The texture of snow.

I guess, but taking a close up of snow is kinda boring IMO. I was shooting snow and ice yesterday, started breaking the ice to show sharp and smooth and it looked okay, but I'll need some more for certain.

File: 2016-01-30_05-20-22.jpg (874 KB, 1600x1067) Image search: [Google]

874 KB, 1600x1067

took this 2 years ago.. something like this might fit the requirements

>go to a frozen lake
>crack lake
>take picture

OP her, I already did/tried that

*here

>>2756413
nice lines, Vosh....digging that photo

Snow is obvious. But having shot at least five rolls of luxurious black and white in snowy conditions, I know there's many kinds of snow besides that which you find outside your window (fallen snow in a drift). There's puffs of snow falling off a tree, or rooftop. There's snow that's been run over by a truck at speed, leaving its tread-print on the packed snow. The kind that rests on an evergreen tree, close up depicting the needles and their snow-cap.

Wood is generally possible to shoot the year through. Tree bark usually works. Large rocks are also available, sometimes they'll be caked in frost which is extremely cool.

Really to depict texture, you'd just have to shoot things that aren't smooth (because that could be regarded an absence of texture), and to expose correctly (snow is EC +1). Get your midtones down and you should be fine.

Don't forget to feel things (for texture) through your viewfinder as you go around snapping: be sure to have the frame's edges in your sight at all times and pre-visualize.

>>2756413
Posting a picture in a non-picture thread? /p/, you've changed, and I like it

Should I be trying to get close up or further away?

Also, is the rubric saying the 5 pictures need to have the same texture? Sorry for so many questions, I'm just a noob.