|
Yoram Gelman: Sunset Field
The branches on the left and the clump of bushes right of center detract
from the focus of this image. The colors are brilliant but, are distracted by
the foreground. Why would you not hike beyond these confusions? Also, you have a
somewhat circular composition. When this happens, the shooter will as in this
case, load one side of the frame with strong values and then allow the circle to
create a weak counter value. Meaning, if I concentrate on the right, the left
ends up being weak. In most cases, a circular composition requires the
photographer stands in the middle. You can counter this by having the tree line
have a strong presence on one side and something like a building counter that
presence on the opposite side.
Bob McCulloch: White Birch
The title alone tells gives us the reason the image exhibits weakness.
Typically, when you try to “lean” the topic into the center of the composition,
you fail. The Birch trees lean in to the center of this work. The right of this
comp drifts into the center. The Birch lean into that center. The shooter (as
always, in my opinion) should have re-composed this image standing on the right,
rather than the left.
John Palcewski: Warning
This image makes no sense. In terms of content, where is the warning? If
you lived in that environment, then quite possibly, the image would be more
relevant to the title. Regardless, what is most disturbing is the copyright
information. First, who would steal this image? Second, US laws give you these
rights without declaration. Secondly, am I supposed to assume this image is not
about an artistic rendering of the tree, but more so, some factual statement
about a condition? If so, that condition and the composition has not been
clarified. Never, has an image benefited from text added inside the frame. One
last question, what the hell is the focus of this image?
Andrew Davidhazy: Reclining Figure
The true nature of this image is in the viewer’s interpretation. Some may
see a “reclining figure,” but obviously other’s will interpret a far more
different meaning. This would seem obvious when judging the image’s content. It
would be MY assumption and assumedly the general interpretation of this image,
there is no focus or of it’s content. Offered simply to allow the viewer’s own
perception. Regardless of it’s title, one can assume, there is not a technical
or compositional relevance... as the author would apparently like you to
believe, who cares? In other words the image’s technique has nothing to do with
the compositional value or it’s exposure. This image is simply about
interpretation. So, why give it a title? Finally, these types of images are
usually the easiest to achieve. As a photographer of this type of imagery, one
does not require control of exposure or technique. Simply, blow it out of focus
or content or it’s rendering. Simply offer it as an interpretation and no one
can argue attributes.
From: Andrew Davidhazy
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: 4 PF members exhibit on Nov. 16,
2013 As seen at PhotoForum gallery at: http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery.html
Bob McCulloch - White Birch - looks like a nice trail to walk on but the
experience was probably better than this image of the trail. It is inviting but
needs something more to raise it to a compelling level.
John Palcewski -
Warning - I guess this has some relationship to the recent discussion about
protecting images. I was not a keen follower of that conversation. So to me this
photograph with the overlaid text is pretty uninteresting! ;)
Andrew Davidhazy - Reclining figure - I am not very keen on titles that
simply state the obvious but I went for it. I should not have. On a side note,
this was a "test" sort of of a situation that probably many of you have
experienced as well. This is that something that you at first thought was
damaged in some form (the original of this photo, which was a Polaroid paper
negative, fell on the floor and picked up dust and scratches and other
artifacts) turned out to be visually appealing (at least to you or at the
time).That was the case here. BTW, what a convoluted sentence!!!
Andy from Rochester |
