- This topic is empty.
Tourist Trap
-
Sometimes you just have to use a snappy title, however innacurate-
c&c welcome, keywords: saccharine, clich?…Oh, and this was taken on theSigma 12-24 currently languishing in the For Sale section…
Excellent shot Joseph. My eyes are immediately drawn to the feet relaxing on the nice leather seat. Made me laugh.
Love the perspective and the little girl only adds to the shot.
Sorry JB, I just can’t get excited about this. I admire your perfectly square perspective on the building facade, and the sharpness throughout, and the well-chosen viewpoint, but I just don’t get a tingle from looking at it.
What sort of lout would put his feet on that lovely leather?
Well i think it is a perfectly taken shot.
Well exposed, nice and sharp and great perspective.However the content to me just looks too cluttered.
For me there a couple of different shots here.One with the girl and the horse
One with the guy putting his feet up
and one of the building.Individually I would like them a lot but together there is just too much going on
Thats just me though.
Aha-
I sense a challenge-
Perhaps sirs would prefer something with a touch more tension?Thanks for the comments-
Sorry Robbie, but I agree with Pete-
everything technically ok,
but failing to emote a response-Graham,
I see what you’re saying,
but this is one of those shots that may have to play the scale card-
I was asked to take some shots around the Green
so that they could be printed large-So having a lot of different things happening when you can actually see them in the picture
may not be so frustrating as the evident clutter at this scale-Out of the two,
I actually like this one a little bit-
even the colour version-
Viewpoint changed only a touch,
and with the addition of a couple of extra cast members,
but quite a different picture-Thanks for looking, and for the comments-
Am I right about this,
or what?j
Again, taken on that bargain wide angle zoom-
Edits- typos
J,
it is a major draw back of posting shots online.
We can never get the scale you intended the shot to be presented in.I take your point that when your original shot is presented in a very large format it will
look better.I’d love to see the end result to be able to take them in as they are meant to be.
I prefer the B&W version simply because you can see the old man rather than a pair of shoes. But I’m afraid neither really grab my attention.
I’m not sure about the scale card. I know you mention that fairly often when discussing your photos, and I don’t really get it. I can understand that at a larger size more detail is maybe visible. But by the same token, larger images are generally viewed at a greater distance and the photo looks basically the same? I have printed several of my images fairly large, and I have to say that I didn’t notice any improvement in composition or content :lol:
What am I missing?
SteveD wrote:
I’m not sure about the scale card. I know you mention that fairly often when discussing your photos, and I don’t really get it. I can understand that at a larger size more detail is maybe visible. But by the same token, larger images are generally viewed at a greater distance and the photo looks basically the same? I have printed several of my images fairly large, and I have to say that I didn’t notice any improvement in composition or content :lol:
What am I missing?
I’m surprised at you, asking that question-
I’m also surprised at anyone thinking that recripocal viewing distances remain constant-
they dont-When I see a print, of any size, I’ll look at it up close, as well as from further away-
Obviously, when dealing with images from relatively small originals
there is a limit to how large you can print without losing detail-
but the detail that is lost by posting pictures here is huge-And one of the compositional elements that I find really important is the reading of small details and textures-
Antonioni’s ‘Blow-Up’ from 1966 deals with similar obsessions-
Here’s a detail from this one at 200%-
print size will be a little smaller than this-The detail of the reflections in the glasses were just not visible in the reduction above-
and the texture in the tweed cap was lost-The same is true of any other area containing fine detail within the picture.
I’ve mentioned enlargements a handful of times in 1300 posts-
I hope that’s alright-
Thanks for the info JB. I wasn’t having a pop, I was just curious. (I do usually enjoy your photos!)
I’m also surprised at anyone thinking that reciprocal viewing distances remain constant-
they dont-I would be to. You might notice I said ‘generally.’ :wink:
jb7 wrote:
When I see a print, of any size, I’ll look at it up close, as well as from further away-
Here’s a detail from this one at 200%-
print size will be a little smaller than this-The detail of the reflections in the glasses were just not visible in the reduction above-
and the texture in the tweed cap was lost-The same is true of any other area containing fine detail within the picture.
I’ve mentioned enlargements a handful of times in 1300 posts-
I hope that’s alright-
… it’s all about the print. And that is the usual target… isn’t it?
Rob.
Rob wrote:
… it’s all about the print. And that is the usual target… isn’t it?
Rob.
I’m not sure that it is anymore Rob-
the vast majority of pictures will never ever be printed-On first glance, this shot had instant appeal, but the longer I looked, the the less the appeal remained. I like the perspective, but i think it would have been a far stronger shot without the shopping centre behind it. Maybe even a drastically reduced DOF, so the cart and the horse are in focus, but not the shopping centre, would have helped?
I’d also personally balance up the exposure a little – the girl and horse look very dark contrasted with the white of the cart – maybe a little dodging, or a selective exposure mask could help lift the detail?
Just some thoughts…
Tim
Thanks Tim,
Appreciate your input-
I pretty much agree with what you’re saying,
regarding the appeal, and the building-However, I was slightly hamstrung by the request to include the building in the first place-
in fact, it was the only required element in the shot-You don’t think I’d include it if I didn’t have to, now do you? :D
If it ever goes to print, then I’ll look at the things you mentioned,
but not until then-Often you are required to take pictures that are important to others,
and you have to give it your best shot-
It may not be the type of picture that you like doing,
but at the same time,
its important to be able to produce and deliver something-Maybe this is an absolutely trite and clich?d shot,
but maybe it also has some value as a record of a time-If that building were to be pulled down tomorrow (fingers crossed)
Then maybe the picture wouldn’t be as bad as it is now-Thanks for your input-
j
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
