Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: downwards  (Read 1428 times)

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5415
downwards
« on: July 11, 2011, 03:49:45 PM »

G10. Conceptually worthwhile?

Jeremy
Logged

popnfresh

  • Guest
Re: downwards
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2011, 05:29:20 PM »

The camera's perspective is disorienting and there isn't anything particularly interesting happening here to pull it together as a composition.
Logged

degrub

  • Guest
Re: downwards
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2011, 05:40:01 PM »

other than that falling feeling.... :o

needs a hat floating or something at the bottom to draw us in.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 05:42:23 PM by degrub »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8339
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: downwards
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2011, 05:40:55 PM »

Jeremy, Sorry, but I have to agree with pop.

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8132
Re: downwards
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2011, 03:07:15 AM »

I agree with other comments... I feel uncomfortable with the composition.
Logged
Francois

William Walker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 692
    • William Walker Landscapes
Re: downwards
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2011, 03:26:48 AM »

Jeremy

Your question is whether this is "Conceptually Worthwhile".

For a start, it is different from all the other waterfalls we see, the perspective causes a feeling of unease (vertigo? - to me anyhow)

Patricia's picture yesterday was extremely disorientating, so there's nothing wrong with that surely?

To answer your question, the mere fact that it is different from all the others makes the concept worthwhile.

As for the points raised by the other posters, you can always work on those.

Something I will try next time I have the chance - if I can just get over my fear of heights!

William

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5415
Re: downwards
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2011, 03:34:08 AM »

Thanks, all. Part of the idea was to cause a little unease, since it's not the usual angle from which we see waterfalls. I was standing on a stone bridge over the fall, looking down as two six-year-olds tried unsuccessfully to play Pooh sticks, and wondered what reaction such a shot would get. Now I know.

William, I'd not made the link with Patricia's photo. I imagine the concepts behind the two are probably not dissimilar.

I think Pop's comment is probably on target: the image lacks a strong focal point. Maybe I'll find a snap of a sombrero from somewhere and clone it in...

Jeremy
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14664
Re: downwards
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2011, 05:19:50 AM »

G10. Conceptually worthwhile?

Jeremy


If, as do I, you like Eddie Cochran, then the image speaks the proverbial volumes. I saw him and Gene Vincent in their last show in Glasgow just before they had the accident en route southwards to London where Eddie lost his life.

Rob C

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11168
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: downwards
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2011, 09:54:27 AM »

Instead of a hat I'd insert a small hand reaching up out of the water near the bottom.

Nicely unsettling.

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14664
Re: downwards
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2011, 10:57:41 AM »

Instead of a hat I'd insert a small hand reaching up out of the water near the bottom.

Nicely unsettling.

Eric


No use without a sword, Eric, and I think you'd also need a lake.

Best with Eddie.

Rob C

degrub

  • Guest
Re: downwards
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2011, 06:08:41 PM »

a lake is a matter of perspective... ::)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up