The Beautiful
Contrast
Ryan T. Watters
God’s Bible School & College
The Beautiful Contrast
Ansel Adams is
considered by some to be one of the greatest photographers
of the twentieth century. His work was done nearly
exclusively in black and white, but they portray such depth
that the color is never really missed. He is particularly
known for his wide, sweeping landscapes. One of his
favorite locations to photograph was Yosemite National Park
in California. It was here that he captured the beautifully
contrastive photo Monolith,
The Face of Half Dome. While Adams
created many enduring photographs during his trips to
Yosemite, I have decided to investigate the reasons
why Monolith
has
captured my attention.
When you look at the Monolith,
you
get a sense of uneasiness; perhaps even a sense of
intimidation. When Adams captured this beautiful scene, he
was obviously at a fairly high altitude. Yet, even though
he ascended so high it is as if the cliff mocks his efforts
and continues to soar unrivaled. The intimidation is
accentuated and strengthened by the dark, oppressiveness of
the preeminent Monolith.
Let’s look deeper into this photograph.
The first thing one must understand when analyzing a
photograph is that it is made up of many aspects
collectively known as the composition. While the mountain
itself is obviously the most important part of the picture,
it would be meaningless without the plethora of details
included in the overall composition.
One of the most important of these details is the range of
contrast. This picture speaks of harsh contrast. Some
examples of this is the mountain peak as it towers above
the lower slopes, the dark shadows usurping the strength of
the dazzling snow, even the sky cannot decide which end of
the color scheme it wants to reside in. These all serve to
exhibit the beautiful range of contrast this picture
possesses. One of the most essential examples of contrast
is the sharp distinction between the snowy base and the
mountain itself. This sets the tone for much of the photo
by accenting the black mountain. Another vital point of
interest is the peak of the mountain. The cliff is so dark
that it blends in with the sky quite well. But, in the
middle of this harmony is thrust a bolt of brilliant white
snow, which breaks the congruity of the union.
Lighting also plays an important part in the composition.
What helps make this photo so interesting is fact that some
areas are brightly lit, while others are hidden in the
shadows, creating contrasts. An example of this is the fact
that the light favors the left side of the face much more
than the right side. This betrays the direction of the
mountain. For example, without the shadow on the right side
of the face, we would have no way of knowing that it is
actually slanted at an angle away from us. Supporting
evidence of this is that the sun illuminates the small
precipice in the bottom right corner while the shadows
claim part of the face of the mountain. If the face had
actually been leaning toward us, it would have been
illuminated along with the small precipice. You can
actually see a line running the vertical length of the
cliff separating the face. Because of this we observe much
more detail on the left, sunlit side, than the dark shadows
of the opposite face.
Apart from the colors and lighting, we also see contrast in
the linear aspects of this piece of art. The protracted
striations running the height of the cliff gives it a much
more towering figure than would otherwise be displayed.
While this is the dominant striation direction of the
picture there are a couple of inconsistencies. First, the
outcropping in the bottom right of the picture has diagonal
striations. While these are not in direct opposition to the
vertical lines, they are inconsistent with the majority.
Second, the peak of the cliff also has a diagonal outline,
but this time it is in the opposite direction. As you can
see, even the subtle differences are contrastive with each
other.
In spite of all these contrasts, there are a few
congruencies. First, the trees are almost perfectly in line
with the striations of Monolith.
It looks as if a magnet is pulling them upwards in line
with the face. Second, the snow on either side of the cliff
forms a white base on which the Monolith
rests. Third,
the striations on the left side of the mountain itself are
nearly parallel with the edge of the outcropping in the
bottom right. Finally, at the very top right-hand side of
the mountain the striations begin to taper to the right. It
is almost as if it is starting to conform to the shape of
the peak. Even with these similarities, however, the
picture is still overall contrastive.
To add to the variety of contrast are some anomalies. The
most pronounced of these is the individual tree in the
bottom right hand corner. It is the only tree of that genus
in the entire picture, yet it is the largest and most
clearly defined. Secondly, the peak is almost perfectly
formed, following the curvature of the cliff, except for
one sharp break from the pattern that juts out forming it’s
own peak. This is probably one of the most obvious breaks
from fluidity in the picture. Similar to this anomaly is
the peak far in the distance in the bottom left-hand side
that is simply a peak breaking the linearity of the
composition. Another anomic facet is the middle-left
section of the mountain that shows such vast detail, but
does not follow the striation pattern. There is also an
example of this in the top-right hand corner. The anomalies
add interest and spice to the overall composition of the
photograph.
When dealing with landscape photography there must be
variety in the composition. Landscapes that contain only a
single object tend to be bland and uninteresting. The
anomalies guard against this problem by adding variety,
which gives the viewer more to look at and, therefore,
becomes more interesting.
Many times we look solely at the outstanding feature of a
photograph, and ignore the details that make that feature
outstanding. In order for the viewer to recognize something
as significant, there must be smaller aspects of lesser
value over which the main object dominates. Therefore, to
gain a more comprehensive understanding of a photograph we
must not only look at the foremost aspect, but also the
smaller ingredients, which are the foundation for that
aspect. These “ingredients” may be things such as the
various contrasts and congruencies, or the shade of color
used in a seemingly minute element of the picture. What if
the photo was solely of the mountain jutting into mid air?
The picture would not have near the same impact because you
would have no frame of reference as to just how large this
mountain is. The trees at the base of the cliff serve to
give you this reference. They are so tiny in comparison to
the mighty mountain that you barely notice them. If you
really study something of this nature instead of taking the
superficial impression, you begin to realize just how
important the small details are. If, for example, the
striations on the mountain were removed, it would utterly
change the tone of the picture. You would not receive the
same sense of edginess caused by the cracks and shadows of
the striations. Even something as small as the sliver of
snow on the top of the mountain is indispensable to the
overall mood. With its harsh detaching of the mountain from
the sky, it adds to the composition a bit of coarseness.
The more you examine the photograph, the more you begin to
realize how everything, even the things that seem
insignificant, is essential as a whole to the composition.
You need the details in order to better render the
photograph. Through the use of contrast, and various other
details, this was beautifully accomplished, giving us the
stunning work of art, Monolith,
The Face of Half Dome.
References
Ansel, Adams.
(2001). The
portfolios of Ansel Adams. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company