Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: amolitor on October 24, 2012, 03:33:27 pm
-
I was interested in the purses. The expressions were 100 percent serendipity. This is almost a genre, isn't it? The sour looking woman/women. Sorry, Weegee, you did it so much better.
-
The strong shadows make this very hard to read. Your intent does not come through in this lighting.
-
Two birds with one stone is one of the earliest known definitions of Art - and here you have it. The bold [with stripes] classical reference to the pyramids caps them off and frames them together with a little help from the rest of the fair. I like it. I like the lighting.
Bruce
-
Thanks for the comments, guys, and my apologies for not thanking you earlier. I see your point, Kirk, and did what I could with the shadows without making it look unnatural, sometimes it just doesn't work, huh?
In this case I do think it's easier to see the larger you look at it.
The geometries are almost all serendipity, but I *am* pleased with them.
-
The strong shadows make this very hard to read. Your intent does not come through in this lighting.
Sorry, I can't see any intent here except a random shutter snap.
-
Preconceptions not with standing, there are three purses in the photo and it is better for it.
"Two Purses" may represent a failure of planning. It lacks the strict discipline of focused order. Photos of crowds can be as constrained as the people in them usually are, but such photos are commonly frightfully boring.
The unscripted pattern of light and shadow mixes with the people's good behavior so that they both seem more real to me.
I happen to have been working on the attached yesterday.[now removed]
Bruce
-
If the purses was the intent then zooming in on them or cropping after the event to isolate them would have been better? Try cropping out everything other than the purses and see if the isolation works for you.
-
I think this would have to be viewed as an idea in progress, because the picture just does not work for me. If you think the idea of the purses is interesting perhaps go to more gatherings and just concentrate on looking for those pictures for a while. The lighting here is what kills it for me.
Jim
-
If you wanted to screw with people, the shot is in the bottom of the frame without any faces. There's something in how the lefthand purse mirrors a bum that could confound. The B&W conversion is crap though, so it's hard to see through the mud posted as it is. But frankly, this is an archive shot at best.
-
Preconceptions not with standing, there are three purses in the photo and it is better for it.
"Two Purses" may represent a failure of planning. It lacks the strict discipline of focused order. Photos of crowds can be as constrained as the people in them usually are, but such photos are commonly frightfully boring.
The unscripted pattern of light and shadow mixes with the people's good behavior so that they both seem more real to me.
I happen to have been working on the attached yesterday.
Bruce
I really don't think there's a connection between what you're working on and what the OP put forth originally.
-
I really don't think there's a connection between what you're working on and what the OP put forth originally.
Yes, other than patterned shadows, they are very different. Patterned shadows can be found in many other places. If I still feel the need later to post my photo I will start another thread.
Bruce
-
But frankly, this is an archive shot at best.
All of amolitor's photos look like archive shots. He has a special process for aging and neglecting them. At least some of the subjects in this one were once alive. And bad lighting makes that time more specific.
Bruce
-
Err, thanks again everyone! I figured we were done with this one.
michswiss, what makes you say the b&w conversion is bad? I know the lighting is problematic, but I am curious as to what technicalities are jumping out at your as specifically a bad conversion.