A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
Another scale example - but how do you show this well?Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
12 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Another scale example - but how do you show this well?
Following on from Stubbsy's "Importance of Scale" post from Rotorua's Redwood Forest, I thought I'd share this one - and pose the question of how the heck you really show these glaciers in a way that brings their true size to life...
Fox Glacier (we got a good view of it for half an hour or so before it clouded back in!)... 
Franz Josef as clear as we got it - note the top of it dissappearing into the clouds... 
See the ice cave at the base of Franz Josef? Now take a closer look - here's the scale bit I'm talking about... 
And so I ask the question again - how the heck you really show these glaciers in a way that brings their true size to life? *** When getting there is half the fun! ***
Well I was going to suggest getting some people in the shot to give it a sense of scale....but then I scrolled to your last shot...and well that aint gonna work is it...
Sorry I can't help you on the scale thing.... but if its any concillation...it aint the size that counts...  Last edited by Bindii on Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The last thing I want to do is hurt you... but it's still on the list...
That sure is a lot of ice.. Maybe you could cut and paste a known landmark such as the Opera House at the right scale to put it in perspective, using people justs makes you go wow - its big but as you have said it does not do it justice on how big. Great shot BTW.
Canon
Leon
Scale or not - that first shot is a corker. Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything. *** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
I used to do a lot of Geological photography & scale was very important.
I used to use lens caps, coins people etc. None of these are a great deal of use here. Perhaps a passing bus? or, given the location, a helicopter... If its any consolation, I've heard the same comments about the Grand Canyon. Sometimes you just have to go there.
I was at FJ about 20 years ago. It looks as though the glacier has retreated a LOT in that time. Then, I didn't bother with photos, but I drank in the experience. As for your photos, I prefer #2. It evokes something of the eeriness I felt when I was there. Greg
It's easy to be good... when there is nothing else to do
I think the first two photos show the scale of it very well. How many people do you know have low lying clouds covering their heads (smoke doesn't count and neither do people who have heads in the clouds, etc)?
It's very well executed Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
I think No #2 gets the scale perspective about right. The waterfall on the right and the mountain in the background show the scale of the valley the glacier has carved. Does for me anyway.
They are nice images too. Steve.
|D700| D2H | F5 | 70-200VR | 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-70 | 10.5 | 12-24 | SB800 | Website-> http://www.stevekilburn.com Leeds United for promotion in 2014 - Hurrah!!!
It's a hard thing...
I know in all my NZ shots I struggled to impress the awesome size of the place on the viewer New page
http://www.potofgrass.com Portfolio... http://images.potofgrass.com Comments and money always welcome
Even in the smaller version of the first image, the people can be just made out and for me this does give a good indication of the scale. The larger image just drives it home even more.
I recall standing on Fox Glacier, it would be almost impossible to represent it. There are too many environmental factors which impact on the experience. Of course, you can demonstrate scale the way you have, and that informs the viewer intellectually, but it doesn't go close to the awe inspired by standing on the big ice cube.
Greg - - - - D200 etc
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Previous topic • Next topic
12 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|
