Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: I am beginning to think I don't get "it."  (Read 2555 times)
Chris Calohan
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2109


Editing Allowed


« on: February 07, 2013, 08:46:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Or perhaps "they" don't get it.

This is not typical LuLa posting material but it is street work in the truest sense.

In another forum, it was suggested I crop closer to the dog..well, if one looks closer they'll understand why that's a big problem for me. It was also suggested I eliminate the rusted rivets but to me with the scratched and shattered plexiglass (persplex) window, they represent the the deprication of their environment.

So, should I make the second dog more visible, crop as suggested and eliminate dog 2 altogether, get rid of the rivets or leave it as it stands and let the infidels figure it out for themselves?

Logged

What! Me Worry?

Life is about a little kid driving a Mini...
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2013, 08:53:33 AM »
ReplyReply

What an enjoyable photograph. This is great content that is always interesting to most people. It could have been two kids in the window or two cats and so on. I think discovering the darker dog is part of the fun of the photo. If I had one quibble I would say it looks too perfectly framed and tight. If there is a bit more in the frame, I'd be inclined to let it look more casual with more space around the window. It looks preciously tight.
Logged
LoisWakeman
Guest
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2013, 08:54:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I suspect on a superficial examination (i.e. the typical attention span of the drive-by forum user!) the second dog will be completely missed - so perhaps bringing it out a bit would be worth trying.

To my eye, the thing with the rivets is not that they need cropping out, but we need to see a bit more of a frame for the canine scene, so we have a bit of context rather than just a sort of picture-frame width border (if that makes sense) - for example, the hint of rivets at the left is tantalising and I'd like to see a whisker more.
Logged
Chris Calohan
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2109


Editing Allowed


« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2013, 09:02:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Step one...enhance the visibility a tad..and it's not much but perhaps enough.



I'll have to think more about the framing as it's just typical trailer siding and doesn't lend itself to enhancing the scene...but I'll look.
Logged

What! Me Worry?

Life is about a little kid driving a Mini...
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2013, 09:05:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Step one...enhance the visibility a tad..and it's not much but perhaps enough.



I'll have to think more about the framing as it's just typical trailer siding and doesn't lend itself to enhancing the scene...but I'll look.
If I may expand on that idea.
A photograph isn't normally framed in the same ways as paintings - if I can boil it down. As framed now, it looks to me like a photograph that someone wanted to make look like a painting (in conception). My own preference would be to see the stuff which makes it more photographic. Maybe not the whole trailer!
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2013, 09:05:45 AM »
ReplyReply

It's a neat shot, Chris, and a lot of fun. I wouldn't call it a street shot, but that's another story. Don't change a thing. Here's another that I shot in Victor, Colorado last summer. I'm not Bogarting your thread because my picture isn't as good as your picture. Maybe we could turn this into a "dog in the window" thread.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2013, 09:14:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I certainly didn't spot the dog (no pun... okay, yes, accidently intended) in the dark, and I'm happier not seeing it. As remarked, one sees what's obvious and often that's more than enough to satisfy the instant gratification gene that lives today in our heads. Without that instantaneous click things get passed so rapidly that they are forgotten before they are even off the screen. Just like today's pop!

I like the shot just as it is, and think that additional cropping, rejigging turns a grab into a contrive. Leave well enough alone; life doesn't always require ultimate perfection which, anyway, often equates with absolute boredom.

Rob C
Logged

amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 877


« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2013, 09:16:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I love this one. The second one with the background dog pulled up just enough so you won't miss it completely is perfect.

A perfect little slice of americana, with a touch of humor. Every element is necessary, don't crop a single thing out.
Logged

- Andrew
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2013, 09:17:54 AM »
ReplyReply

It's a neat shot, Chris, and a lot of fun. I wouldn't call it a street shot, but that's another story. Don't change a thing. Here's another that I shot in Victor, Colorado last summer. I'm not Bogarting your thread because my picture isn't as good as your picture. Maybe we could turn this into a "dog in the window" thread.


Complete with theme tune:

http://youtu.be/2AkLE4X-bbU

Rob C
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6307


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2013, 09:24:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Rivets and pincushion distortion out, darker dog in (or completely out) Smiley
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Chris Calohan
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2109


Editing Allowed


« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2013, 09:26:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks. All. I am going to play with the crop a bit later and repost. I really struggled with leaving more of the non-information as being to much information..almost like "Hey, pity these poor dogs because they live is such undignified squallor," than getting in a little tighter and allowing the obvious to be just that..

I do appreciate all your comments - I think the only comment I got on the other forum concerned the size of ...well, you know...geeze, makes you wonder, eh?
Logged

What! Me Worry?

Life is about a little kid driving a Mini...
Chris Calohan
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2109


Editing Allowed


« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2013, 09:28:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Rivets and pincushion distortion out, darker dog in (or completely out) Smiley

The pincushion distortion is the bent side of the trailer, not lens distortion. The rivets I could agree with.
Logged

What! Me Worry?

Life is about a little kid driving a Mini...
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6307


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2013, 09:52:44 AM »
ReplyReply

The pincushion distortion is the bent side of the trailer, not lens distortion. The rivets I could agree with.

Hmmm... It is present, and uniformly so, on all three sides (and probably all four, but the top is missing a reference point). It sems to me that nothing in nature, including man-made objects (except for cushions, of course), bends that way, so I remain convinced it is lens distortion.
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 877


« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2013, 09:56:29 AM »
ReplyReply

It's been a long long time since I read Strength of Materials but I recall that stress piles up in the corners of a rectangular cutout in a flat plate. I think it's at least credible that a rectangular cutout could, over time, warp into a pinchushion-distortion shape.

If it's true, I bet that somewhere underneath there the mathematics of lens-pincushion distortion and the mathematics of stress on a rectangular cutout turn out to be pretty much the same, if you squint.
Logged

- Andrew
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6307


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2013, 10:19:00 AM »
ReplyReply

KISS first, Andrew  Wink

I am sure it has its theoretical name that escapes me at this moment, but isn't there a principle that says that if a simpler explanation fits, it is most likely the right one?

We are talking about a door, a rectangular thing, with left and right side much taller than top and bottom. If bent "naturally," as per you and Chris, than we would see the full distortion of the bottom, but only the bottom part of the distortion on the left and right side. instead, we are seeing all four corners of the distortion in this photo.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6307


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2013, 10:21:23 AM »
ReplyReply

NOW we are talking Chris!!!

Love it! Now the rivets are making it.


EDIT: Just in case you are wondering, the above refers to an image that Chris posted for a split second, and took it down the moment I posted the above. Chris then reposted it further down the thread.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 11:47:44 AM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
walter.sk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1334


« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2013, 10:58:41 AM »
ReplyReply

So, should I make the second dog more visible, crop as suggested and eliminate dog 2 altogether, get rid of the rivets or leave it as it stands and let the infidels figure it out for themselves?

Actually, I would do all of the above and make several pictures out of it.  I like it the way it is, but I think I would make the second dog just a small be more visible.  I also like your scarred window as a statement, but I might clone out just the part of the scratch directly under the dog's nose, from the darker hair while leaving the rest of that scratch.

Including the rivets adds interest and adds weight to the bottom of the image.  Great capture.
Logged
Chris Calohan
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2109


Editing Allowed


« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2013, 11:06:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I changed the title, far more to benefit the others in the other not named forum and as I most ineloquently sated, "for the reading impaired." I was being snotty but geeze when do we stop allowing a viewr to only react and not interact with an image?

I did some compositional changes by leaving in more of the original framing and allowing a bit more of the second dog to come through...quien sabe.

Logged

What! Me Worry?

Life is about a little kid driving a Mini...
Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 718



WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2013, 11:59:15 AM »
ReplyReply

The dogs in this last one seem much more capable of barking.

Bruce
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 03:08:02 PM by Bruce Cox » Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1705


« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2013, 12:12:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Much better with more window showing.  It helps explain the dogs' story. Either three rows of rivets or none.  A single row at the bottom is distracting but showing them on the sides too explains their presence at the bottom.  

The bottom border is now too wide for me. I'd reduce the width of the aluminum siding by half, keeping the rivets.

I'd also lose the brown border at the top of the curtains unless you have the top of the window available in the original.  I'd vignette the top of the curtains a stop.

Anything you can do to further increase the visibility of the dark dog will help.

And I'd lose the single rivet at right.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 12:59:44 PM by Peter McLennan » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad