On 11/29/2011 10:49 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 7:03 PM, "Larry Colen"<l...@red4est.com>
wrote:
On my way home from what I'll euphemistically call lunch, it was lunch,
perhaps food is the euphemism, I noticed an old trailer parked in the
back of what used to be an RV lot in Scotts Valley. It may be older than
I, was probably quite the item when new, but now seems even more decrepit
than I. In other words, a photo opportunity that I couldn't resist.
There is something that I find strangely compelling about photographing
things that have decayed from their past glory.
Now that I've had a chance to look at the photos, I'm a bit disappointed.
I got a few nice ones, but none as nice as they looked through the
viewfinder. So, I'm actively soliciting feedback on what I should have
done. Six photos, two of the trailer, four detail shots.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157628213959037/
or
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157628213959037/
I know what you mean. I'm always stopping to photograph old and rusting
machinery and it's rare that the resulting images are as good as I'd
hoped. So, I'm the last person to advise what you should have done....
However, that trailer doesn't look like it's going anywhere in a hurry
so going back on a day when the light is less contrasty would be my
starting point.
This time of year, cloudy days shouldn't be too hard to get. But then
the sky would be brighter than the trailer.
As to the photos, the composition of the first one is quite attractive -
would it be possible to move your shooting position to avoid the boat
(?) in the background? The black and white works well - not dreck at
all.
The boat is bigger than the trailer, and it's on a trailer that's even
bigger. I was trying to get the shape of the front of the trailer as
well, so avoiding the boat is nearly impossible. But I'll see what I
can do.
Maybe if I went back at night, with a strobe. That might make it easier
to get a black sky too.
As for the detail shots, LRC35287.jpg works best, mainly because it
hasn't got any incidental distracting elements in it.
Interesting, I had gone to some effort to get some of those "incidental
distracting elements" to use as juxtaposition, particularly the sky and
trees. If I make it back, I'll have to rethink those.
LRC35293.jpg has
potential but I'd like to see a version that eliminated the sky and
trees and concentrated on the light and the curved row of rivets.
Hmmm. I'll keep that in mind.
Cheers
Brian
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/
As an aside, due to a complete brainfart, the first photo I took was,
according to the camera, five stops underexposed at ISO 80. I hit auto
tone on the nearly black image in lightroom, and a surprisingly clean
photo appeared. Artistically, it was dreck, but for a photo shot at
1/4000 sec rather than 1/60, it was very sharp and noise free dreck.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
