Choice of exposure (set of two)

[michswiss]

Going back to some experimentation...

Outside
                           



Inside
                           



                           

[michswiss]

I don't normally reply to my own threads.  This is two separate shots exposed distinctly.  No "post" magic, although I know it would be tempting to combine the two.  It's really an exploration of what the human eye can do.  I saw both shots at the same time, thus leading to the dual image.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I am immediately tempted to combine them in a weird, wacky way: insert the contents of the window (second image) upside down into the black window space in the first. But then I just saw an exhibit by Jerry Uelsmann yesterday, so my mind is going surrealistic at the moment.

Eric

P.S. They're both interesting in their own right. I'd like to see prints of both, but not next to each other, so I could absorb each without the influence of the other.

[stamper]

The first one is very appealing. There is a lot to see in the image. Would it be possible to have more of the bicycle in the frame? Perhaps all of the back wheel? Hopefully the image was a crop and you have some more pixels to play about with?

[michswiss]

What is this cropping concept you refer too? 

No extra pixels available in either shot.  There are a ton of interesting walls around Melbourne.  I don't shoot them unless there's some other added twist I want to explore, as in this case. 

[stamper]

Nothing complicated about the "extra pixels ". Just my way of saying ... did you crop and is there more of the bicycle to see?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Well I, for one, like having just that arc of the wheel in the photo.

And as for cropping, be careful you don't get Russ and the PETP* folks on your case for suggesting it!

(* That's People for the Ethical Treatment of Pixels.)   

Eric

[Bruce Cox]

Light and dark, inside and out, before and after, in the mind and in the eye, you show these as separate but dependent.  I reacted by combining them in photoshop, because I felt a need for more continuity.  The shots do not, as you say, register and align, so when their separate lights, spaces, times, and reactions are combined by layering some of their separation remained.  I liked it better that way, though how close and when these parts should be together only you know.

Bruce

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

On a side note... the pair would be a perfect example to have in a gallery, next to each other (sorry Eric ), for people to see why we often need to use Photoshop: "My eyes could see the whole scene, but my camera couldn't". A third print, a combination of the two, would help as well.

[Isaac]

"My eyes could see the whole scene, but my camera couldn't"

Is that an illusion? We don't see the whole scene at the same moment,  the eyes scan the scene and the pupil contracts and expands continuously to adjust for different light levels as they are encountered - and the S-mode camera similarly adjusts the aperture for different light levels as they are encountered.

What we see is not what is before our eyes at a particular moment.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

On a side note... the pair would be a perfect example to have in a gallery, next to each other (sorry Eric ), for people to see why we often need to use Photoshop: "My eyes could see the whole scene, but my camera couldn't". A third print, a combination of the two, would help as well.

Good idea, Slobodan, but I'd prefer them in three galleries (sorry Slobodan ). People could see #1 by itself in the first room, then #2 by itself (probably among other prints) in the second room, and finally your pairing, together with the combined image in room #3.

[michswiss]

Interesting thoughts all.  It's given me some insight for other exploration.  Thanks.