Hi Frank, The snow and the sunbather are the two elements that add some special interest to ~this~ shot, ~this~ visit.
If you recall, I asked if you'd read On Being a Photographer. In the book there's a description of just the sort of situation you encountered, although it was on a beach in the summer. The example used was Harry Callahan's photo, Cape Code, which, like your shot of the lifeguard station, is a very simple image. It shows a volleyball net on the beach with the sea in the background. Nothing could be simpler, nor more static. To many people the impression might be that Callahan was wandering around, saw the scene, and made a quick snap. In reality, by looking at the contact sheet (something to be said for contact sheets here, but that's for another time) we find that he shot eleven frames, all from slightly different angles and perspectives. Now, I don't know how many frames you exposed on the day you took this pic. I don't know if you went to the scene specifically to photograph the station, or if it just happened that you ended up there at that time. I applaud you going back numerous times to photograph the place. That's good. But, I must ask ... how many frames did you expose on the day you made this pic? How many different angles and positions did you try? I took a workshop with Baron Wolman a few years ago, and he suggested making lots of exposures even if the scene hasn't changed much. After the workshop I met Steve Larson and we went to the santa barbara zoo. There I saw a man holding his young son on his back, so the boy could get enough height to see the elephants marching around in their compound. I took the most mundane point of view, from their back, and shot an entire roll of film of the man and his son. Afterwards I made 5x7 proof prints of every frame, laid them out on the floor so i could see every one of them, and looked them over. The differences between each frame, as you may suspect, were slight - very slight. A small movement in a hand, a tilt of the boy's head, the way the father's fingers interlocked ... you get the idea. >From that simple exercise of a "nothing" scene, it became clear that not only were some shots way better than others, but that there was a decent photograph in the bunch after all. OK, on to other things, Kind Regards from the Depths of Despair, shel frank theriault wrote: > > Hi, Shel, > > I think maybe this is one of those situations where the "what ifs" or "next > time try this" work. It is, after all, a building, so it ain't going > anywhere... <vbg> > > I had the 24-48 at 24mm on that shot. Yes, certainly, the sky would look > much better with a few clouds for "drama". And, on the 8x10, the young lady > doesn't look nearly as "lost" as she does on the screen. I tried to sharpen > in to make it look more like the print, but then it was over sharpened. > I've still got to load that Photoshop programme - maybe that will allow me > to do more with my scans. > > This station is one of those "ongoing" projects - I've got likely got a > dozen or more shots of it now, and I intend to keep on shooting it. I > thought the snow and the woman made this one a ~bit~ more interesting than > the others - but I'll keep working on it. I haven't tried a 19mm yet - I'll > make sure I've got that with me next time! > > Thanks for your comments. And, thanks Bill for yours too. Yes, I could > have moved the camera to the right - there's nothing there preventing me > from doing that, so I'll keep that in mind next time, too. > > cheers, > frank > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > >From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: PAW week #2 - A Canadian Tan > >Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:51:50 -0800 > > > >Frank ... > > > >Red filters are neat for darkening the sky, and the added > >effect when there are clouds present can often take an > >average or mundane scene and turn it into something > >dramatic. Since the lifeguard station will not be moving > >any time soon (will it?), you might consider returning to > >try for an even more dramatic shot. > > > >The young lady is lost in the photograph, at least on these > >small monitors and even smaller JPEG's. I hope she presents > >herself with a stronger presence in the full sized print. > > > >Do you recall what focal length you were using? I'd think > >that with a wider lens (you've a 19mm, right?), moving in > >closer, and a more dramatic sky you'd have a more powerful > >image. > > > >And yeah, I know, this is what you got, and maybe I > >shouldn't give out with the what-if's, but I really believe > >that it may be going back to reshoot with some of this in > >mind. As it is, the dark sky is just a dark sky ... no > >impact or drama.
