Power - C&C please!

bbjones · March 11, 2012

Really interested in your feedback on this shot. First the shot, then the backstory.

Now, the backstory:
This was one of those "the best camera is the one you have" shots, taken with my cheap cell-phone camera and post-processed to rescue. Now that it's there, I kind of like the low-res, marginal focus effect. But maybe I'm just fooling myself.

I like the composition quite a bit, with the power towers fading off into the mist, and the danger sign -- what kinds of power are dangerous and why?

Does it work for you? Are the technical limitations a hindrance, neutral, or a help? Does it stand alone without the backstory?

Thanks for your insights!
-Brian

Juano · March 11, 2012

I like it. I think the low resolution gives it a sense of gloom. I like the post processing job, well done!

Nikolai · March 11, 2012

OK, I''ll give it it go, but remember: you've asked ;-)

Concept: danger of high voltage power lines. Danger to a person, danger to the environment. OK, I take it.
Technicalities: I don't like low res images. For me it's a hindrance. :cry
Composition: an attempt at VP, which is later breaks due to a nigh number of towers on the BG. :cry
Using the circumstances: I wouldn't notice the fog unless you said about it (thanks to low res). To me it's not thick enough top bring the typical fog's 3D effect into the picture. :cry
Angle/vantage point: blah. Nothing interesting. Shooting from one's eye level seldom is. :cry
Overall impression: I wouldn't give it a second look.
Keep shooting!

That's your standard issue photo review.

Now back to my own C Theory (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=183153)

Concept
we have already covered it
Connection
even though the power towers are supposed to be all connected, the low res photo makes those lines pretty invisible.
There is a connection to me as a person, basically saying "go away". Can be good or bad.
Cohesiveness
the whole thing makes me get out of there fast as it creates an image of desloated, ugly place where no once can or should live.
Composition
- Construction
  as I have said above, there is an attempt at VP, which breaks and ends up dead. There is no refreshing flow, all the water is flushed to a single no-outlet pond at the back of the image to die. :cry
- Closures
  there is a chunk of dark ground, a stripe of grey road and a plate of light grey sky. none are talking to each other. There are mini-closures created by the toweres's frames, but they are disconnected and do not create anything for the image except random geometric patterns here and there.
Conclusion
Initially a good idea, but the various technical aspects nearly kill it.

billseye · March 11, 2012

Hey, Brian... I'll give it a shot, too.

To be fair, I did click through to your gallery and see the image in the context of your broader theme and other connected images.

On the technical/lo res front... it is a detractor for me. Not so much for low res, alone, but more because it appears to be over-processed, over-sharpened in an attempt to fix it. I'd be curious to see the original.

The composition works well in my opinion. I'm intrigued by the effect the close foreground tower has on the overall composition and lines. I'm struggling with the conceptual intent, though. Not sure the backstory really adds. Sometimes, by stating a backstory or giving too literal a meaning to an image, it can limit the unfettered interpretation of the viewer. I actually love it when an artist responds to "what does it mean?" with "what do you think it means?" or "it means what you make it mean." In this case, I'm confused by the backstory in the post versus the gallery theme. I also gotta say that if I were to see this without either context (as I did on initial viewing), I'd be thinking that there was more to it than just an image in lo-res. I'd be curious... but probably not for long before I would move on.

So..., tell me, Brian. I'm wondering about the tone in my "critiques" as I tend to try for substance in my posts, but I suspect it can come across wrong at times. I'm in agreement with Greg, about wanting comments more than votes. I figure, the best way to get them is to give them. This photo of yours is one that wouldn't be among my favorites, but there's good stuff going on, too. Did my comments come across appropriately?

bbjones · March 11, 2012

Nikolai and Bill,

Thanks for critiquing!! I certainly can't speak for others, but I love your comments. They are really helpful, and they come across (to me) in a helpful tone. Now, for the record, I tend to be pretty analytical, and if I think you are wrong about anything, your criticism of me isn't going to keep me up at night.

That's my personality, so I love to get this honest feedback and it isn't going to slow me down a bit.

On to your comments:
Nikolai:
I see your points about vanishing points and a lack of flow. What struck me about the scene on site was that lack of a vanishing point; that the towers seemed to go on and on and fade into the background. When I got to looking at the photo on a real screen, the low-res had exaggerated that effect even more. I think that contributes to the effect that makes you want to get out of there; as you say, that connection to you can be good or bad. However, breaking a rule like VPs is fine as long as you make it work for the photo. Sounds like this time, breaking the rules didn't work.

Bill:
The in-post backstory was basically me making excuses for a technically lousy picture by saying it was the only camera I had. I'm personally on the fence as to whether the whole instagram/hipstamatic/lomo/holga thing is artistically interesting, or just a cheap trick. When this shot came out of my phone, it reminded me of that sort of thing. I can't decide if I like it or not.

As far as the gallery backstory, that's a whole different thing. In this case, it was sort of a word free-association that led me to noticing the scene. After I took the shot, more free association led me to the crop and processing, so by the time I was done, it was pretty far from the original starting place. That's how things go sometimes.

And as to your tone, I don't know how others would feel, but it didn't bother me a bit.

Again, guys, thanks for your comments.

bbjones · March 11, 2012

Oh, and Nikolai, thanks for posting the link to your C-theory. I read that some time ago, and it was good to read again.

In general, I really like that way of looking at photos. Although I (think I) share your dislike of low-res, I also think that far too much photo critiquing on the web consists of criticizing sharpness on a 1:1 scale of an 18 MP image without any comment on the other "C"s whatsoever.

Nikolai · March 11, 2012

bbjones wrote: »

Oh, and Nikolai, thanks for posting the link to your C-theory. I read that some time ago, and it was good to read again.

In general, I really like that way of looking at photos. Although I (think I) share your dislike of low-res, I also think that far too much photo critiquing on the web consists of criticizing sharpness on a 1:1 scale of an 18 MP image without any comment on the other "C"s whatsoever.

You're welCome, glad to be of assistanCe :-)

thumb

Power - C&C please!

Comments