Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 19, 2017, 11:06:58 pm
-
...
-
Like!
-
You're not operating a moving vehicle and your camera at the same time, are you?
It's an interesting image in the sense that I'm not sure if the image itself can withstand its technical shortcomings. I would consider removing the antennatower in the background because the lights detract.
Composition, color, and movement however, are excellent in conveying the mood.
-
I would consider removing the antennatower in the background because the lights detract.
Others would consider those lights essential to the balance of the composition.
Your milage will vary.
-
You're not operating a moving vehicle and your camera at the same time, are you?
It's an interesting image in the sense that I'm not sure if the image itself can withstand its technical shortcomings. I would consider removing the antennatower in the background because the lights detract.
Composition, color, and movement however, are excellent in conveying the mood.
I am not sure how to interpret that. Are you saying that the technical shortcomings stand in the way of appreciating the content? Not argumentative, just curious.
Yes, it was a lowly iPhone 5s (gasp), shooting the fast fading light from a fast moving vehicle (69 mi/h, 111 km/h - if you want technical details). And yes, photographers are known for doing risky/stupid things for a shot. Some survived.
-
Under the circumstances, I am glad you did not insist on being so brave as to completely level the camera.
However, in the world in the image you are more likely to get home if up is up. [and please, keep the tower]
Bruce
-
I am not sure how to interpret that. Are you saying that the technical shortcomings stand in the way of appreciating the content? Not argumentative, just curious.
Yes, it was a lowly iPhone 5s (gasp), shooting the fast fading light from a fast moving vehicle (69 mi/h, 111 km/h - if you want technical details). And yes, photographers are known for doing risky/stupid things for a shot. Some survived.
Slobodan, a photo is never worth that sort of risk. Really, they never are.
-
I am not sure how to interpret that. Are you saying that the technical shortcomings stand in the way of appreciating the content? Not argumentative, just curious.
Well, i initially thought it was maybe shot thru a window with snailtracks. Also, while the noise itself is certainly not objectionable, the type of noise is. The imagecontent works and conveys a mood effectively, but the artifacts are immediately visible, and the noisetype would be visible at a larger size required to understand what we're looking at.
The tower for me doesn't add anything to the juxtaposition between night and sunset other than drawing attention to where it isn't required (and apparently to not being level).
Note: i'm just trying to explicate my observations. I don't think Slobodan really requires our comments, but since it is the critiquesection, this may be a learningexperience for the rest of us mere mortals. Stating the bloody obvious that others may disagree without further elaboration isn't particularly helpful to me personally or anyone else for that matter. imo. ymmv.
-
Slobodan, a photo is never worth that sort of risk. Really, they never are.
The biggest risk on Indiana highways is to fall asleep from boredom. This at least kept me alert :)
-
And yes, photographers are known for doing risky/stupid things for a shot. Some survived.
I'm glad you survived. And do keep the tower.
-
Well, i initially thought it was maybe shot thru a window with snailtracks. Also, while the noise itself is certainly not objectionable, the type of noise is. The imagecontent works and conveys a mood effectively, but the artifacts are immediately visible, and the noisetype would be visible at a larger size required to understand what we're looking at.
The tower for me doesn't add anything to the juxtaposition between night and sunset other than drawing attention to where it isn't required (and apparently to not being level).
Note: i'm just trying to explicate my observations. I don't think Slobodan really requires our comments, but since it is the critiquesection, this may be a learningexperience for the rest of us mere mortals. Stating the bloody obvious that others may disagree without further elaboration isn't particularly helpful to me personally or anyone else for that matter. imo. ymmv.
Comments, of course, are welcome. Positive or negative.
While I consider myself, on occasion, a perfectionist, I also believe that capturing a sentiment takes precedence. Do I wish I stopped the car on the side of the road, got my 5Ds from the trunk, carefully leveled it (it has an in-viewfinder indicator) and took dozen of shots? Sure. Than again, stopping on the side of the road at night, and stepping out of the car, has proved to be more dangerous than shooting with an iphone from the car ;) By the time I would have done that, the western sky would have lost its vibrancy and the eastern one would have gotten black. Life is a trade-off, in general.
-
Remembers me to a discussion I've had on a picture that I've shot while driving my car. Seriously: Driving poeple are eating, drinking and smoking and I dont want to know what some truck drivers are doing when you can't see their hands while their cabin glows from watching a movie... The cockpit of my BMW is far away from non-dictracting. So holding a camera and taking a shoot seems not to be the most dangerous thing in the world.
btw.: Nice catch.
-
I think it's a great shot, as it is. But: Driving home from light into darkness ... well ... not everything is a parable, I hope ...
-
I think it's a great shot, as it is. But: Driving home from light into darkness ... well ... not everything is a parable, I hope ...
I am glad you got the idea of the title 😊