Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Curious  (Read 749 times)

Rajan Parrikar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3950
    • Rajan Parrikar
Curious
« on: September 11, 2016, 07:32:12 am »

Curious - boys & toys.



BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3307
Re: Curious
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2016, 01:35:59 pm »

I like! +1
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Curious
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2016, 02:11:39 pm »

Very interesting image on several levels; also a candidate (perhaps!) for a tighter crop? I don't think the 'negative space' at the sides adds anything at all.

Actually, it does: it's forced me to use that term, negative space, for the first time that I can remember. Soon, I shall write in curator-speak!

;-)

Rob C

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Curious
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2016, 02:29:36 pm »

I like it! My version would've been taken with a 4:3 aspect ratio camera, thus resolving Rob's negative space concern.  :)

(Of course in reality I may not've seen this image to begin with.)

-Dave-
Logged

Rajan Parrikar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3950
    • Rajan Parrikar
Re: Curious
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2016, 08:36:24 pm »

Thank you, gentlemen.

Rob - now that you mention it, I think the crop does make it stronger. My initial thinking was, the space provides context for the expansive football ground.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Curious
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2016, 02:57:58 pm »

Thank you, gentlemen.

Rob - now that you mention it, I think the crop does make it stronger. My initial thinking was, the space provides context for the expansive football ground.


Think Capa: if you're not close enough...

;-)

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Curious
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2016, 03:10:53 pm »

Thinking of what I just wrote to Rajan about getting close (filling the frame with subject) reminds me again of why I have problems with my own attempts at landscape (long abanoned - fear not!): conditioning from pro life.

A lot of travel photography for clothing company advertising was partly sponsored both by fibre manufacturers and hotel groups, airlines etc. and they had to get their pound of flesh too. That resulted in shots with far too much 'local interest' and the fashion aspect suffered because of it. Consequently, I began to have a hatred towards some of those sold-soul situations and that, I realise, has resulted in all my landscape work giving me the impression that it's simply a backdrop awaiting the talent's appearance in whatever she's obliged to wear. Not only has it affected the landscape side, it also cut the other way: I sometimes found myself staying too wide, even when there was absolutely no obligation to do so. To every action there's its equal and opposite reaction.

Rob
Pages: [1]   Go Up