decisions, decisions
Posted by: Matt McCormick | From: May 31, 2007
version 1:
version 2:
Look at these two pictures. They are two of about 25 that I took of this weird target-thing(?) out in the Utah salt flats (on an airfoce bombing range, actually) and I am having an impossible time figuring out which one I like more. Honestly, I find both of them flawed, and if I were still in Utah I’d head out for at least one more go-around.
The lighting in each is quite different. The top image was taken shortly after noon, but the bottom picture was taken about 60 minutes before sunset. I like how the bright sun really draws out the bleakness in the top image, and the backlit sign looks particularly menacing. Where as the bottom image has more depth, and while not as menacing, I do like seeing more of the texture and color of the target. I am also really excited about the swath of light on the far horizon- it creates and almost unreal looking perspective.
The cropping of the shot is also quite different. Although pretty much from the same angle, the camera was probably about four inches higher in the top image than it was for the bottom image, and this created some vastly different outcomes. I like how the higher angle in the top image shows off more detail in the ground, but I also like how the square of the target intersects with the horizon. The top image is ground-heavy, while the bottom image is sky-heavy, and I am just not sure which one is working better.
And then of course there are just the natural elements that I cannot control, like the clouds and how they are interacting with the sun/light. Ultimately, that is the biggest thing, and is why I’ll often spend hours/days/weeks/months trying to get a shot (i am usually shooting 16mm film as well). I like the clouds in the top image more then the lower image, but as I mentioned before, that distant patch of sunlight on the horizon is pretty great too. Light is so amazing and weird; I will hang out waiting for the light to get a shot, but often find that the sun+clouds don’t do what I thought/hoped they would. I feel like I am getting better at recognizing cloud formations and predicting how they will affect the light, but it is always a guessing game.
If I could go back and re-shoot this shot, I think I’d try shooting it in the morning, or maybe around 11am, so the target and the cracks in the ground were a little more back-lit, but that might make for tricky exposures because the sun would be closer to being in the frame. I also think I’d inch in a little closer, and mimic the cropping in the top photograph, but lower the camera an inch or two so I could get some of that intersecting with the horizon line thing going. I’d also like to see this on a day when there are no clouds in the sky at all.
(i'd love to hear opinions on the two picts- if you have a favorite please let me know!)
I am drawn to number one as well. I like the the high contrast and I lik the details on the ground underneath it.
Posted by: Mikey at May 31, 2007 4:42 PM
I like one a lot better. Better sky (though I wish that interesting cloud were higher and not touching the target), more interesting ground. I like the balance of sky and ground in the first. The swath of light is interesting, once you point it out, but I really wouldn't have noticed it otherwise.
Posted by: josh at May 31, 2007 5:26 PM
Yep, me too like the firs one, because of the nice natural contrast of the light. The cracks & misty feeling are pretty at the second one though...
But i also like fluffy clouds...
Good luck!
Posted by: Nanna at May 31, 2007 7:01 PM
Okay, one's nice, but two is better. The sky is better; the long thin shadow from the poles is great and the cracks in the ground are sharper making an interesting contrast with the sky.
What bothers me about both of them is the vision of some guy named Bubba with a gun in one hand and a beer in the other out there spraying lead all over the landscape.
Posted by: Dad at June 1, 2007 6:41 AM
I like v. 1 better as well. The sky is nice but the ground is more interesting to me.
Posted by: Mr. Verne at June 1, 2007 9:10 AM
I like 2.
#2 has more grit. it reveals the authentic character of the subject more. Thin, empty, somewhat viscious & lonely. more sam peckinpah.
#1 falls under the hyper-romantic landscape that sentimentalizes even ugly subjects. I do appreciate pretty clouds.
Posted by: Jen Elliott at June 1, 2007 3:05 PM
Number Two! You get a better sense of the space around the target, and the distance allows the target to speak for itself, whereas the first one kind of forces "menacing".
Posted by: Abe at June 2, 2007 9:17 PM
number one for sure. both are truly beautiful, but as i have learned in the past - go towards your instincts. my eyes sucked towards that one like a magnet (the sky, the ground, the framing.) really beautiful work man. lets hang soon.
Posted by: ryan Smith at June 5, 2007 12:30 AM
The target-magig looks like it's trying to catch the cloud in the top photo. I was instantly impressed.
Two looks like a photo I would take. (I'm a total amateur.)
Posted by: JCC at June 6, 2007 11:47 PM
You should only ask close friends these type of questions, otherwise you are liable to get some bad advice. Of couse, no offensive to those who have given you their advice.
Posted by: Alain LeTourneau at June 9, 2007 10:28 PM
Upon first looking, I definitely gravitated to the first one. The first one is more visually striking, so if that's what you're going for, then my vote is version 1.
Posted by: Lindsay at June 13, 2007 10:36 AM
Post a comment:
I like version 1 because it has a much more interesting cropping. Plus the sky.
Posted by: Matthew at May 31, 2007 3:51 PM