Boat on the Bank

My back yard neighbor's boat.

Yes! A little dark, but that's me.

It's as dark as I could get without blocking up the shadows.

I agree on the dark look, it is interesting becouse describes something that seems abandoned and also the falling look of the tree help this. I like i can see details in the image despite the dark look, so you were succesfully in darkening the image as much as possible while keeping it readable. To me is an intresting image, it would be nice to see it printed and framed on a wall to get the full effect. regards

I think this is by far the strongest of your three most recent posts. It's well composed with three strong elements, and I think the darkness gives it a certain moodiness that would be missing if it were in color, or shot in brighter light. There is enough detail here for it to work. I think also that darker photos usually look better printed than on the web.

 

Also, I think it's often personal tastes. There are a few phtographers on PN I admire with a propensity for darker photos and they usually get the same "too dark" comments. I think it's usually a personal aesthetic moreso than a technical one.

 

 

. . . as is your preference for this one out of the three.:-)

 

I'm just teasing, but it's always something to keep in mind because although we shoot lots of different things for lots of different reasons, it can be hard to pick a direction to commit to, and sometimes that direction is arrived at by tuning out what everyone else says and just note how you feel about both the process and the results of each project. I like this one well enough, but know how I would integrate this into a cohesive group for an exhibit.

 

So it's just an orphan, at the moment.

I agree it can be difficult deciding on a particular direction or even consciously deciding not to specialize in one area. At this point I am more interested in certain genres of photography than others, but I still consider myself an opportunist, meaning I'll sometimes shoot things that are not primary interests. Is it better to be versatile (shoot many different things) or to be specialized in one area? I think if you want to emphasize a defined style, it's better to specialize, especially if your looking for a very cohesive portfolio. Then again what one shows on PN doesn't necessarily represent what one may show in a juried portfolio review or a gallery exhibition. Then I think you do want a cohesive theme or style.

 

Right now my PN portfolio is a mish-mash of different genres and I have not really defined my style. I do know what areas I'm most interested in, but even if I deleted everything that isn't in those particular genres, I doubt it would be cohesive at this point.

 

As for tuning out what others say? If you mean not letting others influence what (or how) you shoot, I totally agree. For example one could try to emulate what's consistently popular on PN, but if your doing it for others, and not yourself, then what good are the accolades? Obvious exceptions are commercial work where you are being paid by a client, but otherwise I think it's most important to follow your instincts and try to create images you are personally pleased with.

 

As for integrating this one? Obviously it wouldn't fit well with your abstract work. If you have enough darker images, that may work as a theme. They wouldn't necessarily all have to be landscapes, but if they had the same mood it could work. Maybe when you are out shooting you could keep that context in mind. Just a thought.

 

I would suggest one reading: the author is Italo Calvino, the title is Invisible Cities: it is related to this discussion as the autor actually didn't ever wrote the book into its whole, rather he collected orphans here and there from the small novels he was writing from time to time. After a certain amount of time he found himself with a buch of stories abt. deceiving cities, dreamlike cities, reflected cities, impossible cities, etc... eventually decided to collect them into a single book. The moral is: don't necessary pretend to have all your work cohesive as creational process is not ever coherent at all, if sometimes you create something uncommon for you - this look might be transitory and gather coherence later! This book is source of inspiration to me, and could be for many... i hope you'll like the hint.

Thank you both for your thoughts.

 

I like the word 'opportunist' and hope that I will never lose the desire to recognize a moment even when it's far removed from my direction at the time. I almost always find that my favorite shot of a session is pretty far removed from what I had conceived of originally.

 

The idea of taking different ideas and seeing the possibilities of merging them into a cohesive whole is something that has happened recently with the merging of my interests in abstracts and reflections. - buildings in particular. I now have a year to flesh out the concept for a show next February. Hopefully, other ideas will still intrude just as frequently.

I am having a hard time with this one Carl.Although I like the general feel of the composition I almost think that by blocking the shadows some drama might just pop somewhere.I think I feel this way because the tonal ranges almost seem redundant and the detail left in the house is actually distracting to my eyes.I also think the crop is somewhat claustrophobic like you were trying to hide something below the reflection..

You have to love the name on that boat...

 

Chocolate Chip.

 

Personally, I think it is nice and moody. Those willows add a nice texture.

Very nice, Carl. It has a definite suburban "feel" to it, but it is still a very nice photo.

Interesting observations. . . .

 

I agree that the framing is less than ideal and would now prefer more room around the boat reflection. It was turned over a while ago and has remained that way.

 

The willows and the boat being overturned suggest death and mourning to me and was printed dark for that reason.

 

Don't know what it is about this composition that suggests suburbia. Why couldn't this be a lake out in the sticks?