Pisa Range

[Mike Brown]

Recently back from the annual snow-caving trip with the Year 13 Pe students from school. A lovely time up in the Pisa Range. The second year I have been now and interesting to see it in quite different weather. The students found it quite an experience walking down to their caves for the night from our hut with ~50 m visibility and snow blowing into their faces. A few images I managed to catch when I wasn't busy chasing the students around. Comments welcomed, it is great to switch roles with my students and be learning and receiving feedback for a change.

Regards,

Mike

[DwayneOakes]

Cool place no pun, last image for me for the light and shadows.

[Jeremy Roussak]

The second doesn't do much for me. The third shows a fascinating place, but my favourite is the first, for its abstract, peaceful character.

Jeremy

[luxborealis]

Really enjoy the photographs, Mike. What a great experience!

I prefer 1 and 3...
1 - because of the high key abstract nature of it (although I, personally, would clone out the inverted snow cone in the top left)
2 - seems looking for a foreground or a background to give it some context;
3 - because of the great depth - would make a great background for a yearbook two-page spread

Cheers

[Mike Brown]

Thanks for the comments. I think I agree on the second. I passed over it on my first run through the images but came back because the interplay of the shadows and curved slopes caught my eye. On further reflection I don't think it has enough else working in it though and doesn't focus on the curved slopes / shadows sufficiently.

I can see the attraction of cloning out the pyramid. Not something I have tried before, partly due to the fact I only use lightroom and my brief play with its cloning tool seemed to suggest it was quite limited (or that it was going to take quite a bit of practise to become adept at using it), and partly due to personal preference.

[AnthonyM]

Difficult to make compelling images of snow.

You have managed it in §3.  §1 is also good, and I would keep the snow cone as it adds interest.

[luxborealis]

I can see the attraction of cloning out the pyramid. Not something I have tried before, partly due to the fact I only use lightroom and my brief play with its cloning tool seemed to suggest it was quite limited (or that it was going to take quite a bit of practise to become adept at using it), and partly due to personal preference.

This is easily cloned out with LR. In fact, since the "Spot" Healing brush was improved in LR, I've never had to use PS, and I've had to do some pretty intricate cloning.

For this, try it in two, separate rounds of cloning. For the  first round, set the brush to "Clone" then, instead of clicking and dragging to "paint" over the area to be cloned, try using three "spots", one at each apex of the triangle plus a click and drag for the shadow. Remember, you can select the area to be spot-cloned from by holding down the Cmd key (Mac) or when click-dragging, moving the origin "shape" after clicking. Consider using less feathering on this first go, then, for the second round, increase the feathering and switch to "Heal" to better blend the cloning with the surrounding snow. If you use "Heal" for round 1, you'll end up with grey blobs.

[Jeremy Roussak]

1 - because of the high key abstract nature of it (although I, personally, would clone out the inverted snow cone in the top left)

I'm surprised you advocate removal of the cone, Terry. I find it adds interest to the upper left and I like the way its shadow parallels the one lower down. I always learn from your views, though: why would removing it be a good idea?

Jeremy

[luxborealis]

I'm surprised you advocate removal of the cone, Terry. I find it adds interest to the upper left and I like the way its shadow parallels the one lower down. I always learn from your views, though: why would removing it be a good idea?

Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,
I appreciate you asking "why". We don't do that enough!
From my perspective, the cone is more of a distracting influence, than it is a focal point. My eye keeps being pulled away from the lovely lines of shadows by this feature which, to me, seems incongruous with the rest of the image. The interest it adds is that of a space-filler, rather than letting the negative space do its work of balancing the rest of the photograph.
I'm finding, more and more, that my decisions along these lines are being driven by the artistic design of the work, rather than trying to be photographically accurate. "That's the way it is/was in nature" is no longer a strong enough argument for me to keep a feature (providing I'm not recreating nature in an unnatural way). I often ask myself, "If I was painting this scene, would I leave this feature in?" With film, we didn't have the same options as we do now with digital media. Personally, I'd rather take advantage of those  to strengthen the message/design/concept of the work.
Sorry, for rambling!