Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: FedEx  (Read 9484 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: FedEx
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2013, 11:51:58 AM »

Then it's just an other lorry?

Indeed. And we do not like anonymous around here ;D

nemo295

  • Guest
Re: FedEx
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2013, 12:28:09 PM »

Then it's just an other lorry?

Yes, as it should be.

Otherwise, the logo is the strongest graphic element in the photo. The eye goes to it first, when it shouldn't be competing with the sunlit ridge. Not unless you're making a FedEx advertisment, anyway.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14672
Re: FedEx
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2013, 12:59:53 PM »

Maybe the logo is the point; it would be were it my shot: it changes the mundane into the different idea of destination, mission, purpose, fighting frontiers etc. and anything much other than a company in a worldwide delivery business like that would fail to sell the story.

You must nurture the romantic in your soul.

Rob C

seamus finn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1193
Re: FedEx
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2013, 01:06:16 PM »

Quote
Leaving an image for a day or two definitely helps.
   

Try a month or two, Stamper - it's amazing!

Nice going, Russ.
Logged

nemo295

  • Guest
Re: FedEx
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2013, 01:48:35 PM »

Maybe the logo is the point; it would be were it my shot: it changes the mundane into the different idea of destination, mission, purpose, fighting frontiers etc. and anything much other than a company in a worldwide delivery business like that would fail to sell the story.

You must nurture the romantic in your soul.

Rob C

It would be FedEx ad. Which is fine, if that's what you're going for. There's no way to separate that logo from the company it signifies.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: FedEx
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2013, 01:57:25 PM »

Andy Warhol didn't use a generic soup can, but Campbell's. And it wasn't an ad for them either.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8344
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: FedEx
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2013, 02:44:46 PM »

Right, and next time I go across country I'll be looking for Campbell soup cans. I hope I can get one with a background as good the one behind the FedEx truck.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: FedEx
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2013, 03:15:05 PM »

Russ, I should have made clear that I was responding to Doug's post right above mine. In other words, I am not in favor of removing the logo, and agree with Rob's eloquent statement about its importance.

nemo295

  • Guest
Re: FedEx
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2013, 03:17:06 PM »

Andy Warhol didn't use a generic soup can, but Campbell's. And it wasn't an ad for them either.

But Warhol's painting was only about the soup can, which was stylized to make a point. Different context, different message.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8344
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: FedEx
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2013, 03:44:25 PM »

Russ, I should have made clear that I was responding to Doug's post right above mine. In other words, I am not in favor of removing the logo, and agree with Rob's eloquent statement about its importance.

I knew that, Slobodan. I was cracking a joke. And it looks as if Doug is of the school that says a picture is never finished until you've changed something important in it.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14672
Re: FedEx
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2013, 03:53:36 PM »

It would be FedEx ad. Which is fine, if that's what you're going for. There's no way to separate that logo from the company it signifies.


That's the point I was trying to make. But, equally, it's not an advertising shot: it's Russ making a sentimental statement that works because of the emotional reaction his location and treatment evoke as response. As was pointed out, without logo there's no emotional response at all and, ergo, no picture.

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 04:28:29 AM by Rob C »
Logged

nemo295

  • Guest
Re: FedEx
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2013, 08:27:18 PM »

I knew that, Slobodan. I was cracking a joke. And it looks as if Doug is of the school that says a picture is never finished until you've changed something important in it.

Not at all, Russ. I'm of the school that says visual elements which detract from the image have no business being in the image.
Logged

nemo295

  • Guest
Re: FedEx
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2013, 08:34:03 PM »


That's the point I was tryimg to make. But, equally, it's not an advertising shot: it's Russ making a sentimental statement that works because of the emotional reaction his location and treatment evoke as response. As was pointed out, without logo there's no emotional response at all and, ergo, no picture.

Rob C

All I'm saying is that given the fact that it's not a FedEx ad, the logo isn't making a contribution to the shot. You have stated that the logo adds a sense  "of destination, mission, purpose, fighting frontiers etc."

I think the truck does that all by itself, even without the logo. Which makes the logo an unnecessary distraction.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 08:46:18 PM by Doug Frost »
Logged

RobbieV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 281
    • My work.
Re: FedEx
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2013, 08:40:39 PM »

I think the image works better without the logo and agree with the reasoning behind it.  Had you been following the truck for a while or was it a "see and snap" photo? Just curious  ::)
Logged

rogerxnz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 434
    • Hayman Lawyers
Re: FedEx
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2013, 11:59:07 PM »

Yes, as it should be.

Otherwise, the logo is the strongest graphic element in the photo. The eye goes to it first, when it shouldn't be competing with the sunlit ridge. Not unless you're making a FedEx advertisment, anyway.

I agree cloning away the logo is a clever move because it is too distracting. Then I recommend a new title, such as, "Late afternoon, Route 70".
Logged
Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: FedEx
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2013, 12:03:53 AM »

... I'm of the school that says visual elements which detract from the image have no business being in the image.

How about the school that says that cloning out a major element of an image is one step too far in manipulation? Veracity tends to have a virtue of its own.

rogerxnz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 434
    • Hayman Lawyers
Re: FedEx
« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2013, 12:10:50 AM »

No, Rob, I think Roger's just confused. He seems to have the idea that a title has to identify the purpose of a picture.

I'm not as dogmatic as that. I just think titles can be an aid in working out the photographer's intentions. My confusion was based on more than the title. Russ called the image "Fedex" but he stated that his intention was to make the rocks "pop" which, to my mind, means he thought the point of interest in the image was the sunlight on the rocks. I think he also said that himself.

So, as Russ says, the image is about the sun on the rocks but he gave a title based on the logo on the truck. I think that is confusing.

Quote
Here's the kind of picture Roger suggests would be an improvement. Can't say I agree, but whatever floats one's boat.

I like the thought of making an image in that location like your second one. I agree it needs more work and would benefit from more interest in the foreground.
Roger
Logged
Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand

rogerxnz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 434
    • Hayman Lawyers
Re: FedEx
« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2013, 12:20:48 AM »

How about the school that says that cloning out a major element of an image is one step too far in manipulation? Veracity tends to have a virtue of its own.

Oh, no, not the "photographs are the truth" debate, again. That really is trolling, in my opinion.

Is your comment limited to saying just cloning is bad or are you saying all manipulation (including altering contrast by adjusting film development or paper selection or Photoshop) should be outlawed?

With respect, I consider it would be unfair to hijack this thread with a discussion about acceptable limits of manipulation and I encourage you to start a new topic on this issue.

Until your post, members were discussing removing a particular element from a particular photo. If you want to debate the ethics of doing this, I consider you should do so in a separate thread.
Roger
 
Logged
Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up