'The Odd Complements'

Disparate elements sometimes can complement each other in

unpredictable ways, as in this photo, taken recently. Do you 'get it?'

Your ratings, critiques and observations are invited and most

welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit a helpful

and constructive comment; thank you in advance for sharing your

photographic knowledge to help me improve my photography. Enjoy!

John

Nice shot!

Because of your special insight and sense of aesthetics together with your vast experience in critiquing, such a comment has special meaning to me.

It's a very hard shot to 'explain', but somehow it 'works' I think you can see.

john

John (Crosley)

hi John.. a lot of movement to the shot.. with the exception of the main subject. the man in motion in the corner... the water on the pavement...it sets a certain tone ... perhaps a metaphior for time passing us all by?  samme

Except for your introductory phrase 'a lot of movement to the shot', your critique seems 'right on'.

However I am puzzled by that phrase and wonder if perhaps you didn't write more but it got chopped off in editing and posting.

In reality this is a shot mostly about the static of life and just a viewpoint from one angle.  The man crossing in the upper part of the frame -- the distance -- was put in as an afterthought to the framing to add additional dimension to the shot, although if it helps create for you a metaphor, about time passing by, then all the better, for anything that helps a shot become 'deeper' in the minds of viewers is welcome.

I see this as a study in repetition, and in particular the repetition of right angles.

The dump truck (yes, that's a 'dump truck' in the foreground, seen from above), has perpendicular edgesto its bed, and the one edge/side that I was drawn to is on the right hand side.  Of course as we see it, it is not exactly perpendicular because it's distorted by our angle of view, but our training and minds tell us the two planar surfaces of back and side join perpendicularly.

The man, seated, middle top, is also a study in perpendicularity and in the same way.  His body is roughly upright, but bent somewhat at waist and surely at the knees where they are joined to the thighs in a true right angle and that is the angle we see - and it complements the other right angle from the dump truck  bed.  It seems like quite a stretch but that's what my eye saw and fixated on.

I took several frames and chose the one with passerby in background also for the perpendicularity of the man's left leg, for depth of repetition.

As to it being a study in 'movement' I am not sure. 

You say 'except' for the man and the water and I also add 'the truck' in which case really the only non-static thing in this frame is the far passerby. 

As it is, your metaphor is complete without the first observation, so I presumed it might have been an editing error, or that somehow you used too few words to explain your idea?

I any case, the final point made is a well made point, however, you got there, and, if not the point I was trying to make, is not irrelevant and does add depth to this photo's interpretation.

Thank you for the addition.

john

John (Crosley)

hi John.. well my words werent cut off,,,, you are obviously a deeper thinker than i. perhaps i meant movement as in the cycle of life. the dumpster... recycling ... water on the pavement always moving.whether  we choose to move on ... push foreward or not life (time) provides us with little choice.he will eventually get up off that chair and move.in essence we are saying the same thing.. time waits for no man... samme

I see the scene as the world unfolding as it does everyday, people coming and going, people simply passing the time, and business going about it's daily routine. The more I study the image the more I see. Yes, I see the right angles, I see the movement and I see time passing by, but what I'm taken with is the half-ness of the image. Half of the dump truck is available for our observation, half of the person walking/running is available for our eyes to see, half of the plate glass window is shown and when it comes to the gentleman sitting, half of him is in the chair and half of him is beyond the chair with only half of his face showing.

I like this image and I like what it brings to all who view it. I like to think it's "half of the day has gone by"

deb

In general, with an image such as this, there is no 'right' or 'correct' answer.

I tried to walk past this scene without taking this image, but found I just couldn't.

I was transfixed, and I couldn't quite put my finger on it except it just 'fit together, and the closest I could come was the straight lines and the angles.

Then passersby came on the far sidewalk and added depth, so I fired when one went by in a likely position to complement my chosen idea, but that does not mean yours is any less valid, or my thoughts are any 'deeper' than yours. In fact, yours may be much 'deeper' than mine.

What it appears that this, being subject to multiple interpretations, is more a work of 'art' than just 'street' than may first appear, and  of some success despite what I see as its static nature.

For that I would term it an unexpected success; a photo I posted expecting to get low rates AND low participation, as undoubtedly many new members are scratching their heads saying to themselves' what is special about that image compared to the photo of my child with the happy, smiling face?

There's deep and there's deep.

And see below for another point of view I had not put into words, but had considered.

Thanks for a helpful contribution for analysis of this unusual and now it seems 'interesting' photo.

john

John (Crosley)

I like to think that usually I have the last word (and the deepest) with analysis of my own photos.

After all I see 'em, I take 'em,  I post 'em for a reason, usually for something I can articulate or at least 'see' then I moderate those who choose to comment.

But your commentary far outdoes my deepest thoughts.

I was aware this is a photo with an 'empty middle' - -in essence that in itself made it special.

How often do you see the center of a photo being an empty asphalt parking lot with accumulated rain water, a dump truck bed partiallly shown and a very relaxed parking/security attendant?

Well, you have put it all together and instead of John Crosley having the last word, here, I'll let it instead be a very deserving person who has done a terrific analysis:  Deb Cloud.

john

John (Crosley)

I like to use diagonals in photo composition in part because they yield triangles/one photo and one diagonal equals two triangles.  I feel a triangle is compositionally a very dynamic figure.

There are variations on the triangle/diagonal composition; this is one of them.

The diagonal can originate and terminate in each corner of the square or rectangle, effectively bisecting the image, OR, it can be a diagonal that 'just doesn't quite make it' - a diagonal that creates a triangle of its own  when taken with two sides, but doesn't bisect the image.

This is an image where the diagonal is at such an angle that it commences above the low horizon (bottom) and ends at an equal distance from the top on the opposite side.

This is  a very effective (in my view) mode of creating a line similar to a bisecting triangle without actually creating the very evident bisection.

Many photographers use it, as it is a very common device, but one I've never seen written about.

And, in the welter of lines here, it almost is lost, which is as it should be, I think - it bespeaks a compositionally more complex image.

Your view? 

john

John (Crosley)

You sure put a smile on this girl's face :)

It was a pleasure to study this image and it felt good to put my thoughts into words!

Oh, and it was a pleasure to impress you :)

Thanks for the nod, it carries a lot of weight in my opinion.

deb

Rarely, someone will comment, and it will be so good I'll incororate the comment as mine, referring readers to read it as though it represents my own thoughts.

In all fairness, I can't do that with yours, as although the thoughts eventually may have occurred to me, I can't imagine they would have while the period this comment period is active, and therefore all credit must go to you; accordingly, I cannot 'incorporate your comment as mine' as I never think I would have got that far.

Keep up the good work . . . . sometimes you'll strike out . . . that's the price of going for the fence.

I think I get some of the most wonderful feedback on this entire service -- your comment is a good example.

Thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

now that you mention it, John there are a lot of angles in this shot; now that you mention it, a study in angles for sure. i think your effort to include all these angles does make the scene look busy. it's a curious picture, and i think your intent and samme's interpretation about busyness make this an interesting visual physically and metaphorically, and for that i'm putting it in my faves. dp

I post a lot of unusual photos, and they're often unusual for lots of different reasons that seem 'personal' to me, because no one really notices or seems to care why they are 'different' or the just seem 'same' to those people and maybe even 'trite', when to my mind they are not.

Then sometimes I'll post something pretty trite, and it will 'take off'.

Go figure.

I would have figured of those that had that ineffable 'something' that made it 'special' but probably 'unrecognizable' to the PN audience, this was going to be the one, and the rates seem to bear it out, with a number of 3 rates.

But on the other end there are some 6s too, which under the new, conservative ratings system, pretty much astonishes me.

Not because to my standards it isn't 'good' but there are an awful lot of others that are also 'good' to my standard but 'failures' or 'clichés' to the standards of others, or not worth commenting on.

I would have picked this last as a much-discussed photo, yet the Photo.net collective wisdom often surprises me, and agreeably so, which is why I continue to post and watch carefully not only the rates (which are a sign of popularity, but the comments, which are the real sign of special interest.

What I understand is that this photo truly is different, for reasons I could not completely put my thumb on when I took it, though I knew it was 'oddball' but which I partly understood.  Commenters above, have helped flesh that out, particularly one who contributed greatly to my own understanding.

I guess the lesson is 'post, live and learn'.  If you take and post photos such as I do, you will continue to be occasionally surprised.'

In this case, in a good way.

(Makes up for all the ones I thought had 'promise' commenters passed over and raters said 'stunk') ;~))

Thanks for a rewarding comment.

john

John (Crosley)

The essence of this photo is a 'S' curve, but modified in a way, so it's a 'Z' curve, a close cousin/

The pedestrian walkway (sidewalk; trottoir) at top leads from top left to center, then the curbline extends leftward and down, until it's broken from a line leading across the back of the small dump truck.

In a way, that is a 'Z' curve.

A 'Z' curve is a related closely to an 'S' curve.  Any such curve, including lesser cousin 'C' curve, is designed to lead the eye into, (or from background to the foreground) of a photo.  In doing so, the eye lingers on the photo and is engaged -- one of the tests of a good or 'interesting' photo.

That composition is one reason I took the photo, not knowing exactly why but being drawn to it, and a reason it has endured, though it's somewhat 'oddball' with no particular meaning other than just a 'scene' that appears 'harmonious' for reasons now simply understood that previously had eluded me.

john

John (Crosley)