Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Dmullins on October 17, 2015, 12:09:26 pm
-
How do you guys feel about this one?
-
It's certainly a perspective we don't see. It makes it look woeful, more like a prison than the beautiful, even enchanting place it is.
I'm curious, is this what you want to say about Mont St. Michel (do you have a specific reason for portraying it in this way?), or was this as close as you could get in that particular day, or are you simply trying to be different? There's nothing wrong with any of these perspectives, just curious about the motive.
-
I suppose I should have taken the photograph under a bright sunny sky so as to portray it's ever enchanting nature. I simply framed the shot in a way that looked interesting to me at the time, I have no hidden agenda.
-
To me it presents as a play between the geometry of the gate and the sort of magnificence of the equally complex architecture of the island. You have the added contrast of the positive foreground colours and clarity as opposed to the inevitable subject. If that's the case then I suspect shooting from a lower viewpoint might work well.
-
I suspect it would be better in B&W. As it is the foreground is at odds with the background and it looks more like two images joined together.
-
Mr stamper has a point, if only because IMO almost everything other than abstract, which is often helped by colour, looks better in black and white; Paul Simon was mistaken. In fact, I've just popped him on to make sure. Yep, I was right. However, he was right about Nikon cameras.
Rob C
-
Interesting, but I'd also like to see a b & w version.
-
The fence in the foreground is an uninteresting object in and of itself...yet it takes up nearly half of the frame...along with some more fencing and grasses. Mont Saint Michel in the background is an extraordinarily interesting place but here it is hazy and indistinct. These two elements fence and an indistinct MSM don't support each other in valuable way.
-
Other than a few photographs, easily forgotten because they were "calendar shots", I have no knowledge of Le Mont St. Michel. Actually that's not entirely true. I seem to recall a mystery novel where the victim was killed by the incoming tide, being unable to escape to land quickly enough.
Anyhow, I've never seen the place in real life, so I have no idea how enchanting a locale it might be. I guess I'm trying to say that I don't have any preconceptions about the site to bring to my viewing of the photograph. For that reason I'm not bothered by the lack of definition. I think others with a more intimate knowledge of the place are affected by their memories.
So, removing that consideration, when I look at that photograph I'm not bothered by the contrast between the foreground and the background. I'm left wondering why this almost mythic structure is fenced off. So, for me, that part works okay.
One thing that does bother me a bit is that the gate doesn't seem like it's part of the scene--it looks a bit as if it were composited in. It doesn't seem to be grounded in anything, almost like a frame. And I don't know how you'd fix that.
-
Other than a few photographs, easily forgotten because they were "calendar shots", I have no knowledge of Le Mont St. Michel. Actually that's not entirely true. I seem to recall a mystery novel where the victim was killed by the incoming tide, being unable to escape to land quickly enough.
Anyhow, I've never seen the place in real life, so I have no idea how enchanting a locale it might be. I guess I'm trying to say that I don't have any preconceptions about the site to bring to my viewing of the photograph. For that reason I'm not bothered by the lack of definition. I think others with a more intimate knowledge of the place are affected by their memories.
So, removing that consideration, when I look at that photograph I'm not bothered by the contrast between the foreground and the background. I'm left wondering why this almost mythic structure is fenced off. So, for me, that part works okay.
One thing that does bother me a bit is that the gate doesn't seem like it's part of the scene--it looks a bit as if it were composited in. It doesn't seem to be grounded in anything, almost like a frame. And I don't know how you'd fix that.
Wild, enchanting, romantic and mysterious it may well have been at one time but these words hardly apply to the monstrous tourist trap it has now become with narrow streets clogged by tacky souvenir shops, over priced restaurants and cafes that are staffed by zombies endlessly serving the same old muck to the unknowing masses that think they are participating in a cultural experience unique to France!
Stay well clear and just head off anywhere else by the back roads, the real France will then slowly unveil herself if you tune in and forget what the guide books insist upon you seeking out, they know nothing! When next on the main 'pooter I shall post some pictures of what Le Mont has really become.
-
Huh... the only time I've been there was in January 1984, during my first trip to France. I walked the 7km from the nearest railway station, since I arrived on one of the days that had no winter bus service and I couldn't afford a taxi. On the island, everything was closed and the only way to see the cathedral was to attend Mass.
So I did. There was one other person, the owner of one of the shops... we were invited to sit up on the "stage" area, with the priest and his assisting nuns. One of them was Irish and provided a personal translation for me. Once it was finished, I was invited for lunch. It was all a bit much for a young athiest, so I used the excuse of needing to walk back to the station in time for the evening train.
For me then, yes, it's grey and mysterious and damp. I'm sure mid-summer would be a very different experience. I'd possibly have focused on the island rather than the gate, but it's not my photo :-)
-
Here are a few snaps taken in 2011 as promised.
-
Here are a few snaps taken in 2011 as promised.
I'm sorry to say this, but you have cut off the bottom of the rear motorcycle tire. This sloppy cropping marks you as a terrible photographer. The second picture has a French woman apparently surrendering, and this is a hateful stereotyping of the French people. Finally, the last photograph has a sign that says "croissants" which is a cheap way of providing context, even if it happened to be tasty.
You have failed the photography test.
And, of course, I'm kidding. Thank you for taking time share your snapshots. At least I have a better idea whenever anyone mentions Le Mont St Michel. Much better than imagining some poor victim struggling across the tidal flats. :)
-
I'm sorry to say this, but you have cut off the bottom of the rear motorcycle tire. This sloppy cropping marks you as a terrible photographer. The second picture has a French woman apparently surrendering, and this is a hateful stereotyping of the French people. Finally, the last photograph has a sign that says "croissants" which is a cheap way of providing context, even if it happened to be tasty.
You have failed the photography test.
And, of course, I'm kidding. Thank you for taking time share your snapshots. At least I have a better idea whenever anyone mentions Le Mont St Michel. Much better than imagining some poor victim struggling across the tidal flats. :)
Thanks Tom, that's set me up for the day! ;D
Seriously though, if you really want to get an idea of what French Cathedrals are all about then then two that have taken my breath away are Bourges (see photo) and Chartres which I wrote about here - http://inkplusimages.com/Chartres%20Cathedral.pdf Oddly enough Bayeux hardly stirred my soul sufficiently to get the camera out while an ancient church down at Les Sables d'Olonne had me call back three times, sadly I can't find my files for that trip at the moment. Le Mont St Michel were charging €12 to enter the actual cathedral atop the mount when I last called.
-
Henceforth, whenever anyone mentions Le Mont St Michel, I will immediately think of fences and motorcycles. ;)
-
Henceforth, whenever anyone mentions Le Mont St Michel, I will immediately think of fences and motorcycles. ;)
Motorcycles are so much more fun. That photo was used in an item I did for a Triumph owners club. I'm making no claims whatsoever about its artistic intent, meaning etc etc. It's just a snap as I said.
-
Motorcycles are more fun. I had an excellent BMW many years ago...
-
Motorcycles are so much more fun.
But we need to be able to pixel-peep your tyres to check out the chicken-strips... ;D
(The motorcyclist equivalent of a dog sniffing it's friends' arses)
-
But we need to be able to pixel-peep your tyres to check out the chicken-strips... ;D
(The motorcyclist equivalent of a dog sniffing it's friends' arses)
Oh there's no wear at all beyond 10deg of lean, every corner is taken at a cautious walking pace and each bend tackled in a sober and sedate manner as is befitting of a sensible, cool headed fellow such as myself.
That's what I tell the missus anyway. ;D
-
Motorcycles are more fun. I had an excellent BMW many years ago...
Spot on, biking, the thinking mans driving! :)
BMW have come really strong of late with the absolute master stroke of sponsoring 'The long Way Round'. Triumph on the other hand seem to have lost the plot with no new models in the last few years and unfruitful attempts at entering new markets. I'm still a Triumph man at heart though. That Daytona can be a bit of handful at times., it's like a women, you really have to show it who's boss.
Which is something I don't tell the missus!
-
If I got another motorcycle now, my missus would divorce me in an instant. But at my age I'd probably crash it before she could divorce me.
It's a little sobering to realize that when Mozart was my age, he'd been dead for 41 years. :(
-
If I got another motorcycle now, my missus would divorce me in an instant. But at my age I'd probably crash it before she could divorce me.
It's a little sobering to realize that when Mozart was my age, he'd been dead for 41 years. :(
Mozart did die young though, but I know where you are coming from. I'm often talking to owners of classic vehicles who view their machines as almost vintage yet I remember them as new in my childhood! It seems that nostalgia peaks about 40 years behind the present in the classic machinery world. Still, at least you can understand the things when you look under the bonnet and certainly where tractors are concerned it's getting to a stage where a 40 year old machine can be happily refurbished and keep going for another forty years. The design basics have stabilised around a particular format and old tractors can happily work new implements. It's an irritant for the manufacturers but I doubt that it will ever be a major problem. Anyway, back to St Michel!