Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: FedEx  (Read 5550 times)
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2722


« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2013, 10:37:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Then it's just an other lorry?
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5946


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2013, 10:51:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Then it's just an other lorry?

Indeed. And we do not like anonymous around here Grin
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2013, 11:28:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Then it's just an other lorry?

Yes, as it should be.

Otherwise, the logo is the strongest graphic element in the photo. The eye goes to it first, when it shouldn't be competing with the sunlit ridge. Not unless you're making a FedEx advertisment, anyway.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2013, 11:59:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe the logo is the point; it would be were it my shot: it changes the mundane into the different idea of destination, mission, purpose, fighting frontiers etc. and anything much other than a company in a worldwide delivery business like that would fail to sell the story.

You must nurture the romantic in your soul.

Rob C
Logged

seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 821


« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2013, 12:06:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Leaving an image for a day or two definitely helps.
   

Try a month or two, Stamper - it's amazing!

Nice going, Russ.
Logged

nemo295
Guest
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2013, 12:48:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe the logo is the point; it would be were it my shot: it changes the mundane into the different idea of destination, mission, purpose, fighting frontiers etc. and anything much other than a company in a worldwide delivery business like that would fail to sell the story.

You must nurture the romantic in your soul.

Rob C

It would be FedEx ad. Which is fine, if that's what you're going for. There's no way to separate that logo from the company it signifies.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5946


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2013, 12:57:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Andy Warhol didn't use a generic soup can, but Campbell's. And it wasn't an ad for them either.
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 6297



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2013, 01:44:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Right, and next time I go across country I'll be looking for Campbell soup cans. I hope I can get one with a background as good the one behind the FedEx truck.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5946


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2013, 02:15:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ, I should have made clear that I was responding to Doug's post right above mine. In other words, I am not in favor of removing the logo, and agree with Rob's eloquent statement about its importance.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2013, 02:17:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Andy Warhol didn't use a generic soup can, but Campbell's. And it wasn't an ad for them either.

But Warhol's painting was only about the soup can, which was stylized to make a point. Different context, different message.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6297



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2013, 02:44:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ, I should have made clear that I was responding to Doug's post right above mine. In other words, I am not in favor of removing the logo, and agree with Rob's eloquent statement about its importance.

I knew that, Slobodan. I was cracking a joke. And it looks as if Doug is of the school that says a picture is never finished until you've changed something important in it.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2013, 02:53:36 PM »
ReplyReply

It would be FedEx ad. Which is fine, if that's what you're going for. There's no way to separate that logo from the company it signifies.


That's the point I was trying to make. But, equally, it's not an advertising shot: it's Russ making a sentimental statement that works because of the emotional reaction his location and treatment evoke as response. As was pointed out, without logo there's no emotional response at all and, ergo, no picture.

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 03:28:29 AM by Rob C » Logged

nemo295
Guest
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2013, 07:27:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I knew that, Slobodan. I was cracking a joke. And it looks as if Doug is of the school that says a picture is never finished until you've changed something important in it.

Not at all, Russ. I'm of the school that says visual elements which detract from the image have no business being in the image.
Logged
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2013, 07:34:03 PM »
ReplyReply


That's the point I was tryimg to make. But, equally, it's not an advertising shot: it's Russ making a sentimental statement that works because of the emotional reaction his location and treatment evoke as response. As was pointed out, without logo there's no emotional response at all and, ergo, no picture.

Rob C

All I'm saying is that given the fact that it's not a FedEx ad, the logo isn't making a contribution to the shot. You have stated that the logo adds a sense  "of destination, mission, purpose, fighting frontiers etc."

I think the truck does that all by itself, even without the logo. Which makes the logo an unnecessary distraction.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 07:46:18 PM by Doug Frost » Logged
RobbieV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 261


« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2013, 07:40:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the image works better without the logo and agree with the reasoning behind it.  Had you been following the truck for a while or was it a "see and snap" photo? Just curious  Roll Eyes
Logged
rogerxnz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2013, 10:59:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, as it should be.

Otherwise, the logo is the strongest graphic element in the photo. The eye goes to it first, when it shouldn't be competing with the sunlit ridge. Not unless you're making a FedEx advertisment, anyway.

I agree cloning away the logo is a clever move because it is too distracting. Then I recommend a new title, such as, "Late afternoon, Route 70".
Logged

Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5946


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2013, 11:03:53 PM »
ReplyReply

... I'm of the school that says visual elements which detract from the image have no business being in the image.

How about the school that says that cloning out a major element of an image is one step too far in manipulation? Veracity tends to have a virtue of its own.
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 294


« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2013, 11:10:50 PM »
ReplyReply

No, Rob, I think Roger's just confused. He seems to have the idea that a title has to identify the purpose of a picture.

I'm not as dogmatic as that. I just think titles can be an aid in working out the photographer's intentions. My confusion was based on more than the title. Russ called the image "Fedex" but he stated that his intention was to make the rocks "pop" which, to my mind, means he thought the point of interest in the image was the sunlight on the rocks. I think he also said that himself.

So, as Russ says, the image is about the sun on the rocks but he gave a title based on the logo on the truck. I think that is confusing.

Quote
Here's the kind of picture Roger suggests would be an improvement. Can't say I agree, but whatever floats one's boat.

I like the thought of making an image in that location like your second one. I agree it needs more work and would benefit from more interest in the foreground.
Roger
Logged

Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand
rogerxnz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2013, 11:20:48 PM »
ReplyReply

How about the school that says that cloning out a major element of an image is one step too far in manipulation? Veracity tends to have a virtue of its own.

Oh, no, not the "photographs are the truth" debate, again. That really is trolling, in my opinion.

Is your comment limited to saying just cloning is bad or are you saying all manipulation (including altering contrast by adjusting film development or paper selection or Photoshop) should be outlawed?

With respect, I consider it would be unfair to hijack this thread with a discussion about acceptable limits of manipulation and I encourage you to start a new topic on this issue.

Until your post, members were discussing removing a particular element from a particular photo. If you want to debate the ethics of doing this, I consider you should do so in a separate thread.
Roger
 
Logged

Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2722


« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2013, 03:07:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Russ I think you would best if you close down the thread now. The future of the forum is more important than Fedex. Sad
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad