This is a photograph of Carver Lake, one of the highest bodies of water larger than an acre or so anywhere in the Cascade range. South Sister's Prouty Glacier flows into it. I photographed it from about 8100 feet last week while backpacking accross the region. I particularly liked how the sporadic cloud cover illuminated the scene. These large clouds turned to thunder later in the afternoon. North and Middle sister are the background peaks.
5D, 17-40 at 20mm, polarizer, hand held at 1/60, ISO 100.
Beautiful shot! I'm not sure if you do it on purpose, but I like how some of your shots seem to have a slight vinetting?? I think it is a nice touch on the BW especially, seems to draw you in a tad more. And those clouds.....awesome.
Hmmm, I noticed the vignetting also on a few of Mark's shots now that you mention it. Although it in no way detracts from the excellent work, I do wonder if it's "on purpose," or a 5d attribute. The former would be more preferable than the later in my opinion... Marc?
Unusual, stark, and beautiful. That snowpack/glacier is awesome the way it weaves in and around, taking the mind on a wild ride. And those clouds are awesome too! Sweet dude...
i'm not sure this one works for me, there's something about the dark midtones (the bottom of clouds, the dappled light on the lake and the hills in the background) that looks fake to me - not saying it's fake, just the processing maybe helps it look fake. this applies to the hill on the right too, it has almost a dark line all around the bottom and along the sky that really makes it stand out and distracts to me. i don't know really, maybe that hill just has a strange shape to me.
the composition is good, the sky is great. but for me there's a strange contrast. like the light darks are too dark compared to the dark darks.
having said all that, i'm not sure anymore that i have any idea what most people like anyway
I'm not sure if I can really see what you're mentioning, Michael. I wouldn't expect a digital B&W to look absolutely natural tonally, due to the level of control we now have over different color channels during conversion. Even in the B&W darkroom dodge/burning produced what you would evidently see as 'fake' results.
Marc,
agreed about the darkroom dodging / burning.
all i'm saying is that i disagree with your contrast choice and tried to explain exactly what parts of it i didn't like. but we can agree to disagree after all you took the photo, not me
Just like flash photography, If you can tell that you used flash, or can tell that you dodged or burned, you didn't do it right. As an example of top level B&W darkroom skill, I point out Michael Kenna. His work is highly traditionally manipulated, and very difficult to tell that it was.
Marc,I am not saying that you "didn't do it right," nor that your image looks "fake" to me, just that the "fake" look is not something to be accepted, in the darkroom or on the computer, but to be avoided as much as possible. But I'm sure you know that...
I see what Mike is saying, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but maybe this is due to web conversion? Anyways, I wouldn't try to judge a picture on those merits unless I saw a big print of it to look at. Any chance of seeing one of those someday soon, Marc?
Kevin
Posted by Tom Kloster on July 19, 2007 at 12:27 AM
I like this a lot, Mark - in part because it appeals to my inner geo-geek (excellent geomorphology on display!), but it's also just a great image. The clouds are outrageous, as usual for your photos, and the positioning and curves in the snow fields in the foreground are perfect. I'm trying to figure out your lens - a 17-40mm lens must be in conventional increments (e.g., your shot was at 20mm in conventional increments, not the digital equivalent). That would make sense. But it you're shooting at a digital 20mm, then the curvature of the foreground would be as nature provided..? Just curious. I'm still wrapping my head around the conventional/digital conversion.
Tom, since I shoot a Full Frame digital sensor, 20mm digitally is the same thing as 20mm on 35mm film. There is no digital equivelent. That and the foreground curvature was naturally there, and was what compelled me to take the image.
The ice on the lake really draws me into this one. I never thought that was all that much of a scenic lake up until now. Did you happen to get to the Chambers Lakes as well?
Discussion
17 replies5D, 17-40 at 20mm, polarizer, hand held at 1/60, ISO 100.
Slight vignetting is indeed a characteristic present in some of my work, and is intentional.
Kevin
the composition is good, the sky is great. but for me there's a strange contrast. like the light darks are too dark compared to the dark darks.
having said all that, i'm not sure anymore that i have any idea what most people like anyway
agreed about the darkroom dodging / burning.
all i'm saying is that i disagree with your contrast choice and tried to explain exactly what parts of it i didn't like. but we can agree to disagree after all you took the photo, not me
Marc,I am not saying that you "didn't do it right," nor that your image looks "fake" to me, just that the "fake" look is not something to be accepted, in the darkroom or on the computer, but to be avoided as much as possible. But I'm sure you know that...
Kevin
Tom