Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/10/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks for giving this much attention Kyle. On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:45 AM, kyle cassidy on the LUG wrote: > I'm always torn by stuff like this because my first thought is always > "well, it's someone else's sculpture" which means that whatever "bang" > comes out of the image needs to come from the _way_ it was photographed > rather than the sculpture itself. One should look at the photo and go > "what an amazing photo!" not "what a clever sculpture". On the other hand, > a photograph commissioned by the sculpture should accent the "wow" of the > sculpture without drawing too much attention to the photographic > technique, give it context and present it attractively -- so there are > cross purposes here depending on who takes the photo and why. Quite true. I photograph quite a bit of metal work; commissioned by the metal smiths. Without a doubt I work hard to make the metal look as good as I possibly can. Generally that approach "wow's" the smiths. In this case I had no agenda. I merely stopped to experience the sculpture and see what I could see and document the experience with the equipment at hand. I had no idea that I'd be drawn to stop and do this. > You first shot is nice -- it's moody and the colors work very well > together, but it's not wiz-bang awesome as a photo and it leaves out > context of the sculpture and some of the most essential nature of it -- > the soft curves made by the letters in the arms and legs. This comment interests me because of its underlying call to action, as well as what it suggests about your thinking and way of working. Both your photographs and this comment suggest that you work hard at making "wiz-bang awesome" images. The "wiz-bang awesome" goal does not really resonate with me. In this case I did not challenge myself to create a single, be all, end all, awesome photograph of this sculpture. Perhaps I should have. I'll be thinking more about this. Yet I rather enjoyed being caught up in the mood and light and other people; even the less than ideal surroundings of the work (intentionally including them with DOF). In other words I enjoyed the not-very-wiz-bang "reality" of my experience; rather than reform it into the extraordinary. At the time reality, well documented, seemed extraordinary enough. > The second one has, I think, way too much depth of field and the sculpture > is confused y the trees in the background -- this one is a throw-away i > think. For my purposes it works in the context of my story. Obviously you'd tell a very different, perhaps much more exciting story. > The third one does a nice job of contextuilizing the sculpture, it's size, > it's environment but I"m not crazy about the visitors. Plensa has people > in some of his photos and I haven't studied them, or this form of > photography, enough to figure out if they wait for particular people > dressed particular ways, doing particular things, send their own in, or > only worry about the light. Somehow I think the mother & child take up too > much important real-estate here without giving enough back. While I understand what you're saying in the context of your critique I enjoyed them every bit as much as I enjoyed the sculpture. I also think that comes through in the photograph (perhaps for others if not for you). > Fourth one is a good idea but I think it's hampered by the framing -- > dirty parking lot in the background needs to be got rid of. it also looks > like it might be a small crop, it lacks the smoothness of your others, too > much wasted space in the bottom left and top right. Compositionally lost > at sea (I think). I agree wholeheartedly on this one. I've tried to make it work in a number of different ways. At as much as I wish it did. It just doesn't work like I'd hoped when I caught it. The photograph has been removed from the post. > The fifth is an interesting try but again the depth of field, i think, is > too deep, and you confuse the tree with the sculpture, but it shows you're > thinking. We move on. Here again I intentionally wanted the fusion of the manmade with the trees. A subjective call. I agree that if my purpose were to present the optimal photograph of the sculpture, I'd need isolate it from the background. Yet here I have the opportunity to show several views; including this fusion or almost disappearance of the sculpture. > Sixth again with the depth of field. This could be a winner -- first the > flow of letters up into the sculpture is great, I think you really want to > capture that, and people may be important to context -- our people look > like they're engaged and liking the stature. nice. But again the > background gets too much love -- i don't want to see the house and the > road. Oh well. You should have seen the house and car before I burned them down ;~) You'd have not wanted to see them even more ;~) > Seven -- a ha! we're getting very close -- the trees, slightly blurred > out, give a fill to the sculpture (with nice colors), it almost looks like > he has a face, but there's too much room in the back and not enough in the > front -- here I think we need more context, a step backwards, maybe our > people walking down the road so they don't dominate the sculpture but > still give it size. > > eight & nine are back to one but with slightly better coloring -- pick one > of those three -- (I vote for eight, it has the best clouds). My .02, > worth about that. > > Hope this helps, It does indeed help to understand subjectivity, your thinking and photographic approach, and my own. Thanks again for taking the time. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > On Oct 4, 2010, at 12:19 PM, George Lottermoser wrote: > >> <http://www.imagist.com/blog/?p=3795>