Public sculpture - interested in your thoughts

[gary_beaton]

Interested in any thoughts anyone might have 🙂.

[samstevens]

I’d add a caption including the name and location of the sculpture and the name of the sculptor who made it.

[mikemorrellNL]

+1 for @samstevens's comment. That said, I sometimes take photos of interesting sculptures too without noting who the sculptor is/was. This is an interesting sculpture and worth photographing.

I'm not sure about the post-processing. For me, the detailed frame competes with - and draws attention away from - the sculpture. The amount of added 'noise' is a matter of taste. You might want to experiment with a finer 'texture'.
 

[Dustin McAmera]

This is a 'derived work'. This earlier thread is relevant:

 

In that thread, I said

'Photographing artworks is always tricky. If I were an art student, I might photograph artworks to help my memory of them, if the gallery even allowed that. I wouldn't think of reworking or publishing the pictures without permission.

On the street, it's often impossible to photograph a scene without an artwork being in view, and an artwork may be an essential part of a place. That's different from the museum, because we own the public space; Henry Moore doesn't get to forbid us from photographing the High Street when one of his things is put there. But even then, I'll check with myself that my picture is 'of the High Street', not just of the sculpture. I might still take a tourist picture of the scuplture, for my own memory, but I wouldn't publish it.'

 

That said, I can find a couple of my own pictures where I photographed one of the public sculptures in my city for the purpose of discussing/mocking it.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I was wondering if the textured background was present or part of the photo processing? I think the framing treatment and the ground of the background with the tight framing makes this derivative image interesting to me.

[Ricochetrider]

Edit, this is based on an assumption that this is a digital photo that’s been rather strongly manipulated.
 

Hmmm. Interesting sculpture for sure and so it makes an interesting photo. Or could easily make one.

This shot feels like it’s had a post processing “treatment”. Maybe the intent is to make it look like a film photo but IMO it comes off as simply over processed. If I shot a film photo that came out looking like that I’d consider it a fail. 

I personally am not into this kind of “look” so for me it spoils what would have been a cool shot. 
 

That said, on a positive note, the square formatting works very well here and I like how the image fills the frame quite nicely. It’s a super cool sculpture or structure and I would definitely have shot it too, had I seen it in person. I kinda like the edge treatment here too… it’s the crazy “grain effect” that spoils it for me. 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Ricochetrider

[michael_kucinich]

I like the graininess of this image. Gives it a gritty feel. The arched shapes are rather bright toward the bottom of the image which is somewhat distracting to my eye. I wonder if a little less symmetry might make a image a little more dynamic? Very interesting. That's why