Frozen Waterfall -- Take Two

[Mike Buckley]

I photographed a frozen waterfall shown here about a week ago. I returned to the same scene today in somewhat different light but the biggest difference was that all of the snow on the surrounding rocks had melted and some of the ice and snow in the waterfall had melted.

I bought waterproof hiking boots in between the two shoots so I could walk through icy water with no problem to get to the waterfall. They worked like a charm and I am insisting that my wife purchase some before we do any more serious hiking.

[bnnrcn]

It is very nice Mike,I would also love to see a coloured version if you have one.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Binnur. I did photograph the image in color but everything about the post-processing was done with monochrome in mind. The color portion of that process looks good but not so nice that I would want to present it here. If you're wondering if the lichen included a nice variety of tones in color, they don't have that interest.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Nice image. I compared the first shot from the other thread, and this one. At first I was going to say I liked the other one better, then I was going to say that they are both equal but have different merits, and now I am back to preferring the first image, in your other thread. Actually, I MUCH prefer the other image. Analysis revealed the reasons:

- the other image is more neutral in color, with gray and white being pure, whereas this image appears to have a cooler, almost bluish-purple cast to it, which I do not like

- the other image has a visual flow to it, with curving lines that lead the eye nicely, this one feels too static for me

- the other image has breathing room and space, this image feels claustrophobic and too tight to the edge, which has an abrupt effect to the eye

- the other image has unbelievably attractive surface ice in the foreground, which makes the image for me

Overall, both nice images, but the other one is superb for me. In fact, I will go stare at it for a while

[ShaneS]

Mike, I have to agree with Matt on his critique. This image just doesn't have the same punch as the previous image which just glows. I think that that partial foreground rock in the enter attracts the eye and the image would have better flow had you been able to find an angle where more of the 'pool' at the base of the waterfall was visible.

I also wonder if the lighting was different? It seems a lot flatter to me.

Now you have a good excuse to use your new boots again

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks to Matt and Shane for your comments!

The really important issue: after wearing her boots for several years, my wife has only now discovered that they are waterproof.

As for the blue toning, I used it simply because I like it better in bringing out the details of the ice in this image. I agree that the toning doesn't look good when the two images are compared but I like it at least for now when the image in this thread is presented on its own. I can easily change my mind as I have never used such strong blue toning before.

As for the framing of the waterfall, the lack of snow on the foreground rocks rendered them more of a distraction rather than complementary for me. That explains why I excluded them in this photo. We might get some more snow today, so I may be presented with yet a third opportunity. (Fortunately, this waterfall is only a 15-minute drive to the trail head and a 15-minute walk beyond that.)

The lighting is the same in both images in the sense that it is equally diffuse though the quality of light was a little different. The image in the other thread was captured late in the day and the image in this thread was captured in the morning. There is no direct sunlight on any part of either image due to the position of the sun. I may return when the sun is higher in the sky but I still don't think its rays will fall directly upon the waterfall this time of year due to the surrounding hills that block the light. If they do, I would still want the light to be at least somewhat diffuse.

It's interesting that you like the foreground material in the image in the other thread. One person wrote to me privately that it's a distraction. For me, it's very complementary, not a distraction at all.

Thanks again!

[Downrigger]

- the other image is more neutral in color, with gray and white being pure, whereas this image appears to have a cooler, almost bluish-purple cast to it, which I do not like

- the other image has a visual flow to it, with curving lines that lead the eye nicely, this one feels too static for me

- the other image has breathing room and space, this image feels claustrophobic and too tight to the edge, which has an abrupt effect to the eye

- the other image has unbelievably attractive surface ice in the foreground, which makes the image for me

Mike - you have a nice spot to keep working on. I learned a lot from Matt's critique. The analysis helped me understand better why I preferred the first at gut level. Also - is there not a greater tonal range in the first compare to the image here, or do things only appear to be that way?

A hiker anticipating an occasional ford or shallow wade on a long hike can sometimes wear lighter more breathing-capable footwear and carry a couple small, heavy weight plastic bags (such as you get for your stuff at a nice photo store). When water is encountered (for fording or wading for a better composition) wear a bag on each leg and strap on with a few heavy rubber bands or lengths of string. I keep a couple of these bags in my day pack at all times when hiking in the east... There are few opportunities for their use out here in Utah.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for the tips about the bags, Mark.

You're correct that the image in this thread has a narrower tonal range. It's lacking the brightest tones by design.

[Downrigger]

It's lacking the brightest tones by design.

Interesting to me - probably an hour's class in itself. I tend to blindly, more or less invariably, try to get all I can out of the available tonal range in every image I work with (white and black points to the histogram edges). I will now try to make this a question rather than a rote maneuver.

[Mike Buckley]

Mark,

Consider sending a private message to Donald asking him to provide the web site of one of his favorite photographers who makes a point of not using the true blacks and whites. He posts it quite often so I'm confident that he'll know.

The primary point about this aspect of the discussion is that if we are looking for ultimate punch, we probably need to include true blacks and whites. The same would probably hold true about using strong contrast in the mid-tones. However, we're not always looking for punch. It just seemed to be a good fit, which I can't articulate, that I was looking for less punch in this photo than in the photo in the other thread.

[Wavelength]

Nice; it looks like a huge cotton bed had a burst open above there