Along Sourdough Trail

The water has gone down, but some paths are still occupied by puddles or shallow streams, and the streams themselves are high, wide, and fast. I saw a duck trying to make its way upstream along the edge; it finally gave up, moved out from the bank, and shot downstream.

Though a problem for travel, the water is a photographic boon. In the previous post I showed a few photographs with varying location of the plane of focus relative to the surface of the water. This morning I carried out the experiment more systematically, changing only focal distance for a fixed camera position and aperture (f/9). In the sequence below, focus is at the puddle, at some nearby branches (as reflected), and at the far trees. This would best be presented as a slideshow; relationships among image elements would be more clear with in-place transitions. I’m currently looking into ways to provide that, and hope to update this post when I’ve learned how.

One thing has become more clear to me after today’s outing. I realized that what I find appealing about these images goes deeper than spooky focus play or surrealistic texture overlays. It’s the ability to superimpose layers that could be considered different worlds. Despite their proximity, the grass growing above the puddle, the dead leaves lying underwater, the low growth hovering nearby, and the high canopy beyond are in different microenvironments having quite different character. True, a simple wide-angle shot, aimed horizontally rather than downward, could take everything in and show it all at once in sharp detail. But juxtaposing rather than layering alters the effect altogether. The dreamy feeling might be entirely lost, and with it the drifting, contemplative mood I was in.

The image above is my favorite from a series taken from the same position, but with depth of field varied using apertures from f/5.6 to f/16. Below is most of the set, with f/8 left out to enable easier comparison of f/11 with either extreme).

The f/11 version seems to me to have the right balance (or tension) between the two saplings as principal subject and the similar shapes in the background. The latter draw the eye much more than with f/5.6, but still leave the central pair dominant. I find f/5.6 over-emphasizes the isolation of the pair from the surroundings, while f/16 gives too little separation, making the image feel too complex and confusing. In general, I like complexity, but complexity with structure.

Be that as it may, I think the main point here is that changing depth of field changes the message. As I commented in discussion on Art and Perception

What I “want to say” is not so clear yet, which is why I chose this image to illustrate the issue. Or rather, I want to say both that here’s an interesting pair of saplings entangling and they’re here entangled in an interesting patch of woods.

At the time I made the photograph, I was thinking of the saplings as purely visual elements, whose relationship I adjusted by the camera position. It wasn’t until processing at the computer that the allusion to human figures embracing occurred to me. This fits right in with recent musings at A&P on the subliminal significance of the figure.