Seeing the Photo
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 17:44 ;)
Watery Street │ NEX-7 + Sony E50mm F1.8 OSS │ 50mm F5.6 1/400s + 1/500s ISO100
A few of you thought that yesterday's photo “Miniature City” would work better in a vertical orientation. It's a valid point and certainly worth trying, so today I returned to the scene to try my luck at a vertical composition. At the water's edge, I immediately found out why I stuck to horizontal photos the first time around. Framing shots close to the water means having to fold the screen up unless you want to crouch down in the mud (it's still a little cool to be playing around in the water). With the camera in a vertical position, however, the screen can't be tilted up. Usually you can see enough, even when viewing the screen at an angle, but in this case the glare off the water caused the screen to be almost completely washed out. That translated into a lot of cropping when I got home.
Reader Comments (8)
Bjorn, The cat in the window is the icing on the cake!....Marvelous.
But otherwise I think I slightly prefer the left hand shot...Cleaner composition and better reflections.
Your treatment of putting the 2 shots together like bookends works a treat and I think it is the better scenario than rather displaying them individually.
Thanks for returning, I for one think it was worth it...Despite the awkwardness of taking the shot.
Cheers Barry
Barry,
Awkwardness is great way to learn. I agree with you that the left shot is better. The foreground pillar in the right photo was in the shadow of a tree, so it's reflection is a little duller. Maybe the cat makes up for this a little.
Hey Björn, you did it!
Er, I'm bit embarassed in saying that after seeing both shots, I perhaps slightly prefer the original [landscape] composition. Possibly the suboptimal shooting position took its toll.
Considering your effort/discomfort in taking those shots, I feel more than a bit guilty for suggesting to try the vertical orientation...
Love the idea of juxtaposing the two vertical shots into one landscap frame, by the way.
But the cat... that's pure genius from whoever conceived those pillars/monoliths, and it does make a difference in that frame.
Well done!
Hi Corrado,
No worries, these kinds of exercises are good because it forces you to think about why you did what you did in the first place. After going back and trying a vertical composition and in response to the input here, I can now articulate why - like you - I prefer the original landscape format. We'll ignore differences in light and any framing difficulties for the moment.
Cropping the foreground pillar to its stubby base in the horizontal photo has the effect of making it seem as solid and massive as its material. In contrast, the vertically cropped version almost seems graceful. I also prefer the water flowing around to both sides of the base: it's not contained by the first column, but the column is surrounded by the water. By continuing through the photo the water becomes all pervasive. Finally, I quite like the background elements in the horizontal photo: the crumbling pillar suggest a fate for the others and the mast on the right indicates the presence of water on the other side of the dike. It's also visible in the vertical photos, but doesn't have the same presence because it's cut too close to the edge.
Does that make any sense whatsoever or is it all just a figment of my early morning, coffee induced high?
maybe you should have used your GH2 instead ;-)
you can tilt the screen in any direction...
Very funny, Olaf.
My former GH2 now has a (hopefully good) new home somewhere in Brussels. You just can't have it all.
Björn,
I always find quite difficult to dissect the reason(s) something makes me tick; basically I just feel more or less comfortable with something - or even someone - let's say by instinct, by gut feeling.
In this case I can rationalise that much:
the vertical shot feels somehow constrained, compressed on the horizontal axis (duh), and I sure better appreciate the water flowing on both sides of the pillars in the landscape orientation. This gives the frame some spaciousness, some breathing room.
In the horizontal shot my eyes are drawn first along the line formed by the pillars, ending up on the crane (?) in the background, and just after that I notice the crumbled monolith at the far left, and then I'm back to the middle, following the beautiful water reflections to the rightmost background again.
For some reason the above magic simply doesn't work for me when I look at either of the vertical shots, but damn if I can understand why... possibly because there's no room/subject on the far left for my eyes to be attracted to, and in turn then I'm not drawn back again to the first pillar, and the circle breaks.
Hell of a psychobabble, I can see that myself, but that's the best explanation I could come up with...
Problem is, I can't even try the coffee-induced-high excuse for myself, not at this time in the evening :)
take care
Corrado,
Your psychobabble makes a lot of sense, as improbable as that may seem to you. I think there is some value in attempting to analyze something which was formed subconsciously. Maybe in doing so, we will transfer part of the process of creation into the conscious realm. I haven't decided whether that would be a good thing though. I apologize, it's morning again ;-)