

Blessings.

Doug, thanks again for your input. Having looked at the two "halves" of the original I think they are OK, period. The question in my mind is, would either have made POW? I guess not. I know there will be other criteria to consider but the bottom line is they don't do a lot for me, which is perhaps why I didn't make the two images at the time. I may have been influenced by the fact that I already have many shots of the background in a variety of conditions, some of which I have posted on this site so the idea of the icy foreground appealed to me.

 

Carl,you have made a fair point about the intrusive elements on the left. I think the nearer one is a particular distraction. I suppose I could clone it out. I guess I won't recognise this image by the time I incorporate all the proposed changes!

The difference may not be noticeable unless I post both together, so I will try.

My first reaction was similar to those who mentioned splitting into two images, but now that I've seen different versions, I've decided it should remain as a whole (and uncropped... or just barely) The color does bother me a bit (and not that it doesn't look realistic... just something about it doesn't work with this specific shot) Honestly, I love the "tritone" version. Not sure how this was done, but it really worked for me! It brings out the best qualities of your image (by the way, it is a very fascinating image with plenty of detail to keep me looking, and the slight confusion between the forground and background actually work in this case)

I am curious to know what Brian means by his statement, ''To counteract this I adjusted the perspective of the bottom half of the image in Photoshop which accounts for the somewhat squarer format than the usual 3:2 in 35mm.''

The photograph as presented is not perfectly square which makes it a bit disturbing to look at and makes me wonder if it was scaled (stretched) horizontally. I think there are too many competing elements that do not really belong in the composition including that rather uninspiring tree which looks like something that might sprout in a landfill.

This photograph leaves me with the impression of a worked over, artificial environment instead of a pristine wilderness. It is reminiscent of a construction site in winter, where a thin covering of water and snow can almost let you imagine what it was like before someone came along and decided to improve it.

As previously mentioned, we are left to wonder if this should be one composition with multiple subjects or multiple photographs with single subjects. My answer would be to create a single composition that is based on a strong primary subject (foreground) placed in the context of the surrounding environment (background). I would do this through the use of selective depth of field. I don?t think front to back sharp focus is required as long as there is a dominant and engaging subject in the foreground. I think this usually works better in vertically formatted compositions. A good example would be the work of David Muench, who is one of the original masters of landscapes using near to far perspective with wide angle lenses. It has now become a very common technique.

To Carl Root,

 

"...Some people seem to be confused about grad filters...they can be overused to the point where the FG and background light don't work together, but that's not the case here."

 

I agree; my comments was about a jenre I tried to describe, but apparently I was not clear, my mistake. What I am referring to is this: when the graduated filtration goes beyond bringing the contrast to levels recordable by the medium, and starts 'fires in the skies' in mid-afternoon or mid-morning light, the whole thing starts falling apart.

Its a lovely photograph undoubtedly, but the ice in the front somehow bothers me. This is not a criticism, its just the feeling that I get when I see it. The montains and water with the lone tree and the twilight invoke a sense of serenity, and the ice in the front somehow invokes turmoil. Maybe its 'cos of the swirls in the ice, kind of water swirls (what is the word for that...where the water creates a cone effect and sucks u in?....cant remember). And so, I'm torn whether to be at peace or whether to get disturbed.

 

I do wonder what would the picture have looked like if it was taken in landscape? If there was water on either side of the ice swirl, and the mountains spanned out wide, mebbe it wouldnt invoke such conflicting feelings? Of course I dont know what the landscape looked like, mebbe it wasnt worth taking anything extraneous in.

I still feel its a beautigul picture, lovely light and composition.

Obviously this is the correct interpretation....

 

(Just kidding...I like the tritone version anyway....)

Wish I had a reasonable idea how to improve it, but I prefer the original thus far.

After seeing all the different suggestions and versions to this, I prefer the original. I like the curve of ice at the bottom and that lone tree at the top. The bits of grass in the middle add interest, too. This is one of the least boring landscapes I've seen recently, imo, since it has so many elements that work well together. I would venture to guess a print of this composition looks fantastic! Congratulations on POW!

Dennis, to answer your question, the image has not been stretched horizontally. What I did in order to reduce the expanse of middle ground was to use Photoshop's transform tool to compress the bottom part of the image. This was easily done without spoiling the foreground content (as in the case of one of the above suggested alterations).

 

I was interested in your comment that "it is reminiscent of a construction site in winter". This location is one of Scotland's great wilderness areas and it is also one of the most photographed (including "that rather uninspiring tree"). I guess it just goes to show that one man's meat.......

 

I agree with you that about a single composition rather than two separate images but feel that front to back sharpness is an essential ingredient.

 

Kim, having looked at your own excellent work I was pleased to read your comments. Having read some of the above I was beginning to doubt my ability. Thanks for your encouragement.

Beautiful!

I know this spot very well and as Brian himself said, it is well photographed,

but often to the point when there can be 10 to 20 people in this area on a

good winters day jostling to get a good position, waiting to put their tripods in

the exact same spot as the person before them! And beautiful as it is, you see

the same sort of pictures of it year after year in calendars.

 

It isn't actually as wild as you might think, there is a main road just a few feet

away from the lochan, which is called Lochan na h'Achlaise in the gaelic, the

mountains behind this are known collectively as the Black Mount. It is a short

distance away from Glen Coe, a beautiful spot all in all. I've stood there many

times in autumn and listened to the roar of the stags on the hills during their

rutting season; that to me is one of the sounds of the wild.

 

I like the photograph overall, it is different from most images that I have seen

from this location, the colour doesn't bother me, I've seen natural light close to

that colour on snowy winter mornings before, even if Velvia has given it a bit

of extra kick, which personally I like anyway. So, well done to Brian.

It is interesting that Allen states there is a road a few feet away from this location. I have a feeling that the road acts as a levy and impounds some of the shallow water in the foreground. As I said before this scene, or at least the fore and middle ground appear to be part of a man made environment. The area appears to be graded level with some left over waste piles and volunteer vegetation sprouting up. I wonder what the scene looks like in other seasons.

 

To me vertical compression is similar or equal to horizontal scaling. Somehow the aspect ratio of the photograph appears unnatural. I did not care much for the flat sky or colors though the original is indeed better than some of the suggested improvements. I am surprised that no one suggested adding a human figure to the composition, perhaps a flock of photographers hovering over the frozen puddle. The photograph seems a bit sterile but that is the nature of a winter landscape I guess.

 

Brian is exactly right about meat verses poison. I like the photo well enough as it is and as always it is our individual vision and what we choose to include or exclude from the frame that defines who we are.

I just wanted to say this is a good example of what POW should be about, with interesting discussion and varied points of view. It's not about how good the photo is... it's about the reactions and interactions that the photo inspires. To the elves, keep up the good work, and to those that say other photos are more deserving of POW, you are missing the point. (At least that's my understanding of the POW forum)

Felt that I should comment on what Dennis wrote there, the lochan I reckon is

pretty much as it has been for thousands of years. Yes, there is a road nearby

(slightly more than a few feet in reality, but a short hop all the same from a

car), nearer some bits of the shoreline than others, but it is possible to be out

of sight of the road on some stretches of the shore. I don't think that the road

has itself done much to change the lochan, which is actually I'd reckon glacial

in its formation, rather than man made, the results of the last ice age

pounding Rannoch Moor. The trees on the islands are the only trees

surviving in this area, because of an over abundance of red deer, which eat

all the tree seedlings elsewhere.

 

There are actually quite a few similar lochans in this area, some on the other

side of the road, another interesting one, just a little further north gives good

views too. And there are quite a few similar islands (again with trees) on

these lochans too.

 

Sadly, many estates in the Highlands think that the answer to over grazing by

red deer is simply to put up fences to keep them out of certain areas, but all

that does is to move the problem somewhere else, it isn't a solution in itself,

yet even bodies like the National Trust for Scotland have followed this route,

fencing off the Glen Etive side of Buachaille Etive Beag and the slopes of

Liathach in Glen Torridon too. This is one of the problems which can spiral out

of control when you remove the top predators from the area; i.e. the wolves

which were part of the Highlands until about the 16th/17th century. A few wild

wolves might make things a bit more interesting for us photographers too.