But I guess you think we should have left Hussein in power because he treated his citizens with such care... like the Kurds..
--
http://dogluver.smugmug.com
--
http://dogluver.smugmug.com
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How do you interpret this picture?
- Thread starter elfving73
- Start date
Dave Deacon
Senior Member
It depends what the charges are and evidence is. As with any crime some evidence of involvement is required. Clearly ther sithorities think that these people are involved in terrorist activites against the state. I note that not everyone is in prison...
--
Dave
http://www.pbase.com/shootist
abergfeld
Forum Enthusiast
--
Alan
Alan
Chuck Gardner
Forum Pro
All the empty space in the foreground adds nothing. It will be more visually effective cropped as a horizonal just under the fence.
The natural focal point that the eye is drawn to is the spot under the sky - the brightest area. Don't believe that? Do a 10px Gaussian blur of the entire photo, flip it upside down, and look at it from a few feet away. Where does your eye go?
If that bright spot the eye is drawn to naturally by its strong contrast with everything else that is darker is not were you want the center of interest to be in the photo is is going to be a BIG DISTRACTION. Caps are just to illustrate how CONTRAST is such a STRONG guiding force in a photo.
If the figure had been standing under the bright spot the eye flow in the photo would be something like this: get pulled to the light, notice the guy, notice the fence and follow it back to the foreground, get the impression that he's on the outside looking in, then get attracted by the strong contrast of the sky back to where things started for another round trip tour of the photo. That type of dynamic creates a sense of movement in a still photo that I find magical.
The fact the fence gets very dark at the right edge is a good thing. Strong leading lines extending to the edge of the frame invite the viewer's eye to follow them entirely out of the photo. The darkness creates a visual buffer that says to the brain, "nothing interesting here, go back". Even better is to compose a leading line like the fence so it merges with the horizon well before the edge of the photo.
The natural focal point that the eye is drawn to is the spot under the sky - the brightest area. Don't believe that? Do a 10px Gaussian blur of the entire photo, flip it upside down, and look at it from a few feet away. Where does your eye go?
If that bright spot the eye is drawn to naturally by its strong contrast with everything else that is darker is not were you want the center of interest to be in the photo is is going to be a BIG DISTRACTION. Caps are just to illustrate how CONTRAST is such a STRONG guiding force in a photo.
If the figure had been standing under the bright spot the eye flow in the photo would be something like this: get pulled to the light, notice the guy, notice the fence and follow it back to the foreground, get the impression that he's on the outside looking in, then get attracted by the strong contrast of the sky back to where things started for another round trip tour of the photo. That type of dynamic creates a sense of movement in a still photo that I find magical.
The fact the fence gets very dark at the right edge is a good thing. Strong leading lines extending to the edge of the frame invite the viewer's eye to follow them entirely out of the photo. The darkness creates a visual buffer that says to the brain, "nothing interesting here, go back". Even better is to compose a leading line like the fence so it merges with the horizon well before the edge of the photo.
"NT" means no text.
Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia
SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia
SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
Paul Chapin
Well-known member
Doug Kerr
Forum Pro
Hi, Mattias,
A stunning work.
I just consulted with Carla (who, is after all our Director of Style - I'm just a telephone engineer) and she concurs.
Best regards,
Doug
Visit The Pumpkin, a library of my technical articles on photography, optics, and other topics:
http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin
My EOS 20D must be a point and shoot camera - I find out that if I don't point, I get erratic results; if I don't shoot, I get no results.
A stunning work.
I think so. If you need a title for some adminstrative reason (copyright, indexing, etc.), give it a generic one: "Image 7", or such.
I just consulted with Carla (who, is after all our Director of Style - I'm just a telephone engineer) and she concurs.
Best regards,
Doug
Visit The Pumpkin, a library of my technical articles on photography, optics, and other topics:
http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin
My EOS 20D must be a point and shoot camera - I find out that if I don't point, I get erratic results; if I don't shoot, I get no results.
Being forced to name things imposes restrictions or preconceptions on the viewer's own thoughts and interpretations of any piece of art or anything, for that matter.
I've always thought it somewhat counterproductive for auto companies to name their car models. If the name happens to push the right buttons for the buyer, then it's a plus, but if the buyer finds the name unattractive, then they may not want to own one just because of the name.
I like the way some of the European companies just give the models a series designator and a number. That seems more generic to me and less likely to offend or "put off" someone.
For a piece of artwork, if you're trying to actually make a statement, or you're trying to direct the impressions of the viewer, then a title is useful. But often, as with this photo, you may be better off leaving the entire interpretation up to the viewer's imagination.
Perhaps an identifying number or the like would be good if it "has to have" a title.
As it is, we're left to decide for ourselves if this person is being kept in or being kept out of someplace. We know, from the angle of the top section of the fence, that the person is on the side he's supposed to be kept on, but we don't know if that's in or out of somewhere. And that adds to the mystery of the shot.
You could remove all doubt by using a title like "Looking Out" or "Kept Out" or something of that nature, but that may not add to the photo in this case. It depends on what you want to say with the picture.
So it really comes down to whether or not you are trying to make a statement or not. If so, then it needs a title. If not, then you have to decide if giving it one makes the whole experience better or worse.
It's interesting to see people's different impressions of it as expressed by their various suggestions for possible titles.
I'll bet an art exhibition, at a public gallery, where the viewers were asked to title each work would be quite successful. You could let the viewers enter their suggestions before they get to see any of the other people's ideas. Then, they could somehow view the other suggestions once they'd added theirs to the list.
I guess that's what we've got going in right here as long as you don't scroll down before you look at the photo. I like it
The picture is good too.
--
Jim H.
I've always thought it somewhat counterproductive for auto companies to name their car models. If the name happens to push the right buttons for the buyer, then it's a plus, but if the buyer finds the name unattractive, then they may not want to own one just because of the name.
I like the way some of the European companies just give the models a series designator and a number. That seems more generic to me and less likely to offend or "put off" someone.
For a piece of artwork, if you're trying to actually make a statement, or you're trying to direct the impressions of the viewer, then a title is useful. But often, as with this photo, you may be better off leaving the entire interpretation up to the viewer's imagination.
Perhaps an identifying number or the like would be good if it "has to have" a title.
As it is, we're left to decide for ourselves if this person is being kept in or being kept out of someplace. We know, from the angle of the top section of the fence, that the person is on the side he's supposed to be kept on, but we don't know if that's in or out of somewhere. And that adds to the mystery of the shot.
You could remove all doubt by using a title like "Looking Out" or "Kept Out" or something of that nature, but that may not add to the photo in this case. It depends on what you want to say with the picture.
So it really comes down to whether or not you are trying to make a statement or not. If so, then it needs a title. If not, then you have to decide if giving it one makes the whole experience better or worse.
It's interesting to see people's different impressions of it as expressed by their various suggestions for possible titles.
I'll bet an art exhibition, at a public gallery, where the viewers were asked to title each work would be quite successful. You could let the viewers enter their suggestions before they get to see any of the other people's ideas. Then, they could somehow view the other suggestions once they'd added theirs to the list.
I guess that's what we've got going in right here as long as you don't scroll down before you look at the photo. I like it
The picture is good too.
--
Jim H.
Mukanil
Member
Unwanted
Droppingin
Senior Member
--
I will never photograph a cockroach.
I will never photograph a cockroach.
mwj
Forum Enthusiast
no text
Xrayo
Member
Nice pic.
DotCom Editor
Veteran Member
He's outside Canon's security fence, trying to learn about the 5D.
(He has a very long wait.)
(He has a very long wait.)
John EH
Leading Member
John
J
Jim Dawson
Guest
he is trying to get in, not out. Maybe he wants into Gitmo to have a better life.
--
Canon 1D Mark II, 20D, Pentax Optio 555, and G-III QL (yes - film)
--
Canon 1D Mark II, 20D, Pentax Optio 555, and G-III QL (yes - film)
Roddy Rivas-Llosa
New member
When you can't chase the Sun
Something has to be changed
---
Rho
Something has to be changed
---
Rho
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum