Does this work at all?

The idea, the title, the execution, the stitching, the negative

part, whatever... I'd like to hear what you guys think of it. Thanks!

<br>(Details: sonnar 50/1.5 wide-open, 1/25s, delta3200)

<p></center>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2943245-lg.jpg">

<br>

<i>"Facing your negatives"</i>

</center>

Doesn't work for me. My subconscious sees a picture on the left, and blobs on the right. It doesn't help any that the picture shows up bigger than my monitor so I have to scroll to see the whole thing.

 

I think it would help if the darkness of the left and right half were similar (would help draw attention to both sides) and would help if the technique were applied to a photo that was perhaps more abstract, so your mind didn't jump to the "real" part of it right off.

I see your point, Stephen. Thanks. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2943337">Here</a> you can see a version where both sides are positive; however the game with positive/negative is lost, then.

Not a big loss, if you ask me.

I like it, especially the fact that in the positive part it is the girl who is lighting the cigarette and in the negative part it is the guy. Subtle difference between two images that at first sight seem to be each others' negatives. (I did notice the fourth face in the negative part, but only after the striking similarities made me curious.)

Interesting idea, but I find the sudden switch from pos to neg distracting, especially as the overall very dark composition is then stark white. Merging two layers one pos one neg through a grad can work better IMHO<div></div>

Honestly? It's a gimmick. In most cases, gimmicks overwhelm the photo itself for the worse. If it's a strong image, it can stand by itself without any overt gimmicks.

 

So to answer your question... No, it does not work for me.

I like what you were going for as well as some others here. Joris said it best, but to his answer I would add that the absence of the third face from the left side removes some of the effect I think you were trying for. (If it's going to be negative, the absence of only one face from it's positive confuses the issue.) I think it would make it work a bit better, based on what I think you're getting at, if that face were visible.

Eric is right about the gimmick ruining the photograph- but I think the largest gimmick of all is the fact that you have it titled. I would leave it devoid of any title. It is overstating the obvious. And, though the image itself *may* be a little gimmicky, the fact that it appears as though this was an un-staged photo makes it appealing, and kind of negates the gimmicky nature of it.

I'd also agree that the stark imbalance is a bit too much. I'm not sure if I like the unfaded split down the center, certainly not with the rest of the points made here; maybe it would work if it WERE two positives, and you got that face back in and removed the title.

Point is- you're thinking, and that's what counts.

I like the opposites:

- mirrored images

- who is lighting a cigarette

- maybe even: old woman there/not there

 

I dislike:

- unneccessary empty space in the middle (crop the glasses?)

- the title

- the lamp above man is distracting

- the negative image looks gimmicky

 

I hope you don't mind that I have included a quick sketch that addresses some of the problems I mentioned.<div></div>

<p>Sorry, my previous post was a mess. Here's another try.

 

<p>I like the opposites:<br/

<ul>

<li>mirrored images

<li>who is lighting a cigarette

<li>maybe even: old woman there/not there

</ul>

 

<p>I dislike:<br>

<ul>

<li>unneccessary empty space in the middle (crop the glasses?)

<li>the title

<li>the lamp above man is distracting

<li>the negative image looks gimmicky

</ul>

 

<p>I hope you don't mind that I have included a quick sketch that addresses some of the problems I mentioned.<div></div>

With a fresh view this morning, i agree on most points made:) The title is indeed gimmicky and was unnecessary(stupid) to put it there. Maybe the negative part is also gimmicky...at least exaggeration. The pos/neg idea was quite sloppy-executed (i was bothered myself by the big change in the brightness of the two parts). In general, i suck in post-processing, i have to admit.

 

The two original images are okay, probably not gimmicky at all, but don't really do much separated. They were taken one after the other, with the idea of combining them *somehow*. Some minor crop (to make them framed the same way) was done only.

 

The whole scene was rolling down very fast in front of me, experienced smokers light up a cigarette in less than a second, so i couldn't do much about the disappearing fourth person and other details. (It *was* unscened, indeed.) I actually like the version of Mikko more than the original.

 

Thanks all for the honest and helpful comments. :)

Aw, man...don't be hard on yourself. It's the eye that counts, and here: the timing and circumstances. THAT'S what would have made this, and especially your new presentation of it, work phenomenally- the perfectly-timed shot. It didn't, but that's to be expected in most cases. The point is- you had something in mind, tried it, and so maybe you have to try it again. No big deal. I'd rather have the idea than the technical and timing prowess to make it. You can't have the latter without the former.

Have you tried it with a single face, perhaps heads back to back?