There is a one mile wide lake at the terminus of the Mendenhall Glacier. In the winter the lake is frozen and you can walk right up to the face of the glacier. It yields a different perspective.

-- Micheal F. Kelly (Kellys@alaska.net), January 03, 1999

Answers

The top of the image is by far the best part - overlapping triangles of blue/white/black/green. They make a powerful graphic that takes over the whole area leaving the lower half of the image as a sort of negative space with details. I think I'd leave the details in the lower half out, if it were my image.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), January 04, 1999.

Thanks for your critique Frank. You have been doing double duty on this forum recently. I see the graphic elements in the top but I'm not sure I understand the "negative space". Did you literally mean crop in half like:? I shoot mostly abstracts but I was trying to do a landscape in this case and this cropping seems to turn it into an abstract by loosing an anchor\reference point. I was considering getting rid of the bottom-most snow like: Which seems better to me but a little center-heavy? Thanks again for the time.

-- Micheal F. Kelly (Kellys@Alaska.net), January 05, 1999.

I respectfully disagree with Frank. I think the bottom half of the photo makes a delightfully light contrast to the heavy, almost statuesque ice formations. Also, the bottom, to me, balances the snow peaked range in the background. I think the photo is beautiful just as it is.

-- Meade Kelly (kelly@clipper.net), January 05, 1999.

The smaller, horizontal format, image is exactly what I mean. That's what I would have done, if it was my shot, but I like really strong graphics, whenever possible.

The second, less cropped, version still has too much of the ice in the lower area and, IMO, it doesn't contribute anything more than the little bit of ice that the heavily cropped version does. To my eye, it just lessens the impact of the upper image area.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), January 05, 1999.

I have a totally different opinion. I think this image doesn't conver enough area in the bottom part, which shows how big that glacier is. As an alternative, I would shoot a horizontal version with a wider lens to cover more of the glacier. Of course, I am not 100% sure exactly what is to the right and left of the current image.

-- Shun Cheung (shun@worldnet.att.net), January 05, 1999.

Shun Cheung, I tried that wider view first but it did not work for me. The glacier is so big that you can't really get a scale unless there are people or some object to relate to. I'll think carefully about the comments, Thanks again to everyone.

-- Micheal F. Kelly (Kellys@alaska.net), January 06, 1999.

I like the original because the frame comes across in rough thirds, which is pleasing to my eye. Some interesting foreground feature may have helped. I also like the tighter cropped horizontal for emphasizing the picture within the picture. You did well to minimize the sky but not eliminate it.

-- Duane Galensky (duane@wild-light.com), January 08, 1999.