Posted by Kent Mearig on January 30, 2009 at 1:56 AM
I decided to share this photo here in response to David's recent request for more activity in our Alaska forum. In some of the most popular regional forums, image submissions are a way to keep things going on a regular basis, and they are abundant.
I was getting this picture ready to be part of a blog entry on taking pictures of the same things over and over and over again, but I thought I would let it take a pit-stop here first. I've yet to wear myself out on this subject despite numerous tries.
One thing I was wondering specifically about this photo is how much the illusion of the CCW tilt bothers you.
Posted by David Taylor on February 4, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Fantastic shot Kent, thanks for contributing! Great color, and I like your use of depth here. The split in the image - from the face of the glacier, the middle ground "debris" area, then the imposing background - all come together to form a very pleasing composition.
This must have been shot on an overcast day, as there are no harsh shadows or blown hilights. Nicely done. Would you be willing to share your settings/technique? I think it would be a valuable lesson.
Posted by David Taylor on February 4, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Oops, forgot to mention. I can't detect any apparent CCW tilt, I think the horizontal water line really balances things out and allows for a point of reference.
Kent,
Wow, nice. I can just barely feel the CCW tilt if I really focus on the bottom, but my eye is so drawn to the details in the middle and top that I don't feel any tilt.
Really, really nice image. The detail and sense of depth is fantastic, and that is hard to get with glaciers, at least it is for me. Yes, I'd be ineterested in seeing the details on this, for example what lens you used and how far away you were. The other really neat thing about this is the "layers" in the FG from the ripples in the water.
Frankly, I cannot figure out how the dirt on the glaciers shows up so badly on my images, and yet on yours, it just seems natural, and doesn't stick out like a sore thumb at all...
Well done!
Posted by Kent Mearig on February 5, 2009 at 2:10 AM
Let's see...details on this image:
This is a vertical stitch of four horizontal images with some subsequent cropping to the top. Each image was made with the same setting, f/8 and 1/25sec at 200mm on an APS-C sized sensor. I was probably at least a hundred meters from the terminus and maybe ten to twenty meters from the nearest ice in the photo. The place I was standing was probably 4/5ths of the way across the lake and the ice under foot was probably twenty to thirty centimeters thick.
If you have any other specific questions, I'd happily respond.
Oh yeah, the type of day. Skies were actually mostly clear, but though this was technically after sunrise, the surface of the glacier remains in shadow for most of the winter mornings (if not all).
You're good at this stitching stuff, aren't you... Wow. Interesting numbers. What would you say is the total included distance in the image, ie, from the ice in the water there in front back to the most distant glacier ridges? I'm really impressed with the depth of field here. And now that I look more closely at the ice in the water there in the front, I realize just how huge the glacier terminus must be. What is the height of the nearest vertical chunk of solid ice?
I think this ought te be blown up big and hung out in the open to look at when the skies are dark and rainy.....
Posted by Kent Mearig on February 6, 2009 at 5:46 PM
The distance from the very front to the back is about a half mile probably. The face of the glacier is around fifty feet tall, but typically doesn't reach that height vertically from the surface of the water. The depth of field does not reach all the way to the nearest ice, but I didn't feel like it was necessary to have sharpness in that section of the photo.
Posted by David Taylor on February 11, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Hey Kent-
I'm back again, looking at this image. You could say I've "bonded" with it. At first I didn't notice any CCW tilt, then I happened to scroll the page down and lined up the waterline with the bottom of my browser window - now I see it. I think it's one of those things I never would have noticed had it not been pointed out to me. But now that it's been identified, my eye keeps getting drawn back. If you rotate it, how does it appear to you Kent?
Still, an excellent image.
Discussion
7 repliesI was getting this picture ready to be part of a blog entry on taking pictures of the same things over and over and over again, but I thought I would let it take a pit-stop here first. I've yet to wear myself out on this subject despite numerous tries.
One thing I was wondering specifically about this photo is how much the illusion of the CCW tilt bothers you.
This must have been shot on an overcast day, as there are no harsh shadows or blown hilights. Nicely done. Would you be willing to share your settings/technique? I think it would be a valuable lesson.
Wow, nice. I can just barely feel the CCW tilt if I really focus on the bottom, but my eye is so drawn to the details in the middle and top that I don't feel any tilt.
Really, really nice image. The detail and sense of depth is fantastic, and that is hard to get with glaciers, at least it is for me. Yes, I'd be ineterested in seeing the details on this, for example what lens you used and how far away you were. The other really neat thing about this is the "layers" in the FG from the ripples in the water.
Frankly, I cannot figure out how the dirt on the glaciers shows up so badly on my images, and yet on yours, it just seems natural, and doesn't stick out like a sore thumb at all...
Well done!
This is a vertical stitch of four horizontal images with some subsequent cropping to the top. Each image was made with the same setting, f/8 and 1/25sec at 200mm on an APS-C sized sensor. I was probably at least a hundred meters from the terminus and maybe ten to twenty meters from the nearest ice in the photo. The place I was standing was probably 4/5ths of the way across the lake and the ice under foot was probably twenty to thirty centimeters thick.
If you have any other specific questions, I'd happily respond.
Oh yeah, the type of day. Skies were actually mostly clear, but though this was technically after sunrise, the surface of the glacier remains in shadow for most of the winter mornings (if not all).
I think this ought te be blown up big and hung out in the open to look at when the skies are dark and rainy.....
I'm back again, looking at this image. You could say I've "bonded" with it. At first I didn't notice any CCW tilt, then I happened to scroll the page down and lined up the waterline with the bottom of my browser window - now I see it. I think it's one of those things I never would have noticed had it not been pointed out to me. But now that it's been identified, my eye keeps getting drawn back. If you rotate it, how does it appear to you Kent?
Still, an excellent image.