On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:04 AM, Marc Lawrence wrote:
Hi Marc, thanks for the well thought out critiques. Comments included
below
>
> http://www.tildefrugal.net/photo/crossprocess/dumpster.jpg
>
> Of them all, this one works really nicely with that border.
> I'm assuming the subject's a shipping container(?) though it's a
> guess that is merely from curiosity - my interest in the strong
> but creased verticals works without knowing (ahh, look at the
> name of the image, Marc, and all becomes clear...if a little bit
> smelly ;-) ). It's a very simple shot (not to see or take -
> just in form), that feels exactingly captured by the
> photographer. The more I look, the more I like. Maybe a little
> more contrast...maybe? What's that thing called that I've kept
> a post of Moose's about...LCE - Local Contrast Enhancement I
> think it is. That's only a "maybe" though - don't trust my
> monitor for giving my a good grounds for that comment.
Well I refer to it as a dumpster, it's a great big metal box on a
construction site near my apartment. I've begun to refer to it as my
"reference dumpster" because I've now shot it with 3 different films,
gives me a known object (I walk by it every day at least once) to
compare to. I think it is actually a shipping container that they're
using to store tools and materials, could be wrong though. Contrast
could just be your monitor or what was lost in the scan, I think it
looks pretty good in the print but sadly it's not feasible to send
out copies to the list so that we're all definitely looking at the
same thing. For reference, LCE is more of a sharpening effect, it
increases the contrast at edges which gives the appearance of greater
sharpness. Probably could use it though as I didn't apply any
sharpening to the scans and you usually lose a little sharpness in
scanning.
> http://www.tildefrugal.net/photo/crossprocess/railing.jpg
>
> This, I do like, though I feel like it calls for more
> saturation/warmth in the reds both around and in the white
> degraded paint. I think it would look better if the vertical
> was *exactly* in the centre in this one (I don't think it is,
> but maybe it's an optical illusion :-) ). The "distractions"
> in the background I don't find distracting at all - they give
> a context, whereas I think a smooth background would take
> the simplicity of the composition too far, towards dullness.
The colour could be your monitor again, at home (on a mac and the
system I corrected the scans on) all the shots look pretty close to
the prints. At work, they look a little duller and more washed out,
maybe even slightly cooler. The vertical could be slightly off
centre, I'd probably have to get a ruler to check it. I agree about
the background, it's smoothed enough to remove the distraction but
you still get a nice brick pattern to supply context. All of the
shots were shot using a 50/1.4 and I suspect it was pretty close to,
if not completely, wide open for this shot as in the print you can
even see the DOF starting to fall off at the very top and bottom of
the vertical.
> http://www.tildefrugal.net/photo/crossprocess/vent.jpg
>
> I feel this is the weakest, but only because it's one weakness
> for me bothers me so much (perhaps undeservedly). I want those
> horizontals to be horizontal (and maybe that top one to "line"/
> become the top border, with nothing above it. It's an interesting
> shot, but it's hard to see much detail in that brass(?) behind
> the grill. I imagine this is just an image size thing though
> and it makes me want to see an original, larger print. It's funny
> but, unlike the first, my curiosity wasn't aroused as to what
> this was until I was trying to think how to mention that "brass"
> thing. I just like it, without thinking about what it is.
The fact that it's slightly off horizontal bugs me too. I've shown it
to other people, and have even pointed it out to them and many have
said it doesn't bother them too much. It's the one that's lost the
most in the scan though where it's so dark and contrasty so I could
see how the bright line that's slightly out of level would become
more prominent then.
> http://www.tildefrugal.net/photo/crossprocess/garage.jpg
>
> I don't know all of the affects of crossprocessing, but note
> from your description the higher contrast and saturated colours
> of which this shot seems to be a fine example. This is
> definitely my favourite. That off-centre foreground vertical
> being balanced to center the entire composition, with its
> background out-of-focus vertical equals, and swathes of
> brightness either side, works nicely, with the chain bringing
> the shot forward most of all with it's silouette highlighting
> the other major elements. This is my favourite.
What's funny is that this is probably my least favourite of the
sequence. I understand what you're saying and I'm glad you like it
but there's something about it I don't like. I think part of it may
be that in the full size print you can see that the DOF is a little
too shallow, or the focusing is slightly off, or maybe I just need to
look at it more. I agree about the composition though. It may also
just be the association I have with it being the first shot I tried
to print from the cross-processed stuff. It was tough to get
balanced, I kept adjusting the yellow, I thought there was something
still off about this print and tried taking more yellow out but then
it went blue. By that time I was worn out with the shot and switched
to something different. In retrospect, I think the colour is pretty
good in this print but I think it still conjures up the feelings of
frustration and the fact that the shot "beat" me.
> One and four are definitely my picks, though as mentioned
> I do very much like them all (ie. any of my criticisms are
> far outweighed by my admiration). They're inspirational for
> me, one who is prone to similar abstraction (if not as well
> done) and worries too much about whether anyone else shares
> my fondness for it.
Honestly, that's the best comment of all from you. I put them up
partly to show some on-topic shots but to also demonstrate a
technique I was trying out. Hearing that you liked my shots is nice
but hearing that they've inspired you as well is even better.
Obviously I'm drawn to what I like to call industrial abstracts, I do
shoot other things as well but I frequently find myself coming back
to this type of work. I think the cross-processing has added
something to this, the added contrast and saturation, as well as
slight colour shifts sometimes, seem to work really well with the
subject matter and add that additional removal from reality. I think
it helps the viewer focus more on the image itself rather than
immediately trying to figure out what the image is a picture of.
> Nice to see you Andrew, and glad you are well and nothing
> particularly drastic had become of you.
Thanks, trying to stay well, still working on my shooting volume,
it's still fairly low but I'm increasing the frequency so it is up. I
have a roll shot on Kodak EIR colour infrared film that I'm getting
scanned and should have back on Monday, I will probably share some of
those shots with the list.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
