What Does This Need? What Is Missing?

I'm enchanted by icicles, melting icicles especially. The problem is that I can't figure out what's missing. What does this need to make it special? I am thinking lighting is a factor, but I'm just not sure what would make it go from snapshot to something interesting.

It's tough to make such a cliche subject appear visually interesting. Color (refraction/reflection), contrast, etc.

See how others have tried, and usually failed pathetically.

Look at melting icicles from a different conceptual point of view. As objects they're as dull as dust. But they can, somewhat uniquely, be used as symbols of the simultaneous passage of time and climate/temperature status. You'll not find many other such subjects so able to act as static representations of dynamism.

Now reconsider their potential uses in more expressive, and perhaps more subtle, photography.

This one is so similar to mine that I did a double take. This one is a bit better due to the light, but still blah.

I will have to rethink this. Thanks, Ken.

Rachel, this is one of my favorite subjects, but my results seldom seem work as well at the PC as when seen through the viewfinder. My theory is motion plays a big part in the appeal. Watching a big old drop of water make its way to "freedom" from its parent icicle takes place over time. Catching it in a single moment is not easy because anticipation is no longer part of the deal.

One of very few I've kept - http://www.pbase.com/salty_one/image/109937157

If it works at all, it might be because it captures a flow, instead of a moment. Purely conjecture, of course.

Hi, Rachel,

Rachel Foster said:

I'm enchanted by icicles, melting icicles especially. The problem is that I can't figure out what's missing. What does this need to make it special? I am thinking lighting is a factor, but I'm just not sure what would make it go from snapshot to something interesting.

Click to expand...

• Too bluish ("That's funny, you don't look bluish").
• Not enough "sparkle" (indeed likely a lighting problem)
• Seems slightly out of plumb (not vertical). Maybe it isn't vertical, but I think the viewer expects it to be.

Best regards,

Doug

Rachel, list all the reasons you are enchanted by icicles.

Using the list, photograph the icicle in as many different ways as you can for each reason you have
given. use different aperture, speed, your position, fl, light, time etc.

See where that leads you.

Best.

Tom, I have tried those shots as well and prefer them, actually. That's a nice one.


Doug, your points are good ones.

Fahim, that's a good idea!

Does anyone have a link to a "good" icicle shot?

For some more inspiration, have a look at Tom's Nothing But Ice gallery

Those are absolutely glorious. I'm not aware of ice scenes like that in my area, though. I'll have to look more carefully.

Wow! I tried to get precisely this last winter!

This one...this is what icicle shots need.

I've attempted many of the exact same shots. I clearly don't have Tom's eye. I wish I did!

Rachel Foster said:

I'm enchanted by icicles, melting icicles especially. The problem is that I can't figure out what's missing. What does this need to make it special? I am thinking lighting is a factor, but I'm just not sure what would make it go from snapshot to something interesting.

Rachel Ann Foster: Melting​

Click to expand...

Yes,

Rachel, it does have nature's beauty but not esthetic tidiness. That's the challenge! Now work on it to find what of it has the most magic and how to present that. This is a case where you have told the truth but perhaps too much of it!

Asher

..............

Rachel....Its obvious what you should of done here....This shot obviously should of been done with Beer then it would be perfect....

Winston Mitchell said:

For some more inspiration, have a look at Tom's Nothing But Ice gallery

Click to expand...

Tom Robbin's galler is more like architecture in some land with mythic translucent Cathedrals, regal, mysterious and holy.

Rachel, Your icicle is lonely. It has the following elements: melting ice, therefore warming and a sense of time. The drop is like a morsel of sand in an hour glass. When all is melted, that extent of time has ended.

There's also the sense of transience, a beautiful form not able to survive. There's also loss, as each drop of the life of the icicle falls away.

This photograph, to me, at least, illustrates the need to think of a photograph that is non-documentary, as being merely latent art. If something fascinates you, then pointing the camera at the object and recording the physicality of it faithfully might fall short. It certainly has here. But why?

It's for all the reasons stated above that are built in the a melting icicle that one admires, spends time with and contemplates. With one glance, however, all the associations are not there. Rather this is an ordinary object. There's no shadow, no frame or other shapes to argue or complement it. There's no adventure with colors or shapes hinted at in the icicle.

So there are two interventions immediately possible. First, Light the thing and compose it in an interesting way and or then present it with other forms, if need be, so that it represents a compelling work, not a snap.

There's no law to prevent you from drawing on it or adding a racing car. However, at present, there are no fingerprints from your own mind.

Asher

Thank you, Asher. Currently, I'm pondering Ken's recommendations. I am trying to see it in a new light, consistent with his suggestion to see it as a metaphor and yours to juxtapose it to (an)other object(s)

Rachel Foster said:

Thank you, Asher. Currently, I'm pondering Ken's recommendations. I am trying to see it in a new light, consistent with his suggestion to see it as a metaphor and yours to juxtapose it to (an)other object(s)

Click to expand...

Rachel,

If what you've got is all that you will have, then consider that an artistic challenge to compose in PS with whatever elements needed make it work. After that, return outside and re-shoot when the sun is low.

Asher

I'll consider it but I'm not hopeful. Shooting with different light is the only thing I have hopes for as it is. Recomposing on PS...I'm clueless.

On the other hand, driving to Chicago yesterday gave me some ideas.

What you have

Rachel,

Here is the thing: You captured what you saw. The background is what it is. The white thing angled on the side just detracts from the plain and simple ice.

Sometimes to make a subject interesting you have to set a stage. I am thinking of what I do to make a good boudoir image. I take a subject and enhance it with props - lingerie, bedding and lighting. Add makeup , jewelery etc. Then I have the subject pose into what is flattering for her and appealing to the viewer.

Your subject needs light. Maybe some $5.00 color christmas lights. Maybe you need to find another icicle in a prettier location with better background - like off of a pine tree. Walk around the icicle and see what make up, lighting and jewelery would give that icicle.

Kathy Rappaport said:

.....Your subject needs light. Maybe some $5.00 color christmas lights. Maybe you need to find another icicle in a prettier location with better background - like off of a pine tree. Walk around the icicle and see what make up, lighting and jewelery would give that icicle.

Click to expand...

Kathy,

For boudoir pictures, as you shoot them, this is a personal memory for the woman and her close circle.

Here, Rachel is challenged with making a picture that goes beyond that close audience. She aims to produce something of artistic worth that works outside of herself. Your ideas are great for making a decorative addition to a family book. It's creative and adds fun.

The problem for Rachel is that her audience is not as defined. Making the picture pretty is one thing. But getting it past sunset postcard prettiness is very hard.

That's why I think it's important to stretch one's brain and try to recompose with what one has, even with the most outlandish ideas to get the brain to open up.



@ Rachel,

A drawing class in still life can help too.

The tough thing about this is that we have decades of experience with photographing people. We know their movements and poses and every nuance of expression since that's how we communicate. I think you want the picture you make to express some feelings and show is its "character". Making such a "portrait" out of an inanimate object is a much harder task by far. We innately know next to nothing about such shapes That's why one has to work at it and expand our sense of relationships.

I don't think anyone can do a good job of photographing an icicle as a quick snap. It's hard work. Read on how Edward Weston went about photographing shells and you won't feel so bad!

You have picked one of the most fascinating objects to photograph, one that, paradoxically, has sparkle and life to it, as temporary as ours.

Do what you think you cannot. Compose with your icicle in PS! Perhaps try out Kathy's ideas and then depart from that.

Asher

Concept

Yes, there is a difference in shooting women who want to have a aura of fantasy. But setting a stage to make a subject beautiful isn't.

Kathy Rappaport said:

Yes, there is a difference in shooting women who want to have a aura of fantasy. But setting a stage to make a subject beautiful isn't.

Click to expand...

Of course, Kathy!

However, you know much more about the ambience that goes with a woman than Rachel does for what goes with an icicle. You do what you do on a regular basis. Your studio and mindset are organized for this effort, so it seems obvious. Try to do that with a lemon or an HP calculator and you will see that it's a totally alien universe.

I faced that in shooting classical music concerts. Even now, after several years shooting several times a week, I am still changing what I do. So I understand why it's so hard for Rachel. She, after all, is a people person, a psychologist and has not the same experience in design of inanimate things that are not already handsome. That's why it's such hard work, as it was for Edward Weston. He spent months shooting just two shells, one on top of the other and drove his family crazy with his instructions and demands for lack of vibration in the entire house during that time. Now, consider, Weston was already an accomplished portraitist. So it's natural that the melting icicle should not be conquered in a few snaps.

Asher

Eyeglasses

Yes, but, a while I am not familiar with Weston's quest to capture the image of the shells, I did a weeklong shoot a few years ago doing product photography of eyeglasses. 300 pair with each being sexier than the next. That was so boring.

In any case, often times you have to keep going back to the same place to shoot the same subject and see it differently. If you cannot see a change in the subject then you need to change the surroundings of the subject. Sometimes it means going to it at a different time of day when the light is different. A great example is flowers. Every angle will give you a different composition. When I do a head shot, I seat the client and turn the stool they are seated on incrementally to see what the angles work best. Maybe Rachel needs to keep shooting the same icicle from a variety of angles. And don't forget the ladder.

Therein lies the rub, Kathy. Icicles are here today, not tomorrow. They are transient things and put me in mind of Heraclitus' river (no [hu]man steps in the same river twice." Even if the same beginning of the icicle is here tomorrow, it has changed somewhat. And the melting is even harder to get. It's hard to catch an icicle in melt; catching it at dawn or dusk? Even harder. In part, it's the difficulty of getting the shot that fascinates me.

Prepare!

Then you can prepare so that when the next icicles come, you can know what to do with them.

My dog, Gizmo is 12 years old. He hates the camera so much he looks away when he sees it. He will go and hide if he sees it. he has a few routine things he does every day. Last Christmas I was shooting the flowers with my 100 Macro lens. I went up the stairs with my camera in hand - set for flowers. For 11 years, I have been trying to capture him at the top of the stairs with his paws draped over the top stair hanging over the edge. It only took a few snaps. The Wide Open aperture for the low DOF on the cameras was perfect for him. We just have to be ready when the moments are there. Have your lights, your ladder and your camera ready for the next icicle.

Kathy Rappaport said:

I went up the stairs with my camera in hand - set for flowers. For 11 years, I have been trying to capture him at the top of the stairs with his paws draped over the top stair hanging over the edge. It only took a few snaps. The Wide Open aperture for the low DOF on the cameras was perfect for him. We just have to be ready when the moments are there. Have your lights, your ladder and your camera ready for the next icicle.

Click to expand...

Kathy,

Where's the picture then? Did you show it to us already?

Gizmo

Asher Kelman said:

Kathy,

Where's the picture then? Did you show it to us already?

Click to expand...

We call this "Dog of the Week" - I took it one year ago today. And I am sure I've shared it. He allowed me only one click before leaving.