Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Reshot  (Read 906 times)
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« on: May 09, 2012, 08:53:57 AM »
ReplyReply

It's definitely more of a blunt instrument this time around, but a convincing argument was made that  my earlier idea was too subtle.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8081



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2012, 09:22:46 AM »
ReplyReply

This works much better, IMHO. In the other version, the leaves were the main center of interest, and the man seemed an afterthought. I couldn't make any sense out of the "meaning" of the leaves.

In this one, the tones, the fleeing figure, and the sides of the alley pressing in make a consistent statement, which works for me.

Ah, but there are still leaves, in the lower right, and they still feel irrelevant to me, even if no longer dominant. I would clone them out if it were my photo. With that done, I like it a lot.

Let's see what the other critics have to say!
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2012, 09:33:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I actually went to some trouble to put the leaves IN to the frame Wink They DO serve a purpose, to my eye, but I am going to leave it unspoken for now to see if they make any sense to others.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 841


« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2012, 10:20:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I agree with Eric - an altogether more satisfying image, claustrophic and unsettling in its sombre intensity. Tones much better too. Not bothered by the leaves, one way or the other.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 10:21:39 AM by seamus finn » Logged

louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2012, 10:37:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Far and away better than the first. Especially considering your explaining a bit about your vision. Not sure about the bottom right except that for me it is a distraction. It does balance the overall composition but is too bright for my eye.
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2012, 11:32:20 AM »
ReplyReply


Obviously the leaves must be intentional. You could hardly fail to notice them in the finder.

I think that if one wanted a foreground element which was OOF (always a very risky thing in B/W, often acceptable in colour), you would really want something which had a better shape. More frond-like, perhaps.

Otherwise, I think that the picture works far better than the first version. You are trying to crack a tough audience here - most of us propping up the bar in User Critiques are very conventional, hardened landscape photographers. With the exception of certain esteemed colleagues like Russ and Seamus, of course. Oh, and Jennifer, too. Oh and I nearly forgot Rob C  . . . well you get my drift. We mostly don't do avant-garde or conceptual stuff, not at all.

Which doesn't mean to say that you aren't welcome, of course  Wink

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2012, 11:44:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Obviously the leaves must be intentional. You could hardly fail to notice them in the finder.

I think that if one wanted a foreground element which was OOF (always a very risky thing in B/W, often acceptable in colour), you would really want something which had a better shape. More frond-like, perhaps.

Otherwise, I think that the picture works far better than the first version. You are trying to crack a tough audience here - most of us propping up the bar in User Critiques are very conventional, hardened landscape photographers. With the exception of certain esteemed colleagues like Russ and Seamus, of course. Oh, and Jennifer, too. Oh and I nearly forgot Rob C  . . . well you get my drift. We mostly don't do avant-garde or conceptual stuff, not at all.

Which doesn't mean to say that you aren't welcome, of course  Wink

John

The conceptual thing is weird for me. I usually hide it away from my other for-sale images so not to infect the paying stuff. Since I do so many images for commercial galleries I need to be careful about not self-editing myself when a really interesting conceptual image presents itself. I keep telling myself that someday one of my decedents will discover the "serious" side of my work and make a fortune supplying the worlds major galleries.
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2012, 12:33:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the distinction between "conceptual art" and "landscape" is, well, not necessarily false, but fuzzier than one might think offhand.

I have no interest in purist conceptual art, where the piece itself is largely irrelevant. My aim it produce an aesthetically appealing image (not necessarily attractive, but visually appealing) which communicates in some way. Landscape photography, at its best, does more than simply reproduce a beautiful landscape, it evokes the sensation of being there, or at least an emotional complex similar to being there.

Standing in Yosemite Valley seeing El Capitan for the first time, or the thousandth time, evokes a reaction of several kinds of awe in most people. It's a pretty incredible piece of rock. A good photograph of El Cap will be a nicely composed thing, with great detail in the rocks, dramatic light, and a well placed collection of trees and other foreground objects to contrast and balance the huge stone wall. I hate those photos. A great photo of El Cap will make me feel, in a smaller way, the same awe at the sheer majesty of the thing, and of nature, and the world that contains such a thing. I love those photos. Which are which? That will vary from person to person, to a degree. So, a photo of El Cap that I hate might be one that you love, for exactly the same philosophical reasons and that's ok.

An image that communicates nothing is not worthless, there are many roles these images can play. Decor, memory aids, stock photos, etc etc. I do not object to their existence. I simply don't want to make them, and I am not much interested in looking at them.

I am pleased that my reshoot is more effective than the original.

The leaves in the foreground serve, in my opinion, to place the viewer in the scene. The point of the leaves is to convert this from a photograph of a man walking away to a scene in which you, the viewer, are watching the man walk away. From an oddly low point of view, incidentally. They're not the only link from the viewer to the scene, the out of focus bricks on the left also server. Removing the leaves, I feel, makes looking at this photograph less personal, more formal.

That said, yeah, the leaves could definitely be handled better. Those are the leaves that are there, unfortunately, and pushing them much darker makes them start to look very strange.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6055


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2012, 04:15:52 PM »
ReplyReply

If anyone cares, this is how I would have post-processed the same scene (I would, however, reshoot it a bit differently: I would use a tripod and a slow shutter speed in order to render the person blurry, almost like a ghost in motion, to further play on the departure/disappearance metaphor).

The intention here is not to compete with the OP version, but to illustrate a different interpretation.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2012, 04:22:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting take, I like it! It's not a photograph I would make, but it's a strong idea.

Blurring is insanely hard to get "good" in my experience, and it's much much harder to get right when you're shooting yourself with the 10 second self-timer. I did try a few that way, but none were satisfying.

Why did elect to flip it left to right?
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6055


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2012, 04:33:36 PM »
ReplyReply

... Why did elect to flip it left to right?

It is based on a concept that we read from left to right (at least in the western world), thus a movement from upper left to lower right indicates coming, and from lower left to upper right indicates leaving.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad