Needles Alpenglow

Here's a shot of the Needles Range from a couple weeks ago. I am becoming more and more obsessed with this range, the most rugged in the San Juans and perhaps in all of Colorado. This is the view from the west, directly across the Animas River valley.

4x5, 200mm, Provia

Also, while I'm at it, here's another shot from the trip, of Crater Lake, where my friends and I camped for two nights. This one was 4x5, 75mm, Provia, 2 stop hard grad.

A cool thing happened similar to Brent's recent chopper sighting: during the day we were chilling around camp tossing the frisbie to the dog when all of the sudden with a screaming roar a jet fighter zoomed right above the trees, banking a hard turn from the Hwy 550 valley over into the Animas valley! We were all "WOOOOAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!" I can see why some guys join the Air Force...

Jack just give it up man, these suck! Nah, just kidding both are very nice, I can see why you are obsessed by this range.

SUHWEET!!!!! Bet this looks awesome printed big.

Wow! That was what I first said when I saw this . The placement of the 2 peaks with leading lines in the rocks and of course the sublime light are way killer !!!

Rock on Jack! Get it? Heh-heh. Sweet, red light and foreground. What mountains are we looking at here?

This really is a beautiful capture. And great light.

The composition, I'm not so sure about... the word that comes to mind is "bouncy". My eye moves around within the frame in a way that I am not sure what I am supposed to be looking at. And I don't find any comfortable resting places on which to ponder.

What is the subject of the photograph?

Is it the far mountains, or the close rocks? The distance relationship between the two? The angular shapes of the rocks and mountains? Or the strong directional sunlight? Hard to tell.

The tonal distribution really tends to pull my eye down and right out of the frame at the bottom right corner. Generally, I think there might be too much going on in terms of lines/shapes/graphics etc. Might be better if it was super-siiiimmmplified.

Still, I like it; it's got great "mood". and there's nothing like being there...

Awesome light and a sa-weet view!

Thanks fellas.

Dave - This is Animas Mtn. on the left, and Pigeon Peak on the right.

Nat - Interesting analysis. I definitely have a tendency to try to fill every inch of my comps with something of interest. In this case, my first priority was filling a good portion of the frame with the big background peaks, so I used a longer 200mm lens. Second was to fill the remaining portion with what I knew would be sunlit foreground rocks (all I had to work with on this completely rocky summit). Considering that all I had to work with was foreground rocks and background mountains, the only thing I think I could have done differently would be to include less foreground rocks, and more of the dark valley in the middle - which perhaps would have given more separation of foreground/background and thus a more stable image. Or use a wider lens for an entirely different comp.

These things are definitely fun and helpful to ponder in retrospect, but of course at the scene you're always constrained by many factors that are impossible to communicate (or even remember) later.

As for the question of what is the subject... I agree that in this photo there is no clear winner for the main subject. I wonder though if this is necessarily a detriment to the image. It's a landscape photo - the scene as a whole is the subject. Do landscape photos need to have one main subject? It's an interesting question I think. Any thoughts?

Beautiful, Jack. Especially the close rocks.

Note to Rich Durnan...next time...

The light, contrast, colors... are all amazing. I just wish there was less FG and more mountains. Thanks for sharing.

Great Jack! I like the lake shot with the reeds. Nice colors in both!

I was a Naval Aviator for twenty years, but not too much flying towards the end. I always loved flying low-level routes, especially over non-populated areas where you could get a little lower than legal since there wasn't anyone to tell on you!

Hmmm, Nat brings up an interesting point. I look at this and I like how much there is for the eye to wander around and take in. I think the FG rocks complement the dramatic visual lines in the Needles. The light just pushes it over the top! As Jack already mentioned, many of his images are a total feast for the eyes - you can really wander around the image and soak up every detail of the scene.

On the other hand, Nat is a master of simplicity with his images. I always think of his awesome shots from White Sands and his abstracts. Very strong subject matter accompanied by masterful compositional elements. Simplicity at it's finest.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you each have a unique style, and I enjoy looking at both collection of images! Something to learn from each of you. I think it also speaks to why Jack's posted image does not resonate quite as much with Nat? just my 2 cents...

Crater Lake and the surrounding peaks have been on my short list for a long time. This is a great shot, Jack, perfect in every way. I, too, compose fully in-camera, and am often pissed off at myself for having a nice shot that leaves no room for text elements if I ever want to use it on the cover of something.

I've enjoyed a few fly-bys over the years, too. One time up on Pikes Peak I got to see two big A-7 Corsair fighter-bombers go screaming through a nearby valley, close enough that I could've waved at the pilots, if I'd thought of that. The cool thing was, I was actually looking down on them!

Another time, rolling through the desert on my way from Death Valley towards the Sierras, I was tooling along in my little Chevette, all the windows down in the 100+ heat, when I heard the strangest, loudest roar coming towards me. I looked all around in a panic, and didn't see anything. Right about then an F4 Phantom went right over my roof! Probably 50' overhead. It was LOUD! He apparently thought I'd be a fun target to buzz, before veering off into the nearby mountains. It was freaky, but really cool, once I put my heart back in my chest after it leaped into my throat.

Nice to see an involved critique/discussion going on here.

A couple of things from my perspective. This has the feel of many LF images where the ability to capture great detail in both near and far subjects lends itself to creating images where the foreground isn't an accessory to the main subject, but can often become equal in importance. Not that it can't be or isn't done with other formats, but this seems to be more common in LF shooting. Reminds me a lot of Todd's and Brent's shooting style.

I don't think the absence of a main subject hurts, at least not necessarily. Here, the fg and bg are both equally impactful, and the quality of the light makes the whole scene glow with a rich warmth. The subject of this could easily be the color, as much as the mountains or rocks. My eye does move around more than it would if there were less foreground and the mountains consumed the majority of real estate, but there are strong elements no matter where my eye lands, so I tend to enjoy what I'm taking in despite not landing on the main subject.

I also think the mind expects that mountains in a scene - especially mountains as dramatic as these - to be the main subject, and having it otherwise creates a bit of tension. Whether that tension is good, bad or neutral depends on the viewer and what they've come to appreciate as a balanced scene.

I agree with Michael that Nat excels at making simple(r) compositions than the average person, but without sacrificing impact. Elements more common to abstract images - line, form, shape, texture, etc. - dominate Nat's portfolio. He makes powerful images without relying heavily on dramatic elements or dramatic lighting. So I guess I'd expect Nat to look at others' works and rearrange those scenes according to his own sensibilities, which lean towards simplicity as a means of achieving a harmonious composition. Abstract Eye for the Landscape Guy, or something like that...

I like this a lot for reasons already mentioned - great color and light, beautiful mountains, and the extra real estate given to the foreground pulls me in the scene more than it would otherwise. The Needles and Grenadiers - very high on my list of places to get to soon!

Thank you all for your comments!

It's helpful to ponder these ideas. Michael and Rick - your comments about simplicity make sense - I can certainly sense a deep simplicity and peacefulness in Nat's work. You're right, simplicity is not usually my style, but it is something that I would like to try to incorporate more into my photos for certain scenes in the future. Not sure it would be very much possible with this scene though, since the nature of the terrain was super rocky and jumbled to begin with.

Momo - Perhaps I could have made the foreground a little less prominent and shown a little more of the valley to emphasize the peaks more. But, as I think about this, I remember that when I was there I spent a long time walking around pondering different comps in the jumble of rocks on this summit, and once I narrowed it down to these rocks (which I knew would get last light) then I moved my tripod a few feet here and there and adjusted the height to what I felt gave the best comp. Remember that I was shooting a 200mm lens so every little move had a dramatic effect on the foreground comp. Had I raised my tripod height just a foot or so I would have completely lost the sunlit foreground rocks.

Anyhow, my point is... easier said than done.

Todd - your Phantom story is crazy... did you flip him the bird? Hahaha... One day this last winter a friend and I were on a peak near Silverton and we saw a jet refueling from a tanker. It was almost as cool as the time I saw two eagles having freefall sex above an alpine lake near Taos. THAT was cool.

I had been meaning to compliment this photo for some time and am finally getting to it. And found an interesting commentary to boot. When I was a younger fellow I visted some of the Needles range area via treking from the Durango train. This was one of the most memorable backcountry trips I've taken. Jack, your photo makes me recall some of the trip and has a peaceful drama to it. Regardless of the details Nat mentions or other specifics of critique, sometimes it's the mood and feeling a photo gives a viewer overall. Sometimes you can see a photo that evokes a mood, memory, or feeling and all else is just detail.

I have friends in the San Luis Valley, which seems to be a common training area for figher fly-bys. One fellow's wife had a tendancy to sun bath topless in their remote property, and it seemed to become a common path for the "trainers". I'm glad these guys are on our side, as it's an awesome experience when they are up close.

Jack - I wouldn't change a thing with this one. I agree with you that simplifying this image too much would have lost some of its impact. And since it is on 4x5, you can print this big enough to make you feel like you are actually sitting amongst the rocks watching the alpenglow.

And regarding the aerial close encounters - my father was down in Ouray in the hot springs a few weeks ago. He said there was a mid-air refuel of a jet overhead. Awesome stuff.

One more story - when I was a kid we were down in Mesa Verde in one of the cliff dwellings. All of a sudden there was a massive sonic boom overhead - man that echoed through that area!!

SWEET LIGHT JACK! Awesome, great shot!

Michael, Rick - thanks for the nice comments and astute observations about my work. It's true that in my work I prefer simplicity because I am usually most interested in conveying a calm, serene mood. Kind of a reflection of how I prefer to be myself; I tend to avoid chaos and drama because it sets my nerves on edge. I'm glad that my "style" is evident; it's something I've worked hard for.

But when critiquing the photography of others, I really try to set my personal preferences aside and evaluate the image as objectively as possible. And by no means do I have an aversion to visually complex compositions; I just think it's a lot harder to make an effective composition that is also full of myriad, competing elements.

With this in mind, I took a fresh look at this image and started to decipher what exactly doesn't work for me. I've found it often helps to draw lines (either imaginary or real) over the image to break it down into the graphic elements. (Jack - I hope you will forgive me for taking this liberty with your image... it makes me uncomfortable to modify anyone's pictures but it's the best way to illustrate my point.)

It's very important to always keep in mind that a photograph is two-dimensional. Our brains are able to create a 3D image from the 2D representation of an actual scene only from learned experience. Since we've only got two dimensions to work with in composing a photograph, the arrangement of the graphic shapes and their relationships is critical in creating an effective, compelling image. And there is no way to separate our seeing something from the feelings that are evoked.

So what bothers me about this composition is its shapes and their arrangements. To my eye, the composition is both disharmonious and static at the same time. Here's what I mean:

1. The frame is nearly equally divided in four distinct horizontal bands. No one area is visually dominant. Keep in mind that bright areas attract the eye, so a smaller, brighter area will be of equal weight to a larger, darker area.

2. The frame is horizontally divided across the center (creating a "horizon" smack in the middle).

3. In the center of top third of the frame there are two bright ovals connected by an equally bright horizontal line. This causes my eye to travel between the two largest peaks, back and forth - like a ping-pong game.

4. There are many strong lines leading in different directions, especially in the brightly lit foreground.

Individually, none of these things are necessarily bad. But when put together in one frame, it's visual chaos.

Although some complex compositions can be very interesting to explore, finding hidden details and really delving into the picture, the strongest compositions (aside from pure textures) most often contain one dominant element supported by one or maybe a few other lesser elements. Also, having places for the eye to rest as it travels throughout the frame makes for a more pleasant, natural viewing experience.

The way that my eyes move around this frame makes me wonder what I am supposed to be looking at, and begs the question "what's the subject?". What does Jack want me to see in this picture?

Many landscape photographs suffer for lack of a clear subject. In response to the question of whether a landscape - especially a grand scenic - needs to have one identifiable subject is valid.... Is it enough to say "this is a photograph of some distant mountains with rocks in the foreground"? That's debatable. Maybe it would be more direct to say "this is a photo showing the violent natural forces that created the mountains" in which case the broken rocks are the subject and the mountains play the supporting role... and visual chaos is a good thing because it conveys the message clearly.

Whatever the subject, I strongly believe that something needs to be dominant, and the viewer needs to be given some visual clues about the intention of the photographer in conveying some kind of message. Photography is visual communication, and as such has a language. The strongest images (especially landscapes) need no translation or interpretation on the part of the viewer. So it's important that the photographer carefully consider "what is this picture about?" and make the composition accordingly.

IMHO, for this image, a slightly different viewpoint and different cropping might have made all the difference. It has the necessary ingredients for a great image: an interesting theme, visually exotic subject matter and beautiful light. All that's missing is careful, creative composition with proper respect to the graphic elements and the messages they ultimately convey.

Hi Nat,

Thanks for taking the time to provide a thorough explanation of your opinions.

Funny thing - when I look at the lines you've drawn, I quite like them! Yes it is certainly chaotic, but to my eye there is definitely an overall balance.

Also, I am not really bothered at all with the notion that there are few or no resting places for my eye. This is after all a rocky summit in a rugged mountain range - not a calm lake or sandy beach. You'd have to search around just to find a place to sit down! In this sense I think the above qualities of the comp perfectly suit the natural scene.

So although I do value your opinions about the comp, I do chuckle at your statement "All that's missing is careful, creative composition..." precisely because this was an extremely careful composition, working with the elements I had to work with at the scene. (See my comments a few posts above).

Your comments about "message" are very intriguing. I honestly don't think I ever try to communicate any sort of message whatsoever with my photography - at least consciously. This is evident in my photo titles, which are usually literal instead of lyrical. I don't know... I would say unlike stock photography, most nature landscape photography (including much of the very best work out there) really has no message at all except, "Here's a scene in nature." When I think of landscape photography with a message I think of Edward Burtynsky's work, for example, which is full of all kinds of powerful messages about humans' effect on the planet. With normal nature photography, though, I think that part of the beauty is that there is no message.

Anyhow, Nat, despite our differences of opinion, I really appreciate your comments and food for thought. I enjoy discussing these things.

Jack - I like discussing these things too, and I am glad that after patiently considering my arguments that you stand by the decisions you made in creating the image. After all, what's really important is that we create pictures that satisfy us personally as photographers. And no doubt, differences in opinion and style are what makes photography so interesting. It's very subjective, after all. And I now understand how carefully you made the picture.

My comments about the "message" were meant to suggest that even when there is no message intended at the time of cature that the photographics create a visual message for the viewer. This "message" could also be thought of as "mood", "feeling", "impressions" etc. but my main point is my opinion that when someone views an image - even a nature photo - they will intuitively sense a message and/or interpret the meaning on their own, even it they are not consciously aware of it. This is the power of graphics and colors in the image; they all contain some sort of meaning, learned over eons during our collective evolution as humans. Consider the "mood" of the different landscapes in your body of work; each inspires a different feeling when viewing it.

And I do hope that the main message that anyone senses from nature photography is "this place needs to be protected". Unfortunately with the glut of nature images out there these days I'm afraid it's possible that people will come to take it for granted, like looking at a rack of postcards.

Anyway, Jack, thanks for the lively debate and I always look forward to seeing your work... you've made a lot of great photographs so keep them coming!

Wow!! Long discussion….and a little too deep for me!!!!

Great image Jack!