follow me into the light

[mickeymudd]

a crop of a shot i took in the underpass between the central and the riverwalk.

i wanted to convey a story of a 'celestial being' guiding you to the proverbial 'light at the end of the tunnel.'

some post-processing was done to convert the image to black and white.

the busker allowed me to come very close to him with my 14-42 lens but i couldn't frame the original properly because...heh2....don't laugh...i was nervous.

any comments on how to improve?

how can i make the subj stand out more?

is the light on the right too glaring? how do i tone it down and still keep the same effect?

 

[kruger]

This is a different 'celestial being' that you're trying to portray, away from what people mostly imagined of. But the busker took up much of the picture, there should be a balance between the busker and the "light". Overall, the picture seems overexposed. You could try tune down the brightness and increase the contrast.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

if you want to create the effect of a 'celestial being', the eyes are important.
generally his face and clothing do not show much detail. Maybe it's to do with your conversion process from colour to B&W.

The light is too overexposed. Can try to turn it down somehow.
Also try not to crop off his elbow and knuckles.

 

[JacePhoto]

not bad. i like it.

 

[espion]

aiyo why so pretentious ...

just make sure it is focused and well exposed which it is not - the eyes under the cap ought to be in focus and well exposed ... and then let the picture speak for itself

have u not heard a picture is a thousand words?

what does that mean?

it means many things, one of which is that people see what they see in the picture, some this, some that, some angels, some celestial being, some just mortal human beings, and maybe some hear music ...

and then it also means that a picture or painting can be titled, "Untitled" - which is appropriate for this picture - because to say anything is to diminish and mar the full impact of the picture, just as a cough spoils a concert.

just let the picture speak for itself ...

As to technicalities, ie exposure, focus, etc - it depends what is said or not said in the picture, intentional or otherwise. in other words sometimes it is ok to be blur and underexposed sometimes it is not.

And in this instance if it is blur and underexposed it says nothing, and trying to "cover up" with words like celestial beings etc is just being artistically dishonest ...

 

[mickeymudd]

thanks for the feedback..

kruger - will try to fiddle around with ps wrt to the brightness and contrast.

zerocool - i didnt crop out the knuckles. that was actually the bottom of the original. then again that just means i need to work on my framing.

jace - thks mate.

espion - if it came out 'pretentious' i certainly didnt mean it that way. it's just one of the many things i think the photo is saying and perhaps i chose the wrong impression. how would you critique the photo should i have not typed that out? would the photo have more meaning if i didnt give it a title or my impression of it?

 

[espion]

espion - if it came out 'pretentious' i certainly didnt mean it that way. it's just one of the many things i think the photo is saying and perhaps i chose the wrong impression. how would you critique the photo should i have not typed that out?

Same except for pretentious and dishonest.

And indeed u may not mean it to be pretentious; perhaps its a bad habit you've been picking up, unknowingly, here or elsewhere ...

 

[tjhan]

Huh what nonsense Espion. What makes you think he didn't intend to portray that concept? Even if he didn't at the time at shooting, during PP it's still alright to come up with an idea and process the image to achieve it. Just because it's a technically flawed image doesn't mean the idea is flawed, nor should you assume he is just faking it. I personally find the concept interesting.

It reminds me of movies where God/deities have a offbeat character design, such as Bruce Almighty. The idea is there. As for nervousness, it's pretty normal if you're new I guess, since there is a tendency for inexperienced photographers to want to get a shot over quickly and not "disturb" people too much. It's like doing a public presentation, you'll get used to it.

 

[espion]

Huh what nonsense Espion. What makes you think he didn't intend to portray that concept? Even if he didn't at the time at shooting, during PP it's still alright to come up with an idea and process the image to achieve it. Just because it's a technically flawed image doesn't mean the idea is flawed, nor should you assume he is just faking it. I personally find the concept interesting.

It reminds me of movies where God/deities have a offbeat character design, such as Bruce Almighty. The idea is there. As for nervousness, it's pretty normal if you're new I guess, since there is a tendency for inexperienced photographers to want to get a shot over quickly and not "disturb" people too much. It's like doing a public presentation, you'll get used to it.

Whats the nonsense, tjhan?

A critique is double edged. It always says more about the critic than the thing critiqued; for we all can see the thing, but we dont know you until you speak. And flawed eyes revealed more the eyes than any flawed thing. You see what you see, and it is arrogant and foolish to think it is universal.

 

[tjhan]

Which is precisely the point for this fancy thing called a "title" and optionally, a "writeup"... which all photo exhibitions and galleries have as well.

 

[espion]

Can I not have an exhibition where no pictures are to be titled and nothing to be written up and the Exhibition to be called, "Visual Poetry" or "1000 Words" or "Silence Speak" or "untitled" or something?

You guys are suppose to be creative, and pushing the frontier of things, and really just betrayed yourselves to be dogmatic, pedantic, small minded, and confined and boxed up in your thinking.

 

[tjhan]

I once did a series where I randomly took pictures with my eyes closed and then titled each one of them with a write up and people believed that I did actually compose the pictures intentionally. I also did an animal sculpture which I screwed up but later wrote a writeup saying "The splash of red paint represents the blood wildlife spills when illegal poaching is unregulated." and "The directional disjunction of head and tail symbolises the change of direction Man is taking over environmentalism, where in the past, it was disregarded but now, people are beginning to see the importance and steering policies towards a cleaner world." The sculpture was put on display in my school atrium...

I like how you flame everyone with 3 words of the same meaning. I like Kentucky Fried Fowl, Chicken, Gallus Gallus. Anyway, you advocate creativity, and indeed, creativity is shapeless and formless so why do you judge him (and me) for being uncreative just because we don't agree with your views?

Btw mods, don't ban me bro! (to quote a famous net personality)

Forgot to mention, yes you can do that exhibition, and probably has been done before. I can tell you that there are plenty more photo series by esteemed photographers/artists who intentionally shoot grain, out of focus, blur pictures which are technically fail but still contain deep meaning. So what?

 

[espion]

So what made what I said "nonsense"?

 

[tjhan]

Generally the part where you said he was trying to cover up. "if it is blur and underexposed it says nothing, and trying to "cover up" with words like celestial beings etc is just being artistically dishonest ..." and other bits.

Hehe, you know if he wrote a better write up, people might like this picture more. Like the blurness can be "added blur to simulate the surrealness/daze one might feel when transiting to the afterlife" and the overexposure as "sudden appearance of white light blinded my darkness-adjusted eyes". The man also conveys a Pied Piper image, which strengthens the "follow me into the light" theme.

But well, doesn't change the fact that TS took a technically unsound photo!

Anyway, despite your tone, I quite like your comments - one of the rare ones on CS who actually comment on a deeper level, not just on the technical issues, which anyone can do.

 

[espion]

Then say that you disagree with my "cover up" comment and dont say such nonsensical meaningless and stupid thing as "nonsense", and then I can justify why I say what I said.

I can also say whatever you have said is sheer nonsense and that shooting with your eyes close makes you worst than a monkey. But that wont make for a rational discussion.

In any case it is not for you to know if it was a cover up or not. Only mickeymudd knows, and if he disagrees he disagrees, and I certainly do not have to justify to anyone else my nonsense.

If it is nonsense to you, so be it, and it reveals more about you than anything else.