This image was converted to b/w from a close-up (non-macro) photo taken from above of an icy river flow in southern Vermont.
Adjusted the b/w settings a bit and then increased the contrast to get more pure blacks and whites. ‘Burned’ the bottom edge area using a grey fill layer overlay and black brush. Also, cropped the photo to isolate the interesting ice structures and the water flow.
Specific Feedback Requested
Exploring b/w. Appreciate any comments.
Technical Details
Is this a composite: No
Nikon D90 AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm
1.30s f/3.5 iso 200, focal length 20mm
Lovely scene. I like the interplay of the fast moving water and the static ice. I admire you cold-weather photogs for getting out in the cold!
Because the upper icy part looks so interesting, I’m wanting to see more of it. It feels like the upper icicles are too close to the edge. While it’s good to burn areas where you don’t want attention, that lower black area perhaps is taking up too much real estate in the frame. Maybe less on the bottom, more on the top?
Thank you Bonnie! The upper top part was cut off by my original photo. I got the idea for editing after I took the photo. Now that I am beginning to learn to post-process a bit, I may take more photos with a processing style in mind.
While I was processing it, I was surprised by how the flowing water and the ice stood out against the black background.
When I stopped processing, two other symbolic images came to mind.
I agree with @Bonnie_Lampley that there are some interesting contrasts between the flowing water and the static ice, and its not just movement either, it’s also sharp ice vs. softer water flow.
When I try to compose scenes like this, I ask myself what are the most interesting elements, and how do I want to try to emphasize them. To me it’s the contrast between the ice and the water flow. I also agree with Bonnie, the composition here leaves me wanting to see more of the ice. Shadows and areas of dark help to define the shape of the water and ice. The dark area between the ice and whitewater is a critical part of this image in that regard. I think if you had shown more of the ice, and what is likely a dark area above it, the image would be improved. In your island/turtle image it is the sky that defines the shape of the island. I think showing the full ice formation with a band of dark above it would have created a similar look.
The large size of the burn area at the bottom has a lot of visual weight, yet in my opinion it doesn’t add much interest to the image. It is also pure black, so it has no detail or texture, and the edges of the burn are abrupt, which I think looks un-natural. I do think you need an area of shadow darks across the bottom, to define the shape of the water. I think the dark (but not pure black) tones in the lower left corner (LLC) do the trick in that regard, while still leaving some detail and texture. You recently expressed admiration for Cole Thompson.s images. In those images, Cole does a great job of using shadows and darks to define the shapes of key highlight areas. But in a lot of those images the darks were not pure black, and they retained some detail/texture for visual interest, for example the water in the iceberg image. What you have in the LLC is a more interesting way to frame the water with darks, than the pure black burn area is. Can you also post this image before you did the full burn at the bottom? It might be interesting to see what is there.
Thank you Ed, I appreciate that you pointed out how the darks in Cole’s images still have detail and this keeps them more interesting. I looked at them again and I see the difference you are mentioning.
I find this image very confusing. It’s overly contrasty and not very sharp. Some of the lack of sharpness may have to do with the camera. Was this shot with a tripod? f/3.5 gives a very shallow depth of field. Much of the white in the snow has no definition even though it’s are not being clipped. The blacks, as mentioned, can’t be recovered. Snow is not easy to shoot and you don’t want to do it on a sunny day.
Yes, @Igor_Doncov. I edited this to be more abstract, so I am not surprised it is confusing. After seeing Cole Thomson’s images I wanted to explore how to make a black and white image more artistic. However, I did not get the hang of how he did it and I realized that I have a lot to learn. But after playing around with the settings a lot I saw something new that I liked anyway which was this image, so I kept it.
Below is the original - that I thought I would experiment on with - attempting Cole’s style - and then after realizing that I did not know enough how yet to do that - I went for a much more abstract image that I still ended up liking. I still would like to learn to change black and white photos similar to Cole’s at some point, but that is also funny because I think he actually says he never tries to learn anyone else’s style because he wants to keep his own style pure.
Here is the original photo I took for reference and to clear up the confusing edited image I posted.
I am unsure myself about how I feel about such heavy edits that distort the original image beyond recognition. However, I do like things that are creative and unique.
I find the original vision and composition to be very good. I would have been very happy with it as is. I still think you have some DOF issues with parts of the scene sharper than others. Thanks for sharing.
