Landscape Photography: Establishing Relationships
July 23, 2009 by Alec
Filed under Landscapes
click image
Hi Gang,
I’m choosing today’s image to discuss the relationship between subjects in big scenic landscapes. In a few weeks I’ll be teaching a 4 day workshop on landscape photography up on Lake Superior, a very amazing but difficult place to shoot big landscapes and this discussion will be the FOCUS of our shooting: finding relationships between land, water and sky that create a cohesive and balanced image.
Some landscape images are dramatic. The sky has gone crazy or there is some form of crazy, dramatic light effect. The latter is more common on Lake Superior during the summer. Clouds OVER the lake during sweet light are hard to come by for various meterlogical reasons. Dramatic has its own visual value, but that does not necessarily imply Balanced. I see many images in which there is drama, but virtually no relationship between the key elements. Creating a balanced, cohesive image usually takes a lot of scouting and a little bit of luck. Today’s image has both.
One, of several ways, to create relationships between subjects is to look for opportunities to capture elements that repeat themselves. In this image I was LUCKY to get just that. I’ve shot over this rock foreground several times, but on this evening I did not start there. I was shooting a different area, working with the concept of cloud motion blur. But the direction I was shooting, combined with the cloud structure, was not yielding much. Upon making this observation, I pulled up stakes and moved to this location to grab the last few remaining minutes of light and let things go where they wanted to…
I got lucky. I saw it in the LCD display. This amazing relationship between sky and foreground in the form of repetition of shapes. While this image is heavily photoshoped for the purposes of black and white photography, nothing here is manufactured. The repetition of shape allows for the subject of the sky to now work in harmony with the subject of the foreground. I have balance from top to bottom, two potentially conflicting subjects now working together.
Unfortunately, there is something working in this image against harmony. Perhaps you have a sense of what it is?
Some audio to go with the image:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Technical: ISO 100, f/22, 30 sec, Singh Ray Warming Polarizer, 3 stops ND, 2 stops reverse ND
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1896415c-2b92-49b9-bacc-5266ae7ccad8)
Related posts:
Hmmm, interesting pic, good story, good case you make, intriguing question …
You mentioned that sky working in harmony with the foreground, making the one item you didn't mention the middle ground, or strip of lake. But, despite general principles, one man's harmony may be another man's cacophony. I suspect you're speaking objectively, not subjectively, or we wouldn't have much hope of figuring it out.
A few items I'm not certain about include the bright strip of lake (much brighter than the sky above, which doesn't seem right), the sky which has shapes in it my brain wants to resolve, the foreground pool again reflecting a sky which is brighter than the sky above it, and the bright pool fighting with the rock next to it for status.
I'm aware that a bit of disharmony might work just fine, or the success of this image might just come down to individual taste. Some sour makes sweet sweeter.
I'm still working on it, but work calls. Thanks for the opportunity to look at this.
Big Alec,
Really interesting image. For me, the image seems disconnected. I think it is because the reflections in the rock pools indicate tranquility and non-motion, while the sky is presented to represent movement and motion.
Also, and maybe of equal or greater significance, my eyes move in competing directions. On the pic foreground, my eyes move from the bottom right to the left, following with path of water pools on the rocks. For me, this causes an imbalance because the sky moves from the top left to the top right in a less dimensional pattern.
Those are my initial thoughts on your pic which seems technically superb.
Alec,
When I first looked at the thumbnail image, my eyes said there were two different images there, not one. Even after looking at the full size image, I still wanted to go back and look at the lower thumbnail. Some very dramatic stuff going on, but to me, it is ” black and white” (sorry) there are two different images there.
I like them both.
I'm looking forward to working with you on the north shore.
This is a great example of how honest and differing assessments of one's art can help us see new options, and at the same time, test how certain we are that what we've created is still true for us.
Thanks for putting your work out there Alec, to involve us in this process.
Hey Gang,
Thanks for ALL THE COMMENTS. I want to pick up where Amy left off. I posted this image, not because I thought it was some work of art. I posted it because it really is a challenging image and from it all of us can hone our own intent and insight.
I can't disagree with any of the comments, nor would I. Photography is subjective and therefore all responses have validity. So to Jeff's comment…this wasn't a test per se, it is subjective but on my end there are things going on that don't work for me in the image. You touched on them, as did everyone else.
This raises some really good questions about us as photographers…for example:
1) ON PROCESS: What makes a good image? Well, Amy nailed this…an image and process that is true to ourselves first. If this is happening, its already a good image before it ever sees the sensor! And certainly before anyone else says “This is a great photo” or “I could have shot that…whatever.”
2) ON AESTHETIC: When does some imbalance or disharmony or tension enhance our experience with the image? Jeff/Chris/Chet all touched on this in one way or another. For certain, when I was shooting I had considered this element. That's all. Just thought, “Heavy static rock, moving sky, good contradiction?” The next thing I thought was, “We'll see. Shoot it!”
3) ON AESTHETIC: Culturally speaking, there ARE elements of design that we (western culture) will find aesthetically pleasing. You all are familiar with most of them. Things that come in 3's, movement from top left to bottom right, diagonal v. static horizontal, rule of 3rds, repetition of shapes, color depth/relationships and on and on. All of this is helpful in beginning to understand what each of us likes and dislikes as elements in our photography. It gives a way of organizing our approach and developing our gut response to what our eye sees. Paying attention to this will help each of us develop a look or feel to our photography that is genuine. None of it is necessary to having a successful image, but it certainly take us in a direction we may enjoy.
I'm really pleased that two of you are participants in the work shop and we will spend a lot of time exploring all of this. Jeff, any way we can get you to join us?
THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
Cheers,
Alec