Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Chris Calohan on February 07, 2013, 09:46:06 am
-
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?
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8092/8452475668_b3251598e1_o.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Step one...enhance the visibility a tad..and it's not much but perhaps enough.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8242/8452530323_efbe57f731_o.jpg)
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.
-
Step one...enhance the visibility a tad..and it's not much but perhaps enough.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8242/8452530323_efbe57f731_o.jpg)
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Rivets and pincushion distortion out, darker dog in (or completely out) :)
-
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?
-
Rivets and pincushion distortion out, darker dog in (or completely out) :)
The pincushion distortion is the bent side of the trailer, not lens distortion. The rivets I could agree with.
-
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.
-
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.
-
KISS first, Andrew ;)
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.
-
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.
-
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?
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8092/8452475668_b3251598e1_o.jpg)
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.
-
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.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8373/8452814919_effb244780_o.jpg)
-
The dogs in this last one seem much more capable of barking.
Bruce
-
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.
-
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.
Thanks for your response and from everyone else's as well.
I want to keep the second dog as vague and almost meancing. In his face I read resignation of yet one more time being disappointed but in such a manner as not to ever bark again.
I'll probably lose the top part of the window frame and will look at vignetting the curtains. I did do quite a bit of work on them to diminish their value against that of the dogs thoough perhaps more is needed.
-
The last version is definitely the best from my point of view -- interesting watching the iterative process work out.
-
Hey ~ what about the Cats in a window ;D
-
I find this image to be delightful. Very nice!
I too strongly prefer the more relaxed crop. I also scrolled the image just enough to get rid of the sliver of window frame at the top. I like it without the distraction of the wood at the top--letting the lace curtains disappear out of the frame.
Thanks for sharing!
-
Great shot, but we have been told in no uncertain terms. "On LuLa, NO CATS." : )
Even though, as anyone can plainly see, the Internet runs on cats.
-
This is turning into a riveting read. It is really surprising how different folks see things differently assuming they aren't seeing them differently for the sake of it. I too missed the second dog because I assumed it was dirt on the window. I think Rob was right .... you see what you want to see. Then your mind starts to image it in a lot of different ways. The second one is better imo because there is more context. A thumbs up for the image. BTW Chris it looks as if you have a stalker or an admirer. Someone is waiting patiently for you to post an image to get his criticism in first. ;)
-
Great shot, but we have been told in no uncertain terms. "On LuLa, NO CATS." : )
Even though, as anyone can plainly see, the Internet runs on cats.
It isn't a cat ... it's pussy. That will attract more interest? ;) :)
-
Thanks for your response and from everyone else's as well.
I want to keep the second dog as vague and almost meancing. In his face I read resignation of yet one more time being disappointed but in such a manner as not to ever bark again.
I'll probably lose the top part of the window frame and will look at vignetting the curtains. I did do quite a bit of work on them to diminish their value against that of the dogs thoough perhaps more is needed.
The revised cropping yields an important piece of new information in the photo - the dogs are in a trailer. And that piece of information already makes the story more detailed and interesting. A whole new context was added (which has previously been removed). The added information doesn't in away detract from what was already there with the dogs. So for me, this is much more successful.
-
And I'd lose the single rivet at right.
Before PS, heavens to betsy, what might we do!
Peter
-
The same thing, Peter. It just took a lot longer and a lot more work.
-
KISS first, Andrew ;)
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?
I suspect you're thinking of Occam's Razor, Slobodan. It's a principle that has been expressed in many ways: my favourite is "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less". I find it can be applied to almost everything I do.
Jeremy
-
I suspect you're thinking of Occam's Razor, Slobodan. It's a principle that has been expressed in many ways: my favourite is "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less". I find it can be applied to almost everything I do.
Jeremy
Don't know about it being vain, but it sure does complicate life!
Rob C