Conveying a sense of scale

[stubbsy]

I have a problem and I need your help. I have a whole slew of different takes on the Fox Glacier from my recent New Zealand trip. Now for anyone who's not been there, this thing is HUGE.

Trouble is that getting the sense of its size in a photo is hugely difficult. Since this was my second trip I took three quite different angles on achieving this. Below are four almost finished versions (almost because I just can't nail the bloody white balance).

I'd like your comments on which, if any of these give you the feeling you are looking something massive rather than something that you might find in a rarely defrosted refrigerator

Clicking an image displays a larger version.

1. A wide view (happy with WB)




2. A slightly closer view




3. Closer still (happy with WB)




4. A loooong way away (there are three little dots in the midde here that are people on the glacier)





Edit: Fixed WB on #1 and #3

[NJ]

well 2,3 and 4 definitely do it for me! sometimes, because you were there, the photos just dont do it justice to you, but because i havent been there before, it look ginormeous!

[Alpha_7]

It really is MASSIVE. Peter..

I think as a series they do a great job and showing the scale.

[Big Red]

#3 seems to show the scale best for me

[Dargan]

Although there are people, when you look in #1 and #2, they seem too small relative to the rest of the image to convey what you are after. They somehow don't feel right because they are lost in the landscape shot. The #3 image does get that balance in my opinion. The viewer knows he is looking down on the scene from a distance and yet the backdrop is so large relative to the person in the image that it dwarfs the person. Definitely #3 for scale. BTW; It is smaller than when I was there last Global Warming and all that

[sirhc55]

Peter - #3 or possibly #5

[michael_]

#2 and #3 for me, pitty there wasnt a car down there it would have been perfect.

[matt-chops]

If its a sense of size then #3 would be the most relevant IMHO. The person in the shot is big and noticeable enough for the shot to portray a sense of the glacier's enormity. I like it, nicely composed... and the WB in that shot is about spot on.

Print It. Frame It. Hang It.

[gooseberry]

Great series Peter, thanks for sharing these - good to see the awesome scale of nature. PS. Have noticed in quite a few your images from NZ and been meaning to ask, that there are areas of the image that are fuzzy looking. Can see it on the first 3 images above - but most noticeable on the second pic - if you take a look at the larger version of that image, you'll notice the fuzziness in the bottom left hand corner of the image - the fuzziness is definitely not natural looking; just wondering what it could be from.

[Biggzie]

My only comment on trying to convey a sense of scale would be to make another version of the image and create a highlight circle around the people so the eye is drawn to them.
Try selecting a circle area around the people in #4 and lift the levels to blow the highlights so its clearly distinguishable. It will look unnatural, but it will draw the eye to them so the scale can be realised. Thats why I suggested to create another version.

[Handlebars]

As with the others, #3 gives the greatest impression of size as the human is an easy size reference. #2 is also pretty good but the person is a bit more obscure, but the cropping of #3 seems to make the glacier look so big as to be impossible to fit in one frame...

[MATT]

With out seeing it in person, I think seeing the whole series is what gives the sense of size.

In the first you cannot tell the size of it but as you get closer and realize thats a person in front.. Then pan back out for the last to give a better overall view.

So I cant pick one out.

MaTT

[Reschsmooth]

I think the problem is that, from where the person is standing in 3 (especially), the pathway dips down towards the glacier which means you loose some of the height of the glacier (correct me if I am wrong).

Also, from memory, the face of the glacier is less vertical than, say, Franz Josef, which means it is a little harder to get the dramatic sense of proportion.

That said, I think the 1st & 3rd together work really well to show this sense of scale.

Irrespective, they are great images.

[gstark]

Peter,

Perhaps the best way to handle this is through printing them out - big - and mounting them as a tryptich: image #1 in the centre, with #s 2 and 3 mounted to either side.

[radar]

What Gary said

One on its own doesn't really convey the scale of the glacier but a few of them together does. #3 comes closest.

Nice photos btw. I've been there and it is BIG. Only other way to convey the scale would be to do it from the air. From memory, didn't you have some of those on your last trip?

cheers,

André

[Ant]

I have to agree with others that #3 shows the scale the best. My take on these is that they show the scale of the face of the glacier but dont portray the length of the glacier (that might require an aerial shot?).

With the white balance, depending on the day, I would expect to see a slight blue or green cast to the glacier (could also be my terrible notebook LCD at work).

Ant.

[stubbsy]

PS. Have noticed in quite a few your images from NZ and been meaning to ask, that there are areas of the image that are fuzzy looking. Can see it on the first 3 images above - but most noticeable on the second pic - if you take a look at the larger version of that image, you'll notice the fuzziness in the bottom left hand corner of the image - the fuzziness is definitely not natural looking; just wondering what it could be from.

That's something that bothered me too. I can notice it on a fair number of the shots I took at the glaciers using my 70-200VR lens. Not all the shots are like that, but there is a noticeably large area that has what looks like motion blur, yet the rest of the image is sharp. Shots taken with the same combo before and after this lack this though. So I'm very puzzled. The only thing that occurs to me is that it may be a drop of water from the light drizzle at the time or perhaps a greasy fingerprint on the lens that I later cleaned off?

[stubbsy]

Thanks you all for your comments so far. It is odd isn't it that the scale works more strongly with the closer zoom on the man when you see less of the glacier. I also like the triptych idea, but I'd need a fair bit of wall space.

And Patrick, yes the glacier goes much further down. My leg, fresh out of plaster, got way too sore for me to keep going to get any closer (bloody broken bloody leg grrrr)

[gstark]

I also like the triptych idea, but I'd need a fair bit of wall space.

I'll come over and help <strike>d</strike>shrink the contents of the wine cellar if that will help.

[Matt. K]

How did you make that guy look so little?

[DavidR]

first and fourth are the picks for me. although the fourth doesnt really convey size very well colour and lines/compostion make it a winner for me

[JeffGlue]

2nd and 3rd, but 3rd definitely the easiest. I agree with others that maybe one large and then one or two next to it in the same frame so you really get to display the full glacier. Beautiful shots though.

[gooseberry]

That's something that bothered me too. I can notice it on a fair number of the shots I took at the glaciers using my 70-200VR lens. Not all the shots are like that, but there is a noticeably large area that has what looks like motion blur, yet the rest of the image is sharp. Shots taken with the same combo before and after this lack this though. So I'm very puzzled. The only thing that occurs to me is that it may be a drop of water from the light drizzle at the time or perhaps a greasy fingerprint on the lens that I later cleaned off?

Hi Peter, hmmm... had a look at one of the photos you posted in an earlier thread that I first noticed this on - and that is the shot of Mitre Peak (http://stubbsy.smugmug.com/photos/221683431-O.jpg) - you've obviously used a different lens (shot was at 32mm) but you can see the same type of fuzziness, this time it's in the rocky headland area in the middle to right foreground. You shot the image wide open at f/2.8, but normally oof areas don't look like that and especially considering that the rocks in the bottom left are even closer and don't look as weird. Wondering if it might be your RAW converter (I'm assuming you took it in RAW)

[stubbsy]

Hi Peter, hmmm... had a look at one of the photos you posted in an earlier thread that I first noticed this on - and that is the shot of Mitre Peak (http://stubbsy.smugmug.com/photos/221683431-O.jpg) - you've obviously used a different lens (shot was at 32mm) but you can see the same type of fuzziness, this time it's in the rocky headland area in the middle to right foreground. You shot the image wide open at f/2.8, but normally oof areas don't look like that and especially considering that the rocks in the bottom left are even closer and don't look as weird. Wondering if it might be your RAW converter (I'm assuming you took it in RAW)

It has me stumped too. The Mitre Peak image was taken with the 28-70, but I should point out the area in question was EXTREMELY dark and had some serious PP work which may be the cause. One thing I can rule out is the problem isn't the raw converter since I can see this in PSCS3 AND in Nikon Capture AND in DxO (NEF being looked at in each case) so I'm at a complete loss for an explanation other than a fault with the D2x, but it's not there in all shots. I do believe there may be a problem. I'm currently working through the NZ shots so I'm still looking for a pattern.

[Man Tripod]

I think the photo of Fox Glacier that you posted in you're other recent NZ thread was better than all of these in showing the scale. I think it was the "Aetearoa 2" thread. They're all great images though and so are most of the others that you post. All quality stuff.

I was lucky enough to do a couple of walks around the galcier in September 2006 as i didn't have a broken leg. I walked straight up one of the cascades that came of the northern wall of the valley and got a great view up the guts. On another day a mate and i walked up to Fox Peak and a little further which gave a commanding view of Fox glacier, all the other glaciers and the highest peaks. Probably one of the more demanding walks you could do. From the road you basically climb straight up the hill through the forest and come out on the grassy heath at around 1400m asl. Great views out to sea also. I took plenty of photographs but none really stand out to me. Fell for my usual habbit of trying to capture the whole scene rather than picking out one defining element in the landscape.