RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
John,
Your points at the B&W version are some of the challenges for the image. I didn't really get the tonal value relationships worked through to strengthen certain areas that need more help (and I got lazy then). I was trying a new technique, but this may not have been the best image (in some areas) for it. Thanks for the perspective.
Also, I think you bring up an interesting point @ central message vs. 2 1/2. Pondering that a bit, I suspect the central perspective/approach lends itself better to a unified message that may be more in the camp of "looked at", while those images that aspire to be more in the camp of "looked into" do often have a non-centralized message presentation.
I know that many of my images that have "more than one thing to consider" are often met with lackluster appeal, except for those who really enjoy looking deeper into (which honestly, most folks don't) images.
Jim,
The pat was "intended", as that's how I saw the image.
Also, your point at multiple small vs. singular large can be one form of balance ... albeit a delicate one to pull off at times. One of my goals for images can be "I want to show you something" like so many of us aspire to do. But, extending that just a touch I sometimes have an added perspective of "that you may have never thought to see" ... which can often times be some of those "smaller" pieces.
I know that it can be met with folks still not seeing it because of it's non-conformity to convention of what they might be expecting, but I think that goes to AA's point @ "looked at" vs. "looked into". Which, kinda goes along with his other point @ "two people" in the photograph. We have some control over the one, maybe not as much over the other.
I must admit, that until I saw one of his exhibits in person ... I viewed his work with more of a "looked at" than a "looked into". That's not to say that every image is (or should be) a "looked into" image, but for me, your mini-eco-system is a "looked into" kind of image.
|