Mount Blanc Glacier #2

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Nature Photography Image Critique : One Thread


What do you prefer between this an that of last week? Tanks to all.

-- Carlo Folli (c.folli@rsadvnet.it), October 07, 1999

Answers

I prefer this latest image by far. For one thing I am partial to color images. Also, the mountains and sky provide a point of reference so I understand better what it is that I am looking at. I am curious, did you use a polarizer for this shot?

-- Mark Castiglia (markus777@earthlink.net), October 07, 1999.

I think this would be a good b/w shot also, like this one MUCH better than the one last week, as has been pointed out the sky help in the orientation in relation to the photo, nice shot. Pat

-- pat j. krentz (krentz@cci-29palms.com), October 08, 1999.

I also like this picture much better than last week's. I think it is because I don't really go for the abstract nature shots (or abstract stuff in general, for that matter).

You (or the camera ;) did a very good job of compromising a difficult lighting situation--very good detail in highlights and shadows.

I think the only thing I would change about this photo is to have less foreground and more mountain. Cropping the bottom third of the photo (into a square) eliminates an annoying shadow and gives more or less equal weight to the mountain, the glacier, and the sky. I prefer that to the dominance of the glacier. Of course, leaving the current composition is somewhat of a study in size ;). Good job.

Out of curiosity, what length lens was used?

-- Jeremy Kindy (kindjd01@wfu.edu), October 08, 1999.


I notice that while both halves of the scene are well illuminated, the lighting on each surface is quite direct. As a result little texture is visible on the rocks or on the glacier wall. The use of an Unsharp Mask might help on the scanned image.

-- Gordon Richardson (gordonr@iafrica.com), October 08, 1999.

For this shot I used a compact camera: Minolta SuperZoom 38-100 set at 38 mm (no filter nor hood) with Elite 100. Jeremy, I have found very interesting your opinion about the foreground. Tank you all.

-- Carlo Folli (c.folli@rsadvnet.it), October 08, 1999.


The compact camera really was a Olympus SZ 38-110. Excuse form my careless mistake. I often use this camera during my trekking in the Alps: it has a fine exposure sistem with 'spot' metering and exposure memory. The only problem is that with low temperature it go off; so I must remember to keep a fresh battery in a warm pocket.

-- Carlo Folli (c.folli@rsadvnet.it), October 09, 1999.

Much more interesting than the first. Nice sky too.

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), October 10, 1999.

Well, I think the photo is very good. As I see it, there are THREE subjects: foreground, backgound, and sky. Each one makes a good contrast for the other two. The sky is interesting in its own right as a solid blue would be b o r i n g! And with a "pocket camera" and on a moving support, too. Nifty!

-- Dave Bessey (d_bessey@angelfire.com), October 21, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ