RustyBug 
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
gregfountain wrote:
I've lately been drawn to see things a bit different
So, in the realm of the "telephone game" ... what is it that you are "seeing" when you were there taking this (of the intent of)?
Refresher, on the telephone game:
You're standing there, in that moment in time and space. You are so smitten by the moment that you grab your phone and call your BFF / mentor / significant person.
"Dude, you oughta be here. It is so ______________ !!! And, the _________ is _________. And, the _________ is _________. The overall vibe is _________."
After YOU fill in the blanks (or make more of your own / different ... the emotive of your chosen words can give you verbal cues to what you are trying to "say" of what you were "seeing". Once you have those in your mindset, the processes for deciding what it is you want to convey to the viewer (audience of one-self, or many others) in your processing becomes more clear.
The "recommendations" then come from within what YOU were seeing, that compelled you to capture the image to begin with. The processing decisions (crop, WB, vibrance / sat) are then a natural extension of that to bring it to fruition.
Imo, some of the hyper processing might be incongruous with the original intent of the image. By that, I mean ... if the mood of the original capture (as an example) were to be serene, end of day mood / vibe "Dude, it is so serene out here.", and the processing is electrifying with neon colors, there's a mismatch between the intent of what YOU SEE DIFFERENTLY. It might be that for YOU, what YOU saw of the brambles were integral to natural elements in play. Depending on how you answer the telephone game ... the decision for the brambles to be in vs. out, can differ.
As I watch the progression of edits from the original capture to the latest one ... it is clear that the decision making process does NOT include consideration to what the OP was thinking at the time of capture intent / post-capture intent to what he was "seeing" (nobody bothered to ask). Rather, it is a progression of edits to what OTHERS WANT the image to be. That, then is THEIR VOICE, not the OP's VOICE. The telephone game is the OP's VOICE.
As I take the OP statement ... it is one way of indicating the OP is trying to find the OP's VOICE ... and, then, what might the OP do better to present the OP's VOICE. But, the first thing that has to occur, is the OP has to know what his voice is.
Many folks struggle with articulating their voice. I developed the telephone game long ago, to illustrate a natural extension of how we translate from the visual > emotive > verbal ... and now, the key is to harness that verbal > visual > emotive to convey for others to embrace the presence of what it was like (within the understood limits, thereof) to be there in that moment, although they were not there.
I can dig on Greg liking what others have done, and being impressed by their editing prowess. But, I'd really like to hear (there's that voice thing) from Greg what he'd tell me on the phone, while he was standing there, and I was back home, wishing I was there with him. Then, I might have a suggestion or two. But, for now ... I'll wait to hear from Greg. 
HTH
|
