Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Michael's Phlog => Topic started by: michael on February 15, 2015, 09:19:40 am
-
This topic is for discussion of the image and commentary found in Michael's Phlog titled Peeling Reality (http://www.luminous-endowment.org/pages/phlog20.html).
-
A bit dark--hard to read. Clever idea.
-
I tried to understand the image without read Your explanation.I understood it after I applied "level" upon it.I am sure You saw that I take different kind of ''reflexions" but I combine them with more or less reality to emphasize the ambiguity.In a word,for me ,is too dark.
Excuse for my English and do not be too upset,because what is not very good for me is very good for many others.Thank You for posting.
-
The image is deliberately "dark". I want people to have to struggle a bit to see what is going on.
Michael
-
The darkness of the image feels just right to me. It really enhances the mood.
-
I guess it did not occur to me that the darkness is intentional. Still, I am having trouble reading it on my monitor (Eizo properly calibrated). Under exposure and implicit darkness, in this case, raises a question or two about objectivity versus subjectivity.
-
I guess it did not occur to me that the darkness is intentional. Still, I am having trouble reading it on my monitor (Eizo properly calibrated). Under exposure and implicit darkness, in this case, raises a question or two about objectivity versus subjectivity.
There was still a lot of shadow detail available, but I chose to leave it dark and somewhat mysterious to enhance the enigmatic quality of the image.
I don't get this. Michael clearly stated that was what he wanted but you don't accept his right do so? You weren't meant to read it. ???
-
Michael's voice is always welcome. He is an erudite guy, and I know he is confident and able to hear an honest opinion. Stamper, I am sorry you've been offended by my participation in this thread.
-
There was still a lot of shadow detail available, but I chose to leave it dark and somewhat mysterious to enhance the enigmatic quality of the image.
I don't get this. Michael clearly stated that was what he wanted but you don't accept his right do so? You weren't meant to read it. ???
I accept his right to do so, but the photo is still too dark. I understand why Michael kept it dark, but if an artist makes an artistic decision others disagree with, then so be it. We, the public, are allowed to disagree.
Furthermore, works of art should be able to stand on their own without explanation. I appreciate the backstory Michael provides as it gives me greater understanding, but it doesn't change my opinion of the photograph as an objective observer.
-
+1. Well said, Terry.
-
I accept his right to do so, but the photo is still too dark. I understand why Michael kept it dark, but if an artist makes an artistic decision others disagree with, then so be it. We, the public, are allowed to disagree.
Furthermore, works of art should be able to stand on their own without explanation. I appreciate the backstory Michael provides as it gives me greater understanding, but it doesn't change my opinion of the photograph as an objective observer.
The image is deliberately "dark". I want people to have to struggle a bit to see what is going on.
Michael
Everybody is entitled to an opinion and Terry I respect yours.
Furthermore, works of art should be able to stand on their own without explanation.
Terry you recently posted some sunrise images. One poster mentioned the lack of a focal point with which I agreed. Your last post on the subject was to explain that you didn't want force a focal point in the foreground. Is that not contradictory to the above statement?
-
Michael's voice is always welcome. He is an erudite guy, and I know he is confident and able to hear an honest opinion. Stamper, I am sorry you've been offended by my participation in this thread.
I certainly wasn't offended, merely stating a point. Nor was I trying to be offensive.
-
Taken out of context, yes, it does appear contradictory, but this is a discussion forum, and, certainly, Michael's background formed part of the discussion. But, just because I know why he kept the photo dark doesn't change my personal reaction to the photo - i.e. it's still too dark.
This discussion doesn't take away from the fact that a photograph must stand on its own. After all, one can't possibly be in front of every framed work explaining it, thank goodness (both for the artist and the viewer!). But you knew that already.
-
that is why most interpretive images are just that - interpretive and not documentary. You, as the viewer, fill in your own blanks. If the image were brightened, I think the white areas would become visually dominant. I think the person would become part of the street scene. My interpretation.
-
Taken out of context, yes, it does appear contradictory, but this is a discussion forum, and, certainly, Michael's background formed part of the discussion. But, just because I know why he kept the photo dark doesn't change my personal reaction to the photo - i.e. it's still too dark.
This discussion doesn't take away from the fact that a photograph must stand on its own. After all, one can't possibly be in front of every framed work explaining it, thank goodness (both for the artist and the viewer!). But you knew that already.
Terry you have obviously read Reply#3 by Michael.
The image is deliberately "dark". I want people to have to struggle a bit to see what is going on.
Michael
Yet you continually state that it is too dark. Does this mean that in your opinion he should lighten it destroying what is his vision of the image or worse still he shouldn't have presented it in the manner in which he did?
-
I like the image, it lends itself to several levels of interpretation. The woman is wearing dark clothes, that mimic and blend with the dark areas of the background (lower right corner is grey).
The dark interpretation of the image is in tune with the peeling reality itself, because we don't know if the advertised development is underway, or if it will ever be built and finished.
What I have some trouble with is the cropping of the woman's legs, but that is just me, of course.
-
What I have some trouble with is the cropping of the woman's legs, but that is just me, of course.
If you saw her feet you'd see the sidewalk, in which case the illusion of her being in the ad would be lost. This too was a conscious decision on my part.
Michael
-
My vote is with Michael. Interestingly, I also found it a bit too dark on first viewing. At first glance I thought it might be a collage or multiple exposure. The text cleared that up but I decided to see what a slight change in gamma looked like in Photoshop.
When I opened the image it was obvious that wasn't necessary. In my case, the white background surrounding the image overwhelmed the dark tones. The shadow detail is certainly there, but I didn't appreciate it until I opened the image in PS, where my default background is dark gray.
I think it's a well-composed image that is properly exposed given the photographer's intent. Well seen and nicely captured. And another example of the importance of lighting and "framing" to support the presentation. Web browsers leave a lot to be desired in that regard.
-
I'm not sure I like the image, but still I think it's quite interesting.
I wonder how much the perception would change if the images was bigger: probably both the texture of the rip and the dripping dirt would be more evident.
-
I didn't find the image to dark. I like the image but in the initial viewing it didn't quite read. In looking further I noted a few things that made the picture off to me.
A couple items I note that could have made the picture better, or possibly added nothing:
1. In terms of alignment/framing, if the camera had been turned a bit more to photographers right the woman and the edge of the peeling hoarding would both have lined up with the respective 'rule of thirds ' vertical lines.
2. If the woman's left hand had been just a bit higher, the line of her arm would have paralleled the reciprocal of the sinister diagonal.
To me what I throws off the picture is not that it is to dark, but that the woman is to dark. There is very little contrast between her and her background. Her clothing and hair re almost camouflaged in context to the wall behind her. Contrast that with the bright backside of the hoarding on the left side of the picture, which draws the eye and relative to everything else is distracting. If the woman had happened to have light hair and been wearing lighter clothes she would have stood out more and balanced the bright hoarding backside. Overall the picture has a nice tonal rhythm that would have been reinforced if the woman had been a lighter subject.