'Dissonance'

Sometimes photos depict the tranquil and the sedate, other times,

occasionally, one attempts, as here, to portray a more true-to-life

situation complete with life's dissonance. Your ratings, critiques and

observations are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very

critically or wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge to

help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! john

While certainly not a 'pretty photo' this photo may have 'impact' or bring up feelings in the viewer.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, as it may cause the viewer to think, reflect, or just react, positively or negatively, and that reaction is part of what causes 'impact' and for a photo to rise from the ranks of the 'also-rans' to something that is more transcendent, even if if doesn't cause the viewer to be 'comfortable'.

Being 'comfortable' is not necessarily the final goal of many photos, but causing one to have a feeling, positively or negatively about photos perhaps is.  Judge for yourself your feelings about this particular photo, and I welcome your feedback.

john

John (Crosley)

with your photos, John, they stand out and demand attention. I love these kind of street shots and was immediately drawn to the apparent conflict here. However, they child may just have been playing a game with her sister and the man in the background may be about to cross the road but it gives the viewer something to work with. ( I would have cropped a tiny bit off the RHS, maybe 7% 'ish but that's just my geometrical perspective which would not be everyone's view).

Thanks for posting the shot and the dialogue.

Best regards, Patrick

I'm trying an interesting experiment, Patrick.

When I first joined Photo.net I posted some photos and asked for ratings and did OK and some got very high ratings, but I saw the ratings quandary that drove some people.

In response I posted two entire folders of photos for which I did not request any ratings, but under the older 'view' system they still ended up in the 'most viewed' folders.

Under that system, the photos I'm posting now would have ended up in such a folder, unrated, but frankly, getting these rated is more a challenge for the rater than me, as my credentials already are firmly established now that I have two photos of the week, and probably my first post [balloon man] would have been a Photo of the Week, but since I didn't ask for critique it was passed over.

That photo is my highest rated photo to date and a hit from the moment I took it. It's timeless and one of my three absolute best. Yet it never was put up for critique and was never eligible for Photo of the Week as a result.

So, rating this photo definitely is a challenge, and if I had a whole portfolio of such shots, I'd be known as the photographer who is a little kinky with shots like this, but I'm eclectic.

I see something like this, take it, and even if it's outside my normal genres, I look at it, and cherish it for the tiny niche it occupies.

Later, even years later, it may have one or several mates.

I think I properly captioned (titled) it with 'Dissonance' though as you pointed out properly she may have been calling to a sibling.

Notice that the near group is in threes, centered and the far person makes it in to a 'W' which may be why you suggested a right hand side crop.

I tend to view the threes and needing centering, so I'll stay with full frame which is why it's framed as it is.  I only crop when a crop is needed obviously or the aspect ratio is off or my lens was too short for the subject, or lastly when I can so dramatically improve a photo by good cropping that there's just no way not to crop.

I thank you for having the courage to give me an encouraging word about this out of the ordinary shot . . . . a shot which is definitely not something you want to put on the wall as a piece of tranquil 'art' in some motel or hotel to soothe bedraggled travelers.

;~))

It's kind of my little joke on what some regard as 'art', yet it is 'art' in its own way, and in its way is of the sort of thing that one might find in galleries, surrounded by dozens of photos of a similar vein.

For me it's now one of a kind, so no galleries for this shot.

My experiment is to take all my off-the-wall shots which I might not otherwise post and just post them, let the chips fall where they may.

It pleases me, and since my reputation is in good enough hands already, why not?  I can always take more photos, and I am now confident that in a few days or a week of shooting, I can take high quality, photos that will please most afficionados, without having to post these more off-the-wall photos, so why not indulge myself as I did years ago when I posted 'do not rate' folders. 

This time, however, rating is fine with me.

Thanks for a well-thought-out comment.

john

John (Crosley)

(yes, amazes ) is that you have spotted the exact reason why I suggested the small crop! This response of yours, John, has now set me thinking.

I have had a loose theory going on in the back of my mind for a while now that when we view a picture the elements in that picture make up a body that could loosely be called a 'mass', or perhaps an 'area' with a 'weight' that is a function of the tones within these areas. So for example, in your picture the people and the trees have greater 'moment' than the road and that fourth smaller (in perspective) person has an important 'tipping' effect to the left which moves 'the centre of gravity' in that direction. I can't be making this up as you noticed it as well.

However, photography is not all about geometry and what is really interesting here is that you have chosen to leave this alone; to leave the tension there for the viewer to deal with. Indeed, why should a successful photograph have to be ballanced? Cappa didn't worry too much about balance and his photographs were kind of pretty brilliant weren't they?

Maybe its an idea for a new setting on the next version of Photoshop if you want perfect 'balance' in a shot then this could be computerised in an instant. what an unsettling thought.

Best regards,

Patrick

Your very astute reply comment indicates you have understood me exactly.

I was trying for balance but using different criteria than you, as you gave more weight to the background person than I, I think, and would have trimmed more on the right hand side.  I might have also, and it's a pretty minor thing, but it does add a little tension to the photo, and that's not a bad thing. 

I do eschew cropping, and this is what I took, so that's how I show it, even though framing doubtless took only a second or two.  I like to live with what I took; it's good discipline in shooting.

Your comments are marvelous and show that you paid careful attention to this slightly kinky photo and to my comment, and for that you deserve special attention.

Kudos.

john

John (Crosley)

Patrick,

Without the geometri (HCB's term) which we call composition e.g., the three-pointed figure of the three individuals (e.g., a triangle if you connect them, or a four-pointed figure, a 'W' if you add the person, background), this photo would not have been exhibited.

It's one thing to post a photo with something interesting, but without more for a photo like this, it's bound for a ho-hum resonse.  Add some geometry (composition) and it's got a little something more.  Then it's a little more worthy, in my mind.

I hope that better completes my response and makes it more fulfilling.

You are an astute observer.

john

John (Crosley)

and you have also been generous in your response; thank you. I will carry on enjoying your posts and appreciating your talent.

Chow for now,

Patrick

Thank you so very much.

john

John (Crosley)