Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Baobabs and Mangoes  (Read 3432 times)
wolfy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« on: November 16, 2007, 11:27:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael,

Thanks for another intriguing trip/equipment report!

And especially for making the effort to "save" the "Mango Laneway"  shot, ...beautiful effect - composition, colors, softness, etc!

Re. the Baobab/oxcart shot: Did you continue shooting as the cart progressed on it's way? I am curious about a shot where the cart is approximately even with the 1st large tree on the RIGHT side of the path, ...for a better scale representation of the size of the trees.

Compositional "rules" for travel-room ahead of the cart aside, and keeping in mind that it is the size of these unusual trees that is the most striking element,  the huge foreground trees would look even larger with the cart well past them, and the right-side tree could give a more accurate measure for the "scientifically" curious.

Anything to share?

Thanks!
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2007, 03:29:38 PM »
ReplyReply

There was one frame. Otherwise there were people in the shot.

Michael
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2007, 04:22:36 AM »
ReplyReply

"Did you continue shooting as the cart progressed on its way?"

Kind of reminds me of the time when Moses came down from Mount Washington carrying the last Tablet of Stone: one of the curious asked him if there were any more tablets to be had up there; Moses looked at him for a moment, sighed, and then dropped his last load on the guy´s foot.

Rob C
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2007, 06:24:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Rob. You're less polite than I am, but the story is one I'll remember to use in future. Even including "Mt. Washington".  
 
Michael
Logged
wolfy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2007, 10:50:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"Did you continue shooting as the cart progressed on its way?"
Kind of reminds me of the time when Moses came down from Mount Washington carrying the last Tablet of Stone: one of the curious asked him if there were any more tablets to be had up there; Moses looked at him for a moment, sighed, and then dropped his last load on the guy´s foot.


Ok guys, I must need some educating here.

If this comment, and Michael's, indicate that I have said something stupid or offensive, I have to confess to obliviousness.

If my post was anything other than a simple and reasonable question, it was certainly not intended to be, and I remain unaware of the unappropriate element(s).

Please enlighten me,...and this is a serious request.

Apparently the appreciation/compliment aspects of my post were not as impressive.

What's up?

BTW, given the heavens as a palette, stars as a handy medium, and purported intent to communicate an eternal-guidance message, ... Who in His right mind would create in a relatively fragile, erodable medium such as stone?

Sounds more like the limited imagination of a relatively primitive story-writer, no?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2007, 01:49:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks Rob. You're less polite than I am, but the story is one I'll remember to use in future. Even including "Mt. Washington".   
 
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153539\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You´re welcome, Michael.

I have had a look at the article again and, if I may, would like to offer my views on the pics - not so much views, just what appeals to me most: Dancers - 1.4/50 optic, is beautiful across any medium, camera or brush; Mango Laneway´s blow-up is also a step into the further reaches of photo-art and finally, Paddling, with the 100-400 lens, is travel photography pornography: one just can´t resist the attraction of either location or light. Damn nice group of shots.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2007, 01:58:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Wolfy - lighten up! You didn´t offend anyone, insofar as I know; it´s just a little fun at what is a question without a lot of photographic point or even answer; nada mas.

Tablets of Stone was state-of-the art in those days - haven´t you watched the Flintstones?

Rob C
Logged

wolfy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2007, 08:09:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob,

In the interest of forum-civility, I have set aside the brilliant sarcastic response I typed for you, and will use straight-talk:

In my OP I asked a question related to a technique(-the use of humans/objects in a photograph to indicate "scale") which is not new to photography.

Michael answered it, ... simply and adequately.

That should/could have been "end of story".

However, your and his "conversation" which followed, and your subsequent comment,  more-than-implied that the question was pointless and the asking/asker of it worthy of ridicule.

Neither was/is the case.

Condescencion and an attitude of superiority are not suggested  methodologies for getting  someone to "lighten up".
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2007, 08:42:38 PM »
ReplyReply

wolfy,

Can't help but notice that you don't post a lot? (by your post count)...I would suggest you grow some thicker skin bud...the world is a big nasty place (if you haven't noticed) and a lot of "communication" between people comes with an edge. If you're prone to offense where none (I believe) was intended, you're gonna have a pretty tough time...
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2007, 10:29:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Wolfy,

Your initial question is interesting for many reasons. It touches on the following topics:

1. There is major discussion going on elsewhere on the aesteticism in PJ work. Some people (like me), love the work of Mc Curry for its aesthetical beauty, while other see in it a dangerous trend away from real PJ where the reality is often not beautiful.

Does a superb framing of an awful scene help promoting the disgust of the horror, or does it in fact hide this horror and therefore prevent the intended message to come accross?

The image would indeed probably be perceived by most people as being more balanced had the vehicle been at another location in the frame, but would this beauty be more true to the scene than the current image?

2. Is a shot that has been orchastrated worse than one capturing a real scene like Michael's? What if Michael has been with a local cop in his car, and what if that guy had had the power to tell the pedestrians to get out of the way so as to enable the pefect image. Would the resulting image be as valuable as the current one?

- as a testimony of the scene?
- as a piece of art?

3. Would the framing be questioned the same way were the image an oil painting instead of a photograph? Photography being perceived as a representation of reality, we - as viewers - have the feeling that we understand the logic behind a scene, and the next step is our desire to give advice to the photographer whose image is often perceived as a more or less lucky pick among many other options we - as viewers - feel could have been better. An oil painting being a construction from the start, we might have less of tendency to react the same way.

4. Is a classical composition resulting in a balanced image better than one breaking away from the rules (on purpose of by accident)?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
wolfy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2007, 12:48:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,

You state some of the innumerable questions that might be discussed re. photographic communication, philosophy, and "style".

My own inquiry was not intended to plumb those depths,...but was rather prompted by a simple curiosity - "Wow!...Just how big ARE those trees, anyway?".  I posted to find out whether Michael had perhaps taken a different shot which might make this more apparent, ...and he replied in the negative. I in no way suggested (or believed) that such a "different" shot would be "better' than the one posted by Michael., ...only that it might make relative sizes more apparent.

Simple enough.

Schewe,

Your observation about my not having posted "a lot" is only valid if you add "here at LL."
I have blessed inter-net surfers with thousands of posts, scattered among several interest-forums, using a number of nick/user-names.

Thank you for your concern, but my skin thickness is more-than-adequte. Suicide is not contemplated, and sleep comes easily.

I have years of experience, both career-wise and on the web, re. net communication issues, and dealing with "edginess".

I don't propose to engage in a continuing exchange in this thread, as my question has been answered, and only deterioration can be expected when the discussion moves from the photograpic  to personalities.

You are of course entitled to your impression as to what may have been/not-been intended.

In this case, my impression is different, and I'm sure you will agree that you are not actually in a position to clarify by speaking for other involved parties.

As pointed out, my original question was answered in short order.  Ensuing posts find us venturing onto thin ice. My motivation has been the fact that I don't think that "courtesy" is a synonym for "passivity", and when I believe unwarranted deprecating insinuations have been made, I am likely to challenge them. Nothing has been posted that causes me to think I am mistaken in this instance.

We all know that when well-meaning (or other) "spectators", each having an opinion, begin to gather and post,  molehills can easily grow into unrecognizable forms.

So, ...I have said my piece, and will attempt to refrain from further participation in this thread.  The original subject is nearly out of sight behind us already.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 01:00:24 AM by wolfy » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2007, 01:10:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bernard,

You state some of the innumerable questions that might be discussed re. photographic communication, philosophy, and "style".

My own inquiry was not intended to plumb those depths,...but was rather prompted by a simple curiosity [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wolfy,

Fair enough. But the reactions of some might have to do with their interpretation of your question along some of the elements I mentioned.

I might be alone here, but I personnally feel these directions worth discussing.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad