I absolutely would miss that thin band at the top. It grounds the whole scene, gives me a sense of place and reality. Without it, I'd spend too much time wondering if I was looking at the world right-side up. That detail from Kandersteg makes all the difference.

That thin band at the top is your signature move, and I think it works perfectly. Kandersteg reflections on film in a Hasselblad, what a combination of patience and place.

Yes the context is needed. I find myself doing something similar but including more of the item being reflected--it's sort of situational so whatever works for an image is good. Nice shot.

Excellent use of refelection. Without the thin band at the top as an anchor, I agree the viewer's eye would have no point to focus.

@Richard King Photography , I think Ansel, himself, would have been proud of this image, had he done it. VERY nice! And to answer your question, no, it needs to have a reference point for the eye and brain to register that it's a reflection. And if you really like reflections so much, check out the central image on this page of my website: https://mpimagery.com/mountains.

Enjoy! Rob

I used to crop reflections tight until I realized that sliver of context does exactly what you describe. It anchors the read. Without it the image floats in a way that asks too many questions before it lets you just look. The Hasselblad reciprocity math must have kept you honest about every frame.

That thin band at the top anchors it completely. Without it the eye would hunt for orientation, especially with water that still. I shot some pond reflections last fall and kept cropping tighter and tighter until I lost all context and the image just floated, which wasn't what I wanted. You're right that the proof matters, not because people won't believe you but because it gives the reflection a place to live. The reciprocity math on film always fascinated me, the way you had to account for the medium itself and not just the light.