Ice #86, South Boulder Creek, 2012
This week’s image for the Wednesday Critique is hot off the sensor–it’s from yesterday morning’s walk along the semi-frozen South Boulder Creek in Eldorado Springs Canyon.
And my standard call before I proceed: If you have been lurking about this web site and you’d like me to use your image for a Wednesday critique, just send me an e-mail (see Contact tab). That way, you can save me from critiquing my own images, which would be a welcome relief!
OK, back to the photo o’ the day…I have my critic’s hat on and I am pretending this is the first time I’ve ever seen this photograph…here we go…
The metadata: Nikon D90 (1.5x crop factor sensor) with Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 zoom at 300mm, f/29, 1/2, ISO200, tripod, outdoor overcast light.
And following my 7-Step Critique Guide…
1) EXAMINE. The subject is very strange. It appears to be a piece of ice, but it is hard to guess the scale as there are no other elements in the image–distracting or otherwise–to give a frame of reference.
2) EMOTIONAL RESPONSE. When I look at this, I sense a certain agressiveness emanating from the strange figure, whatever it is. The forms and the very contrasting blacks and whites, to me, do not equate to positive, happy feelings…instead, they make me feel a bit uncomfortable.
3) TECHNICAL POINTS. The image seems to be correctly exposed, although I wonder if some detail has been clipped from the highlights–it is hard to tell on this monitor and without looking at a histogram. (The histogram would show pixels climbing the right side of the graph if highlights were clipped.) The image seems to be appropriately sharpened, with mostly good detail except, perhaps, in the aforementioned whiter areas. The black seems almost unnaturally black and it makes me wonder if this has been painted or filled to eliminate whatever distractions were there before–the water below, perhaps? Overall, though, the monochrome treatment is quite appropriate as I can’t imagine how color would have been an important compositional element in an image of a piece of ice. One thing in the metadata I find unusual is the choice of f/29 as the aperture. I have to assume that the photographer was trying for absolute max depth-of-field, but I can’t really tell in the photograph whether such an extreme f-stop was necessary as the ice all seems to be nearly on the same plane (although perhaps the top left corner is a bit soft). Above about f/8 or f/11, diffraction (the bending of the light through the smaller lens aperture) starts to impact image quality and above f/22 may become visible as softness, especially in a larger print. That, combined with the 70-300 zoom lens at its 300mm limit, could really cause a significant drop off in sharpness. I’d advise the shooter to try to use that lens at 200mm or less and then maybe consider focus stacking of several images taken at f/8 if more depth-of-field is really necessary. Finally, the use of a tripod was a great idea with a static subject!
4) ARTISTIC QUALITIES. As an abstract, I like it. It is not just any piece of ice or even an ordinary icicle. It’s unusual shape makes me spend some time with it…following the forms and curves and imagining what it might represent. I see what could be an eye socket…then maybe the profile of a bull with some sort of screw-like thing in its nose…There are many possibilities, and the photo does draw you in and make you contemplate a bit. I also like the extremes of the positive space and the opposing negative space which give the image its impact. I do wonder, though, if it could be cropped just a bit tighter in order to eliminate a bit more black at the bottom and white at the top.
5. POSITIVE POINTS. I like the impact of this image as well as its unusual form. Just another photograph of a piece of ice wouldn’t have worked–the photographer had a good eye to spot and frame this unusual specimen. And I think the high contrast monochrome was a good choice.
6. IMPROVE. Technically, I would give some more thought to what f-stops will give you what depth-of-field range so you don’t push into serious diffraction territory unless there is no other choice. (See the depth-of-field table here, for example.) Also, think about where your zoom lens gives you the best results and try to work within those limits if you can. Artistically, I might try a version of this image in which there is some, barely visible, texture in that negative space just to see if that would work–especially if there was flowing water under the ice.
7. OVERALL. Overall, I think it is an above average abstract and one that would be worth printing, assuming you can get good detail out of the highights.
You might also like
Leave a reply