-- Barbara Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), January 02, 1999

Answers

Oops! Here it is again...

-- Barbara Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), January 02, 1999.

A fine photo of another of the beautiful patterns formed by nature. Looks like you got the exposure right on.

-- Garry Schaefer (schaefer@pangea.ca), January 02, 1999.

Gary, thanks for the comment. This was made with a digital camera. I've had some problems getting exposures correct with it and so was happy to hear you thought the exposure was "right on."

-- Barbara Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), January 02, 1999.

Very subtle color pallet, good light on a difficult subject, nice shot. For some reason, It pains me slightly to say that about a digital shot, but I've said it several times recently, so I guess I'd better get over my prejudices and get used to digital technology. (but I'll betcha can't blow it up to 16x20! :)

-- Mike Green (mgprod@minspring.com), January 02, 1999.

Mike, Thanks for your comments. I can relate to what you're saying about digital technology. After shooting for a long time with a 4x5 I feel like I'm compromising on the technical quality of the image when I shoot with the digital camera. You're right, I couldn't even enlarge this to 8x10, let alone 16x20, and maintain even a reasonable degree of detail or sharpness. This really bothers me. On the other hand, I can shoot as much as I want with the digital camera and never spend a cent on film, I can see an image immediately after I shoot it and delete it if I wish, and I can look at all of the images "full size" as soon as I return home while what I had visualized is still fresh in my mind. These "advantages" however still don't outweigh the disadvantages for me. Until I can afford higher quality digital equipment I will never feel the satisfaction I feel when making an image with my 4x5.

-- Barbara Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), January 03, 1999.

For reasons unknown to me the image has a quality as if it was a photorealistic painting. Maybe it's the pixelization or some other digital artifact, but it is a nice effect. The contrast range has something to do with it, too.

As to the composition, the graphic qualities seem to be localized, there is no overall striking design, but then it isn't quite a pattern, either. I'm left hanging a bit as it is a good idea, but I don't get any reaction to the image as a whole.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), January 03, 1999.

Interesting. What is "ice lava". We're not too knowledgeable about ice down here in Florida.

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), January 05, 1999.

Frank, thanks for taking the time to comment. What makes this photograph come together for me are the flowing, curving shapes of the ice "anchored" to the ground by the four dark, gray areas of rock from top to bottom. Plus, I liked the subtle hint of color and the way the ice was illuminated by the light.

Larry, You mean you really don't know what "ice lava" is?!! It starts bubbling up out of the ground here in Alaska when the temperature gets between -40 and -50 degrees F. No, not really...!

-- Barbara Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), January 06, 1999.