Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Pipe  (Read 1023 times)
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6201



WWW
« on: February 06, 2013, 06:31:57 PM »
ReplyReply

.
Logged

RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2013, 07:32:40 PM »
ReplyReply

This kind of vernacular photograph often has a strange appeal that can be hard to pin down. I find them very enjoyable when executed as well as this one (usually they're not). It invites me to propose to my self a variety of story lines from political statements all the way to simple visual curiosity. There's a lot of ways this photograph would not work. The obvious being say, harsh flat lighting, or poor exposures. But, none of that is here. So, mostly the technical matters can be dispensed with.

There's just enough elements to work with for a composition. Too much would be clutter, too little would provide no context for the subject. The pipe exists in a formal arrangement of mechanics that can even evoke visions of a poised canon - if even a water canon - and for all I know that's what it was. It has structure, form and design, and therefore lends itself to study. The photograph encourages that.

I always ask, 'can beauty be just as well in the mundane?' And I think when we don't name the objects as we look, we can see through the names to the underlying reality. Is this any more or less beautiful than the oft photographed tree trunk lying askew in the misty wood? (e.g. is this our new nature?) I enjoy the formality of the white prop-stone (reminiscent of a grave stone), and it happens to be a convenient place to project a nice shadow, and show the light source.

I think it is successful. I might quibble on personal taste about the contrast in the ground material and a some things like that, but that's the photographer's preference, of course, and doesn't make a difference here. An enjoyable photograph.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 07:59:18 PM by RedwoodGuy » Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 801


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2013, 06:03:02 AM »
ReplyReply

You just can't leave the dappled light alone, can you, Russ?

Too much crap in the background to my taste, kind of distracting, but it's the dappling you were looking at, wasn't it? Crop in tight on the interesting Things and you lose much of the dappling.

I don't think it's really working for me, but I do like the pipe and the tree roots(?) and the block. I find the Things mildly interesting, but the photograph itself not really.
Logged

- Andrew

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

Posts: 6201



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2013, 09:11:38 AM »
ReplyReply

It's the kind of thing you do when you can't find time to get out on the street, Andrew. "Crop?" Did I hear you say "crop?" Go stand in the corner, Andrew.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2013, 09:24:31 AM »
ReplyReply

It's the kind of thing you do when you can't find time to get out on the street, Andrew. "Crop?" Did I hear you say "crop?" Go stand in the corner, Andrew.


Well, the fingers of the rising dead are quite interesting in a cinematic sort of way...

Never tried any cemetery snaps yet (don't enjoy crowds), but there's time yet, I think.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5735


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2013, 09:35:45 AM »
ReplyReply

 ?

P.S. Since your own explanation contains only a single punctuation mark, I thought I shall respond in kind  Wink
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 6201



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2013, 09:39:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Slobodan. But the only reason there's a punctuation mark in my "explanation" is that you can't post a picture without at least one character in the text portion, and that character can't be a space. Hmmm... come to think of it I haven't tried a standard HTML non-breaking space.

Actually, if you have to "explain" a photograph you've already missed the boat. (to coin a non-sequitur)
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7898



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2013, 04:29:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ,

This one really knocks me over. It is stunning, and beautifully metaphoric, with all the ambiguity and suggestivity of good Street photography, even using symbolic, substitute objects for the people.

Bravo!
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

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

Posts: 6201



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2013, 06:17:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Eric. As I said before, this is the kind of thing you do when you can't get away to get out on the street. I do enjoy it, though, when the light's good.
Logged

Mjollnir
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2013, 02:23:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Eh.  Not really my style of street photography.
Logged
James Clark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195


« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2013, 02:54:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Eh.  Not really my style of street photography.

Mine either.   But it is an absolutely fantastic portrait.
Logged
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2013, 06:03:23 PM »
ReplyReply

It works better for me in monochrome. Or more accurately, B&W. It was already more or less monochrome.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 06:07:13 PM by Doug Frost » Logged
cjogo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1466



« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2013, 03:01:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Much prefer the B&W on this image ...
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6201



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2013, 10:20:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Same pipe. Different time of day. Different angle.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7898



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2013, 11:05:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I much prefer the original photo. And in color. Although the colors aren't an essential part of the story, they support the drama of the image in a way that seems obscured in Doug's B&W version.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2013, 11:44:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL link=topic=74978.msg598654#msg598654 date=1360426804\
Same pipe. Different time of day. Different angle.

I prefer the lighting in the first one.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5735


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2013, 12:15:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Pass that pipe, guys, and whatever you are smoking in it Grin
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 6201



WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2013, 12:17:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I prefer the lighting in the first one.

Yep. I do too. And I agree with Eric. The color's really essential. I looked at it in B&W before I posted the original -- a high-structure conversion in Silver Efex Pro -- and decided it wouldn't do.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad