Ice Field Beach

See, I don't understand this. I'm not sure what you want me to look at. The histogram shows a lack of contrast; the tones are limited, but you still have blow-outs. The texture in the foreground is interesting. But I'm not getting the story.

Nice try! But I think it can still improve. 

This is one of those photos that needs explanation. It is chaos.

Nature is chaos - most of the time.

When we find order in nature it is often deemed beautiful.

In this photo there is the result of the chaos of tremendous wave action that created the scene - it brought the rectangular huge chunks of ice from the lake the night before (the lake, which froze and has a dusting of snow, is on the upper right - below the clouds).

Yet the scene is serene.

It is backlit on purpose to accentuate the chaos with shadows and intentionally blown-out reflections. The sun is to the upper left - out of the frame.

It has a sense of direction - from the middle of the right side of the frame, angled upward to the left. That is the direction of the shoreline.

It tells a story that people from the northern Great Lakes know - at least the ones who spend and experience the harsh winter here. The foreground from the bottom right corner to the middle of the frame on the left edge has bubbly melted ice which refroze - this happened some days before. The rectangular 1 foot thick ice in the middle arrived later, and a dusting of snow covered everything.

There is another story - the story of the ephemeral nature of the winter shorelines in the northern Great Lakes. I went out this morning to this exact location - less than a 1/2 mile walk from home. It is completed gone. Warmer temperatures last night and wave action melted and broke everything up into little pieces, and created turquoise pools with the overcast conditions.

That's not ice, that is Supermans home!  

Seriously for me, I like it.  The B&W works well (although I would like to see color version of it as well). The diagonal position of your frame consumes roughly 2/3rds of the image, which works.  I wouldn't mind seeing a little more definition from the the clouds in the back, perhaps a little Dodge/Burn action here.  

I have family that live up by the great lakes and the winters are brutal and these lakes are not to be underestimated with the amount of havoc they can be create.  

Fess Walker.  Here is a similar scene in color.

For me, I always like ice scenes like this in color, where you can appreciate that blueish clear ice.  

I think that:

1) If the image requires explanatory text, that should be included with the image. At least, that's generally what I see done.

2) I don't see chaos. I see a frozen mound of ice, broken chunks of ice, and a cloudy sky. I don't see any typical elements of good composition, and there's nothing there to lead the eye.

3) What you describe as "direction" only serves to lead the eye up and to the left, out of the frame. That's not usually what you want.

4) I already mentioned the lack of tonality.

5) I can read the light in the scene; it's pretty evident. I don't find it compelling. To be fair, I find most harsh light to be difficult to use effectively.

6) I appreciate your last two paragraphs, but I don't get that at all. How do I know this was taken in the Great Lakes area? It could be Hudson Bay for all I know. Your intent to imbue meaning here doesn't mean that it comes out to the viewer.

I appreciate what you're trying to do. For me, this was not successful.

garyrcook. I should have had an explanation the first post. I posted it in a hurry before going to bed. Just curious - how do you like the similar color version posted?

"Some see nature all ridicule and deformity...and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself."
- William Blake