It's all in the title - this is the west end of the terrace at the front of the house but it's also an exercise in getting the framing right in camera.
It's a lovely capture of the rock wall, the shutter and frame, the bench and the ornamentation of shells and pine cones. Sort of an outdoor still life; a found still life if you will.
Wow! So good! Splendid framing and such a pleasing image. Fav. A situation in which the rules work well! I would have gone for a squarer image (maybe 8x10?) to lose some of the upper part of the wall... don't know if you could do that in camera with the X-E3 but you must have a bagful of cameras with which you could!
@davidlostphojo Yep, 8x10/4x5 would have been ideal but it tends to only be available on small sensor cameras... and it would have been soooo much better if I had taken it earlier in the day when the sun was still on the wall to up the contrast.
It has to be a great house if the rest is done that way too. This traditional construction method and the materials with history give houses a special dignity. Nothing is stilted, everything developed from an understanding of material, form, construction and function. This is the key to timeless beauty.
BTW: The picture is nicely pondered. I don't necessarily want to miss anything from the wall upstairs. It is good if there is a little more space to breathe in addition to the rather compact partial forms. But a final judgment can only be made when the two variants are actually implemented and are next to each other.
What I might have tried: To go more wide-angle and to show a little more of the wall left and right and the paved floor - with a similar reason: the bench would have more room to breathe, maybe it would rest more in the picture. But these are just my thoughts. And as I already mentioned: A judgment is only permissible in a direct comparison.
To conclude on SOOC: This type of photography is a good exercise: it urges to look more consciously and to use camera technology in a more targeted manner.
But I am skeptical about the view that SOOC shows the world as it really is (I have read this claim several times in articles). I think this reality does not exist for us humans. We filter when we look at and present the world. We interpret it - also when taking photos. The discussion that David @davidlostphojo initiated provides a good argument for my point of view: the picture detail. With the choice of the image section, we direct the viewer's eye to a certain detail of “reality”, we cut it out. You can do this before you press the shutter release or afterwards while composing images on the PC. I don't know what should be more "authentic" in the first process. It is true that I have a lot more options for interventions in the image editing, but the principle does not change. I think the good photographer has both: When taking photos, the trained eye for colours and shapes in their context and the ability to increase the effect of a statement or image idea when editing a photo afterwards.
September 6th, 2020
Leave a Comment
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
BTW: The picture is nicely pondered. I don't necessarily want to miss anything from the wall upstairs. It is good if there is a little more space to breathe in addition to the rather compact partial forms. But a final judgment can only be made when the two variants are actually implemented and are next to each other.
What I might have tried: To go more wide-angle and to show a little more of the wall left and right and the paved floor - with a similar reason: the bench would have more room to breathe, maybe it would rest more in the picture. But these are just my thoughts. And as I already mentioned: A judgment is only permissible in a direct comparison.
To conclude on SOOC: This type of photography is a good exercise: it urges to look more consciously and to use camera technology in a more targeted manner.
But I am skeptical about the view that SOOC shows the world as it really is (I have read this claim several times in articles). I think this reality does not exist for us humans. We filter when we look at and present the world. We interpret it - also when taking photos. The discussion that David @davidlostphojo initiated provides a good argument for my point of view: the picture detail. With the choice of the image section, we direct the viewer's eye to a certain detail of “reality”, we cut it out. You can do this before you press the shutter release or afterwards while composing images on the PC. I don't know what should be more "authentic" in the first process. It is true that I have a lot more options for interventions in the image editing, but the principle does not change. I think the good photographer has both: When taking photos, the trained eye for colours and shapes in their context and the ability to increase the effect of a statement or image idea when editing a photo afterwards.