Yosemite on ice

tenoverthenose · January 9, 2012

I could say much more about how this happened, but you can read all about that on my blog. Let's just say that I was stoked to be able to make this happen.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Yosemite%20Wedding%20on%20Ice%20at%20Tenaya%20Lake.jpg

8.

jbakerphoto · January 9, 2012

:jawdrop

kdog · January 9, 2012

:jawdrop

clickin girl · January 9, 2012

Wow!! These are beautiful!

FlyNavy · January 9, 2012

Very impressive! Splendid work.

mjoshi123 · January 9, 2012

very nice - how did you manage to stay up on ice ?

lilirishangel · January 9, 2012

Very Nice and amazing..Bravo

Matthew Saville · January 10, 2012

You win! Gotta shoot a bride in Yosemite in 2012...

=Matt=

Sam · January 10, 2012

Hard to articulate my feelings on the set. The word epic comes to mind as well as jaw dropping.

I do have a few questions........did you have an assistant for these shots? How much time did it take to get these images, and how did you get the couple to spend the time and energy to travel and pose for these?

Sam

sphynge · January 10, 2012

Awesome set!!! Do you happen to have a #5 that includes a reflection???

tenoverthenose · January 10, 2012

Thanks everyone for the love! I was beyond excited to be able to make this happen and sooooo close to completely failing (arriving at Tenaya Lake after dark).

@Josh walking on ice is surprising easy. I was actually able to run around without problem (I needed to for speed). Plus you can easily move light stands around for bonus points

@Sam No assistant on this shoot. Although, at times I would have liked one - there were a few times I wanted to boom a light over the couple, but had to make do. I'm used to working on my own and I move quickly. Getting the couple up there was easy - my clients have all seen my work and they trust me. In fact once I told them of my idea they were super excited. We worked it out ahead of time to a couple of hours for portraits so the time was already there. All told I spent 3 hours and 15 minutes with them (ceremony, portraits + two hours of driving in the park).

@Sphynge I have a frame very similar to #5 that does have the reflection, but it's not a clean reflection because of the texture of the ice (like #7 for example). I thought this one looks better because of the mood and texture. I tried to work the reflection a few times but never got anything better than my first shot on the ice (which was #7) so I had to abandon that idea and make something else work

sphynge · January 10, 2012

Fair enough. I actually love #7 for that reason

Shima · January 10, 2012

WOW!!!!! Those on ice images are AMAZING!!!

ian408 · January 10, 2012

That's quite a hike as well but well worth the hike. I'm sure your B&G are very happy

Very nice images. Especially the last--I don't think I've ever seen that before.

zoomer · January 10, 2012

7 is a special image, beautiful.

ian408 · January 10, 2012

I think the other thing that's so cool about this is that it isn't often that Tioga Road is open this late in the year. Usually, it's under several feet of snow by now.

Matthew Saville · January 10, 2012

ian408 wrote: »

I think the other thing that's so cool about this is that it isn't often that Tioga Road is open this late in the year. Usually, it's under several feet of snow by now.

Yeah, the firefall people are gonna be kinda disappointed in February, I hear... Not a very white winter in that area!

=Matt=

ian408 · January 11, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Yeah, the firefall people are gonna be kinda disappointed in February, I hear... Not a very white winter in that area!

=Matt=

Not very much snow. About the only patches of snow are the ones that have come out of a snow gun

tenoverthenose · January 11, 2012

ian408 wrote: »

Not very much snow. About the only patches of snow are the ones that have come out of a snow gun

The waterfalls are at their lowest spot in almost a year. The only snow is from an early fall storm. Of course, if it snows in the next few weeks and then clears up again in mid Feb, Horsetail will still look good. It's finicky at best, but a beautiful sight to see.

Mark1616 · January 13, 2012

Really impressive (yes, I know you've heard it all before) but they are. I'm sure the couple are very excited with them!

Ed911 · January 13, 2012

Very nice. My favorites...1, 7, and 8. In 4, it would be nice if you kept the BG and moved the Groom and Bride into the foreground some. They are so far back that you can't tell who they are. I'd try having them walk toward the camera holding hands...looking at each other. And, I also think 6 would benefit from a little front lighting. Or, black them out. Like it is...at first, I thought they were faced away from the camera, but after a second look, they are facing the camera.

Just my two cents...a little food for thought.

tenoverthenose · January 13, 2012

Ed911 wrote: »

Very nice. My favorites...1, 7, and 8. In 4, it would be nice if you kept the BG and moved the Groom and Bride into the foreground some. They are so far back that you can't tell who they are. I'd try having them walk toward the camera holding hands...looking at each other. And, I also think 6 would benefit from a little front lighting. Or, black them out. Like it is...at first, I thought they were faced away from the camera, but after a second look, they are facing the camera.

Just my two cents...a little food for thought.

With #6, well lets just say that in the time I had I could't get it to look exactly like what I had in my head. Close, but no cigar. I was really hoping to get more separation from the groom and the background, but I missed. I only had one light with me, so pushing fill light at them wasn't really an option. What I had really wanted to do was mix in the light painting aspect of 8 into this but it just wasn't dark enough yet. Oh well.

I like your ideas about moving the subjects closer to the camera Ed. I actually used to shoot that way quite a lot in the park (it was my natural instinct to show of the subject). Also, I do have close up shots of the couple together (I just don't show those off).

I've started to a make my clients a smaller portion of the frame for a few different reasons:

(1) To show off the park. Many of my clients travel to Yosemite for their wedding and having it here is incredibly important to them. Of course moving them closer to the camera doesn't mean that I would have to give up the nature aspect, but it sorta does. Right now I think there is a nice balance between a landscape photo and an environmental portrait.

(2) I love the scale. Take #4 for example. Half Dome rises nearly one mile vertical from the place where they are standing. I need them to look small because they are. In fact when I first looked at this photograph, my first thought was "they aren't small enough". To me Yosemite is a humbling place and I want to show this off.

(3) I do not want to sell 4x6 & 5x7 prints. This should be self explanatory.

(4) Many of these (1, 7, 8) were shot on a 16-35, probably close to the 16 mark. Distortion is a huge problem with that lens if I get my subject too close to the lens (or the edges of the frame). Keep them a bit smaller and that problem is negated.

(5) The vast majority of my clients do not like being the center of attention. Yes, it sounds odd for a bride, but this is part of the reason I love my clients. They love these frames for that exact reason - they are not the center of attention of the photographs. They are simply in Yosemite.

Of course there's so much more I could go on and on about but simply put this is the way that feels right for me. At least for now

sphynge · January 13, 2012

Strange... I don't see any of those posted in our monthly challenge... (hint hint hint)

Matthew Saville · January 14, 2012

tenoverthenose wrote: »

With #6, well lets just say that in the time I had I could't get it to look exactly like what I had in my head. Close, but no cigar. I was really hoping to get more separation from the groom and the background, but I missed. I only had one light with me, so pushing fill light at them wasn't really an option. What I had really wanted to do was mix in the light painting aspect of 8 into this but it just wasn't dark enough yet. Oh well.

I like your ideas about moving the subjects closer to the camera Ed. I actually used to shoot that way quite a lot in the park (it was my natural instinct to show of the subject). Also, I do have close up shots of the couple together (I just don't show those off).

I've started to a make my clients a smaller portion of the frame for a few different reasons:

(1) To show off the park. Many of my clients travel to Yosemite for their wedding and having it here is incredibly important to them. Of course moving them closer to the camera doesn't mean that I would have to give up the nature aspect, but it sorta does. Right now I think there is a nice balance between a landscape photo and an environmental portrait.

(2) I love the scale. Take #4 for example. Half Dome rises nearly one mile vertical from the place where they are standing. I need them to look small because they are. In fact when I first looked at this photograph, my first thought was "they aren't small enough". To me Yosemite is a humbling place and I want to show this off.

(3) I do not want to sell 4x6 & 5x7 prints. This should be self explanatory.

(4) Many of these (1, 7, 8) were shot on a 16-35, probably close to the 16 mark. Distortion is a huge problem with that lens if I get my subject too close to the lens (or the edges of the frame). Keep them a bit smaller and that problem is negated.

(5) The vast majority of my clients do not like being the center of attention. Yes, it sounds odd for a bride, but this is part of the reason I love my clients. They love these frames for that exact reason - they are not the center of attention of the photographs. They are simply in Yosemite.

Of course there's so much more I could go on and on about but simply put this is the way that feels right for me. At least for now

Dude, #4 makes my day. I'm kinda bored (down here in OC especially) of everyone getting all up in people's faces with their f/1.2-ness and just having zero compositional skills required, other than framing the people. (And what is it with people thinking that a dirty wall is the coolest background ever?)

So, while of course I understand you / we gotta get the close-range,smiling-at-the-camera type portraits, ....#4 is the kinda stuff I live for!

=Matt=

grimace · January 14, 2012

Stunning!! #7 with the lighting on the bridge and the low angle with the reflection is awesome!!

tenoverthenose · January 14, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Dude, #4 makes my day. I'm kinda bored (down here in OC especially) of everyone getting all up in people's faces with their f/1.2-ness and just having zero compositional skills required, other than framing the people. (And what is it with people thinking that a dirty wall is the coolest background ever?)

So, while of course I understand you / we gotta get the close-range,smiling-at-the-camera type portraits, ....#4 is the kinda stuff I live for!

=Matt=

Wanna know a secret? My clients hate that in your face f/0 stuff too for the same reason we do.