Posted by Kent Mearig on February 4, 2009 at 1:01 AM
There have been no posts or comments since my last so far as I can tell, but I have these photos sitting around with no one to look at them. I'm thinking about posting an article to my blog about when photos you've grown at least a little bit attached to don't go over that well with an audience (this is absolutely not a reference to anything I've shared here). This photo would fit right in to an article like that.
Posted by David Taylor on February 4, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I like this, good texture and sharpness throughout. The only thing I notice, is the apparent "interuption" of the waters flow while behind the foreground rock. I believe the image still works though, as an abstract.
Posted by Genny K. on February 4, 2009 at 10:05 PM
I really like this. The contrast between the still, solid rock and the soft, flowing water is interesting and something I've been trying to work on, although I haven't had much time for photography lately. That strong, sharp diagonal line on the edge of the rock is a real strong point in this.
So, are you saying that this image is related to what you said about photos that don't go over will with an audience? Are you somewhat attached to this image? I have found that what I am attached to is usually NOT what the audience wants to see....
Posted by David Taylor on February 4, 2009 at 10:49 PM
My 2 cents for image attachment. It seems that I tend to bond with an image that reminds me of an event. For instance, one of my personal faves of the past several years is a shot I made of Peaches (brown bear on the Katmai Coast) as she walked right in front of me - a close encounter. I remember my heart racing, my breathing quickened (and stopped all together) and my senses heightened. The photo:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_V00ix_RAYmY/SI2QTv1gSaI/AAAAAAAAAEg/CnSNBjSxabo/s1600-h/dt071208-373-Edit.jpg
I converted to b&w to focus on the textures and light. Typically everyone's response falls into two categories: 1)what the hell is that? 2)Were you scared? Not WOW, that's a great shot - which is how I feel when looking at it, then I'm reminded how intense the moment was. That's my theory anyway
Posted by Kent Mearig on February 5, 2009 at 2:24 AM
David - That Peaches picture is a great one. It carries a lot of interest due to its unique extreme close-up nature, and it's graphically and texturally appealing. One of the things I like most about it is the warm black and white conversion you chose. The tone fits the subject so nicely. On the other hand, it's hard to tap into the emotional charge you had during the encounter through this image the way you might if you could see an eye or some other defining (coastal grizzly) feature.
Genny - I think I might be overly attached to all my photographs. This one was not appealing to people who think a sense of place is one of a photos most valuable assets.
Kent - you mean people DON'T see a sense of place in this image of the flowing water? You've got to be kidding. To me, the whole image is completely grounded and I get a real "sense of place". Maybe because I've seen scenes like this so often, it really pulls me me in and makes me feel like I'm right there, being careful to NOT slip on the rocks....
Discussion
5 repliesSo, are you saying that this image is related to what you said about photos that don't go over will with an audience?
http://bp1.blogger.com/_V00ix_RAYmY/SI2QTv1gSaI/AAAAAAAAAEg/CnSNBjSxabo/s1600-h/dt071208-373-Edit.jpg
I converted to b&w to focus on the textures and light. Typically everyone's response falls into two categories: 1)what the hell is that? 2)Were you scared? Not WOW, that's a great shot - which is how I feel when looking at it, then I'm reminded how intense the moment was. That's my theory anyway
Genny - I think I might be overly attached to all my photographs. This one was not appealing to people who think a sense of place is one of a photos most valuable assets.