Posted by: kerryl29 | May 20, 2019

The Story Behind the Image: Symbiosis

I know that many people think that a successful artist needs to demonstrate a given style, and perhaps that’s true, but in the world of nature photography I feel that if you must reveal a style (and I’m not at all sure that you do, but that’s a topic for another day), it’s important to do so within the confines of the setting.  That is to say, a successful nature image should let the scene reveal itself through the style and technique of the photographer.  It is, then, a symbiotic relationship; it’s not about imposing oneself on the natural world, literally or figuratively.

Allow me to illustrate my meaning through an image that was made during the trip I took to the Canadian Rockies in the fall of 2014.

Mistaya Canyon Black & White, Banff National Park, Alberta

I was in Mistaya Canyon, in Banff National Park, and was a bit frustrated. I like to shoot in settings like this one—a fairly deep canyon, with a rushing river running through it—in even light.  But, for a variety of reasons which are ultimately beside the point, I found myself there mid-afternoon on a mostly sunny day.  I kept seeing pleasing compositions that just happened to be poorly suited for the lighting conditions that were present because there were distracting hot spots all over the place.

The ideal solution to the problem would have been to return at a time when the light was better suited to my intentions, but that wasn’t possible—it was my last day in the area and I had several other locations I wanted to visit before the end of the day.  So rather than cursing the darkness (or in this case, the light), I decided to light a candle:  I turned my attention to intimate scenes that were lying entirely in shade.  While this eliminated a good number of compositions from consideration, it ratcheted down the frustration level because I turned my attention to something that I could accomplish—even if it wasn’t necessarily my first choice in an ideal world.

I identified such a shot that I found pleasing but it had its own problem—insufficient depth of field.  The shot you see above was taken at a focal length of 66 mm and it originally contained an exposed rock in the foreground and another in the mid-ground; even with an aperture of f/16 there was no way to obtain a sharp image from front to back.  Going wider—thereby increasing the depth of field by reducing the magnification—significantly changed the composition, introducing elements that I wanted to exclude and also returned me to the mixed light problem.  It was only with a very tight shot that I was able to work with even light.

What to do?  I kept the tight shot but altered the composition modestly by eliminating the rocks in the fore- and mid-ground, and placing the plane of focus on the exposed rocks in the background.  The foreground and mid-ground would appear soft, but in this instance that was fine, since those areas were made up entirely of textured, blurred water.

So, instead of “imposing” myself on the scene, I worked with it…and still had the opportunity to reveal my style, such as it is, in the process.  Symbiosis at its best.


  1. You definitely lit the candle here, Kerry! As always, thank you for sharing your creative thought process – food for thought 🙂

  2. At first glance I was sure that rock in the background was a bear! I appreciate you sharing your thought process in your photography and after reading your bio thought your work and hobby do relate as I imagine you approach both in similar fashion in how you approach a challenge and your attention to detail. I find it Interesting that you were dealing with depth of field, as I too, was playing with that yesterday while walking on a city trail.I like the leading line to the background rocks and combination of soft, harder focus.I need to slow down and think more about what the situation is, and how I want to deal with it.Thank you.

    • Thanks, Jane. (I see what you mean about the bear-rock. 🙂 )

      My sense is that most people feel that a discipline like statistics is very much a left-brained activity while landscape photography is right-brained.

      The depth of field thing is interesting. I honestly can’t remember why I didn’t consider employing a focus stacking technique in the field when I was considering how to handle that shot.

  3. Have you tried focus stacking before? It could have solved your depth of field issue. I’m a miniature photographer and we are challenged by this all the time.

    • It’s a good question. I mentioned, in response to an earlier comment in this sequence, that I can’t remember why I didn’t implement a focus stacking regimen for this shot. (The foreground may have been in objectionable light.)

      I’ve been using focus stacking for landscape photography for approximately 12 years; I posted a primer on the subject last year:

  4. So often it’s about being happy with the picture that’s there rather than the one we’d really like.

    • Agreed! There’s certainly a “mind over matter” component to the exercise.

Please feel free to comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: