CRITIQUE #17

Discussions on Equipment, Locations and Tips for getting the photograps you want of Vermont scenes.Note: You must be registered in order to post. If you have trouble registering, use the contact us form on Scenes of Vermont's home page.

Moderators: bm, Andy, admin

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

CRITIQUE #17

Postby Andy » Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:05 am

I think this is where we left off. I think the thread is, actually, pretty dead. Indeed this forum doesn't get much action - I wish it did.

Anyway, I digress:

These two images were taken just seconds apart on a canal in Venice. The position of the boat is obviously the only difference. I shot both purposely, not really knowing:

1. If the image works at all;

2. If so, whether the boat "entering the frame" or "leaving the frame" worked best.

If you like the image at all, which do you prefer, and why?

Image

Image
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .


autzig
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: CRITIQUE #17

Postby autzig » Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:14 pm

Andy, I think the first one is much better. The moving boat has a little headroom, that is, space in front of it. I think such space in front of your subject is an important element in a good photo.

That said, even then, the photo with the boat entering still doesn't work for me. The subject is a blur. It would have been better if you had panned on the boat so that background was blurred and the subject sharp. I have to admit that my approach is more traditional and you've turned it on its head by doing the opposite of what is usually seen. That's an out of the box approach, but I don't think that makes it better. I think portraying motion is done better with the blur of the background.

Al

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: CRITIQUE #17

Postby Andy » Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:55 am

Thanks, Al: Good points. I was trying something different. I wanted all the elements other than the boat to be sharp. But I agree that the traditional approach would be to pan with the boat and blur the background. One of the things I was trying to capture is how fast these water taxis are moving through these very small canals. While panning does show motion, I am not sure you could have been able to guage the speed.
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

deaner1971
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:01 am

Re: CRITIQUE #17

Postby deaner1971 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 7:18 am

Andy,

I think this place is so dead because people were/are hyped up to get out and start shooting. I expect traffic to shoot up as people return home and start reviewing all of the images they have collected (and in my case will collect).

I can see your points on this. While I am a traditionalist like Al, I do always like to see new things.

The issue is, having been trained to see photos the more "traditional" way (subject in focus and background blurred), this almost looks like a speeding vehicle intruded into your shot. That is just my brain not accepting new input the first time around.

For example, when you see a shot of a city street you have seen photos where a fountain is in focus and all of the people are ghost-like blurs or where a person is in focus and the city turns abstract around them. I have also seen plenty of city shots where you see card tail lights as blurs on a dark thoroughfare where the composition is not dissimilar to your shot.

Getting old and my brain just doesn't adjust to a paradigm shift as it used to...

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: CRITIQUE #17

Postby Andy » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:01 pm

Thanks, Dean. I appreciate your comments. You guys probably have noticed that I don't often put up a shot that I think I did "just right." I am more interested in putting ambivalent or "outside the box" images up. They stimulate interesting discussion.

I appreciate the discussion and the thoughts. Hope you are right about participation, but I am not real optimistic. I think FB Twitter and G+ have basically rendered these boards "irrelevant." Too bad. None of the above is good for stimulating deep thought and lasting discussion. They are all about "sound bites" which is a bad direction, in my view, that we are going in.
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .



Return to “Vermont Photography Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest