I like taking photos (cue exasperated noises from my family). To relieve the pressure on the main blog from my pseudoartistic ramblings, here's a place to stuff the pictures I've been happiest with.
Monday, August 28, 2006
"The Speeches"
Be interested to hear from anyone who cares which of these they think is better. You know, artistically and stuff. 'Neither' is a perfectly good answer.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Ok, maybe I've been in my pyjamas too long this Bank Holiday but I definitely prefer photo 1. Now, it's simply my opinion, but come on, it's the way to go! Photo 1 has clarity, you can see at a glance the spatial arrangement of each glass as we move from a foreground of high definition, beautiful glass 2, to an Impressionistic lack of focus at the right-side, with nice Bonnard-esque window reference - I *can see* you're a fan : ). The *doubtless planned* exploration of the world-in-a-glass trope works better in photo 1 too, where the references are more distinct (glass 1, Velasquez, chiaroscuro; glass 2, Vermeer, daylight precision; glass 3, Manet, suggested presence of a figure and the subject of your title, ya da, ya da ...). Two art school tricks also spring to mind here. Look at any image through half-closed eyes to see its spatial arrangement and how it works. Photo 1, depth and recession is obvious. Photo 2, not so sure. The Western eye reads an image from left to right as it would text, so again, photo 1 plays up to this by having an age-old left-side high focus which leads the eye, *the narrative even*, on towards the right side. But then (cue Owen Wilson) maybe you're a rule breaker *and that's ok*. Ah, now Uncle Alex has walked in and he prefers photo 2. Why, I asked, knowing that it had mostly to do with me choosing the other. Because the middle glass is in focus, he said. Are you crazy, I responded, warming to my theme. Can we define the position of any of those glasses? Is glass 1 about to knock glass 2 over? Where is the viewer in all of this? And the role of women? Fade to white noise. So, as someone who was certainly not an art historian once said, opinions are like a**holes. Everyone's got one. Not everyone has a ginger model on tap though eh, so get busy, chop chop. Great pics, keep em coming, from aunty Jenny : )
PS I like Photo 1 so much I've just made it my screen saver. I suspect colleagues who like wine more than I do will be after it in a heartbeat come the new term ; ) Vote-for-Photo-1-aunty-Jenny
Now I'm just tapping my fingers waiting for someone else to express an opinion. It's not often one gets to wax lyrical on an aesthetic conundrum. No, wait. Regardless, at least I'm no longer in my dressing gown ; ) Still aunty Jenny
Picture 1. cos... dunno but if i copy and paste aunty Jenny's response i will sound all clever and stuff so... what she said. Picture 1 - arty, picture 2 - a drunken snapshot out of focus.........
helen (god i'm bored - 3 weeks to go... and counting the days, hours, minutes, seconds.)
Yay, more comments. So Ben, it's Photo 1, Helen and Jenny, Photo 2, Alex. What we want to know is which one you like best and why. Er, btw I was trying to send up art chat while also making a serious consideration of the very nice photos. Clever is little Leo knowing to look at the webcam today, cuuute! : )))
I find image 2 hard to interpret from a depth of field point of view. If there wasn't a glass either side of the blurred glass in focus then maybe this image would have worked too. It is jarring with the plane of focus being broken up by the closest glass (you can make it less jarring by covering up either the left or right side of the blurred glass with a piece of paper, it makes the image scan much better.)
Another reason why image 1 works is probably due to the fact that the solitary in focus glass (and thus the main point of interest) lies on a vertical "thirds" line.
6 comments:
Ok, maybe I've been in my pyjamas too long this Bank Holiday but I definitely prefer photo 1. Now, it's simply my opinion, but come on, it's the way to go! Photo 1 has clarity, you can see at a glance the spatial arrangement of each glass as we move from a foreground of high definition, beautiful glass 2, to an Impressionistic lack of focus at the right-side, with nice Bonnard-esque window reference - I *can see* you're a fan : ). The *doubtless planned* exploration of the world-in-a-glass trope works better in photo 1 too, where the references are more distinct (glass 1, Velasquez, chiaroscuro; glass 2, Vermeer, daylight precision; glass 3, Manet, suggested presence of a figure and the subject of your title, ya da, ya da ...). Two art school tricks also spring to mind here. Look at any image through half-closed eyes to see its spatial arrangement and how it works. Photo 1, depth and recession is obvious. Photo 2, not so sure. The Western eye reads an image from left to right as it would text, so again, photo 1 plays up to this by having an age-old left-side high focus which leads the eye, *the narrative even*, on towards the right side. But then (cue Owen Wilson) maybe you're a rule breaker *and that's ok*. Ah, now Uncle Alex has walked in and he prefers photo 2. Why, I asked, knowing that it had mostly to do with me choosing the other. Because the middle glass is in focus, he said. Are you crazy, I responded, warming to my theme. Can we define the position of any of those glasses? Is glass 1 about to knock glass 2 over? Where is the viewer in all of this? And the role of women? Fade to white noise. So, as someone who was certainly not an art historian once said, opinions are like a**holes. Everyone's got one. Not everyone has a ginger model on tap though eh, so get busy, chop chop. Great pics, keep em coming, from aunty Jenny : )
PS I like Photo 1 so much I've just made it my screen saver. I suspect colleagues who like wine more than I do will be after it in a heartbeat come the new term ; )
Vote-for-Photo-1-aunty-Jenny
Now I'm just tapping my fingers waiting for someone else to express an opinion. It's not often one gets to wax lyrical on an aesthetic conundrum. No, wait. Regardless, at least I'm no longer in my dressing gown ; )
Still aunty Jenny
Picture 1. cos... dunno but if i copy and paste aunty Jenny's response i will sound all clever and stuff so... what she said. Picture 1 - arty, picture 2 - a drunken snapshot out of focus.........
helen
(god i'm bored - 3 weeks to go... and counting the days, hours, minutes, seconds.)
Yay, more comments. So Ben, it's Photo 1, Helen and Jenny, Photo 2, Alex. What we want to know is which one you like best and why. Er, btw I was trying to send up art chat while also making a serious consideration of the very nice photos. Clever is little Leo knowing to look at the webcam today, cuuute! : )))
Image 1 for the win!
I find image 2 hard to interpret from a depth of field point of view. If there wasn't a glass either side of the blurred glass in focus then maybe this image would have worked too. It is jarring with the plane of focus being broken up by the closest glass (you can make it less jarring by covering up either the left or right side of the blurred glass with a piece of paper, it makes the image scan much better.)
Another reason why image 1 works is probably due to the fact that the solitary in focus glass (and thus the main point of interest) lies on a vertical "thirds" line.
Post a Comment