Is this film?
Though both obviously have a subject I think they lack a bit of strength or maybe a better story.
For my tastes neither work that well in B&W.
The woman is in silhouette without back-light. I'd like to see more detail in her since she's the subject.
The fact that the man's shoes are cut off. Either needs more crop or more shoes but the light is good on him and brings him out!
John
Hi John, I had to take what light I had; flashes were prohibited; and I was/am working with limited skills. Hence, it is what it is. As to the gentleman with his feet cut off, you are correct, and for me at least, the inevitable outcome of “stealth” photography, taken w/ the camera (D700). Neither is film.
And for me, the ‘subject’ was the curvature of her leg and the curvature of the tree (as Allen has noted).
Yes, Monet, Musee de l’Orangerie. As I noted to John, it was indeed what attracted me to the scene. My wife tells me that it was on the third floor and devoted exclusively to Monet’s paintings. Incredible.
Thank you both for offering your experiences of the photos.
Hi Anthony,
I also wanted to add that the tone of the woman matches the tone of the tree in the Monet. Well done...
S/F.
One thing I wanted to add is once you take away the preconceived idea of a single photo in some way needing to tell a story suddenly it opens up an entire world of images that can not be valid in the eyes of those that think that. Now the work of say Siskind or Lewis Baltz can be seen in a new light. And images that may have been passed up when deciding what to point the lens at can now possibly be seen differently.
Allen, thank you so much for your additional info. I now have something productive to do while sitting in a hotel in Boston awaiting the next iteration of Thanksgiving family visitation. A brief and wonderful though delimited time for “The Sounds of Silence.” creating enough space to learn more about photography. S/F Brother and hopeful that your Thanksgiving Day was an enjoyable one.
JohnSil wrote:
Is this film?
Though both obviously have a subject I think they lack a bit of strength or maybe a better story.
For my tastes neither work that well in B&W.
The woman is in silhouette without back-light. I'd like to see more detail in her since she's the subject.
The fact that the man's shoes are cut off. Either needs more crop or more shoes but the light is good on him and brings him out!
John
While I agree with the cropped shoes being a bit jarring I think the second has some strong compositional elements and an interesting expression. I could see it working as part of a series. The first does seem a bit muddy in terms of tones but the mirroring is also potentially interesting.
Evan, thank you, Sir, for you assessments of my photos. I don't understand what you mean by "The first does seem a bit muddy in terms of tones but the mirroring is also potentially interesting." Nor, "I think the second has some strong compositional elements and an interesting expression." If you have the time and you'd care to rework each of those pictures to demo what you mean, I'd be grateful. If not, I nevertheless appreciate you taking the time, along with John, to comment. Anthony
anthonysemone wrote:
Evan, thank you, Sir, for you assessments of my photos. I don't understand what you mean by "The first does seem a bit muddy in terms of tones but the mirroring is also potentially interesting." Nor, "I think the second has some strong compositional elements and an interesting expression." If you have the time and you'd care to rework each of those pictures to demo what you mean, I'd be grateful. If not, I nevertheless appreciate you taking the time, along with John, to comment. Anthony
No problem and sorry if I was unclear, and obviously this is all subjective.
When I say muddy, the gallery shot has blacks that are solid black, mostly darker grays besides, and no true white. Its a compressed set of tones, which can work sometimes for dramatic effect but I'm not sure its serving the composition well here.
Now, if you wanted to do something a little more moody but still more tonally rich you might consider a curves adjustment which is similar to what the auto levels did in stretching the mids, but I left more contrast in the highs:
The issue I can't address is she's flat black, a pure silhouette. Again, this can be a dramatic choice but for traditional B&W it might be nice if we left her super dark but still with subtle detail, nothing above a zone II if you go in for that sort of thing.
Evan, thank you, Sir. Your explication REALLY helps me to understand. And making use of the curves and "auto level" adjustments were choices I had not thought of using. I'll pull up the original and play with it to see what I can get. As I reflect on it from way back then, and as I noted in my post to John, it was the curvature of her leg and the symmetry with the tree that captured by attention, likely diverting me from her - and that's a shame because as she turned to walk away she was absolutely beautiful. I though briefly to ask her for her picture, but she moved too fast for me, and I was likely too shy to do it any how. Thanks, again, Evan.
Anthony to me and in my train of thought and as I said earlier this photogrpah is about that relationship of her and the tree in the painting. So the shape she is making is far more important than who she is. That relationship is almost like her being an element from the painting outside the painting. If she had detail then that would break that relationship. An image with full detail in her would be a much different photograph. I find what you saw in regard to that relationship very interesting. I do agree with Evan about binging the whites up some. And as Evan eluded to this is a creative "dramatic choice." Leaving her at zone II is the right decision in my opinion. With the silhouette she looks like she belongs there tonally speaking. She looks like she is trying to step back into the gardens at Giverny. Maybe shes looking for that Japanese bridge?
Allen, you have in words clearly explained what in my aging memory of that capture had to do with. As I walked into the space, BAM, there it was!! I paid no attention to anything other than the relationship between the curve of her leg and the bend in the tree, as Evan, you have correctly noted. That symmetry was IT. So, thank you for reminding me of that, Allen, and to you, Evan, for capturing it in your graphic presentation to describe to me what you were saying. Both of you have helped me get a better hold on myself as a photographer (sic). Brothers in Arms, thank you.
