|
I HATE CARS posted:(look at the first two lamposts)
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 12:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
^^^^^^ Thanks. I guess it is a personal thing: my eyes do not get drawn by any lines, they don't settle anywhere. I don't feel any real harmony or balance. And the colors add nothing to me. I'll make up for adding to the discussion-instead-of-photos in this thread by posting a couple photos later.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 15:26
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Regarding that image in particular (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_kaufmann/4410725001/sizes/l/) the attractiveness is 90% compositional which is something people naturally understand ("Good" composition is a construct built around what most people find visually appealing). To do a quick analysis of this you could examine the disparate elements and then group them together to form a compositional thumbnail in your mind. For example note the buildings on the left hand side they are not all one building but several individual ones yet when you look at the photo they convey a sense of oneness, this is partly because they are objects of similar function and style but also because they were photographed such that they are braced at top and bottom leaving contiguous lines running across from the left to center-right, there are also no breaks between the buildings. This composition is intensified by other aspects of the photo, the light poles running along the road create lines leading to the same place that the lines from the buildings run (at points the light posts align with the lines visible in the buildings). On the right hand side there are more buildings and some electrical wires and the lines in the buildings line up perfectly with the wires. Down the bottom centre of the frame there is a physical path that leads to where all these lines converge and turn a corner. All these elements come together and support each other to create a really compositionally tight image. But all the lines do not converge. The buildings in the centre background point more horizontally than the other lines. Also, the winding of the road is barely noticable, as is the turning of the corner. Thus, the road does not lead my eye anywhere, where ideally it should lead me around the photo. In addition, the photo is taken from a standing position, which adds to the point-and-shoot feel. The colors in my opinion could use some more contrast, at least on my screen. Finally, the buildings in the centre background are distractingly brighter than the buildings to the right and left - the sun is shining brighter on them. Together with the above point, this means poor exposure? I promised some content in return. I might have the following from the art thread, which I haven't read in a while:  (Stephen Shore) And the following because it is an iconic photo from an other photographer - and awesome. 
Regression fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jun 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I'm curious to see if you can try and explain why you like this image: Thanks for the extrapolation! As to the photo I chose, I actually DID realise when I chose it that it (in ways) is sort of similar to the one I DIDN'T like. I like the sense of space in this one. I'm not sure how to explain it. Somehow, the woman "should" be close than she is, and the fact that she seems further off than she "should" adds depth. It has to do with the perspective, I guess. In contrast to the other photo, this one does impart a sense of balance and tranquility in me. It probably has to do with the nearly 1:1 ratio, and the fact that the woman is dead centre on the horisontal dimension. Note that both of these factors break "the rules", and yet it works. I also like the subdued colors, and the way there is only really two colors (woman's skin = concrete). But because the two colors are what they are, there is still a lot of contrast between the them. As to the lines, they probably please me subconsciously. Maybe it's the way she sort of creates a triangle with the railing and the edge of the pool. The railing and the edge of the photo create another triangle; while the railing, edge of pool, and edge of photo approximates another triangle. There is a final approximation of a triangle in the top part of the picture, with the pool edge as the bottom border. I agree that the top part might be a bit distracting, but when I look at the picture I *feel* [tranquil, something], and my eyes sort of unfocus and float away - perhaps like the woman is doing , looking at the scene before her. So yeah, to me it is more the sense of melancholic tranquility that I get from it. Also, as to its "stand-and-shoot" position, it works here because I'm not looking at something I see every day (some random ugly street). Here I am looking at something I actually WOULD LIKE to be looking at. I would LIKE to be in the position of the photographer, looking at this scene. Therefore it is good that it is taken from a position that simulates me being there. Also, although it is taken and stand-and-shoot height, we are looking slightly down, whereas the first photo was straight ahead and therefore feels more point-and-shoot. Regression fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jun 3, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 14:22
|
|