A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[SI] ugly comments



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 28th 05, 07:15 AM
Aaron J. Grier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [SI] ugly comments

- disclaimers:
I like gritty urban subjects; there's something appealing to me in the
devolved rawness of manmade structures, especially when it's
unintentional as a result of neglect, time, or just plain ignorance.
it's not the same beauty as nature, but it's somehow ticklish to my
brain.

- Colin Donoghue:
the guy's vest matches the fence-ish netting and the traffic cone. at
least there are some trees. by themselves there are a lot of visually
appealing elements but the mish-mash assembly is what makes this scene
ugly.

- Jim Kramer:
when I was young I used to stare at these on streets and parking lots
while on my way to/from school. this doesn't seem ugly at all and
tickles my love of urban grit. I wonder how well a slide of similar
subjects would come out...

- R. Schenck:
hard for me to tell what they're saying by just looking at the
picture. what did you use to capture this? I'm impressed that you
got both the background and the foreground to come out, although the
color range seems a bit flat... which is odd seeing as the background
is very high contrast.

- Tom Hudson:
the depth-of-field is perfect. what other little bits of kipple are
lying in those pools? what remnants of "modern" civilization are
slowly decaying in small piles behind that TV?

- Rich Pos:
amusing... looks staged? the figures converging to the stop sign is a
nice (intended?) touch to an otherwise stark composition.

- Ken Tough:
the glinting metal against the soft green background is a nice
contrast. this image conjures the ugliest thoughts to me of them all.

- Owamanga!:
a delorean? an ugly hack job, to be sure. I'd be curious to see what
the original image looked like.

- Alan Browne:
american-style ugliness... in canada! (PFK would work too.) I'd
argue the brick isn't ugly enough, but that's me.

- Bowser:
sprawl. grey, ugly, compressed. the composition seems too easy,
though.

- Aaron Grier:
the easter connection was completely unintentional.

- Ken Nadvornick:
how bleh. good composition. it looks a little under-printed, though,
like there should either be more contrast, or it should be just a tad
darker. the color tint does throw me off a little and add to the
mood; I converted to B&W and it doesn't seem nearly so sinister.

- Walt Hanks:
maybe those three ball doohickeys on the background powerlines count
as ugliness in an otherwise pleasant shot?

- Bob Hickey:
damn that's some nice grit. what is this a detail from? how far off
do the values represented vary from reality?
--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
The United States is the one true country. The US is just. The US
is fair. The US respects its citizens. The US loves you. We have
always been at war against terrorism.
  #2  
Old March 28th 05, 03:53 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Aaron J. Grier wrote:

- Alan Browne:
american-style ugliness... in canada! (PFK would work too.) I'd
argue the brick isn't ugly enough, but that's me.


It's actually one of the oldest McD's in Canada. It has had its share
of makeovers, of course. The ugliness is not neccesarilly in the
visuals. I tried to find a good boulevard perspective (somewhat like
Bowsers) with a lineup of fastfood shops. There were a few, but the
image would have been cluttered to the point of losing the message.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
  #3  
Old March 28th 05, 05:16 PM
Bob Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


- Bob Hickey:
damn that's some nice grit. what is this a detail from? how far off
do the values represented vary from reality?


That's a doorway on Mercer St. It started out as a sickly creme a very long
time ago,. and looked bad enough as is, but that shade of red was unusually
revolting, so that's what I sent. I used a Rollei, which are particularly
good at that type of thing. I shot HP-5 for a shot that called for PanF, but
I ran out. Outside of that putrid color, there's no manipulation . Thanx
much for your comments.
Bob Hickey


  #4  
Old March 28th 05, 05:16 PM
Bob Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


- Bob Hickey:
damn that's some nice grit. what is this a detail from? how far off
do the values represented vary from reality?


That's a doorway on Mercer St. It started out as a sickly creme a very long
time ago,. and looked bad enough as is, but that shade of red was unusually
revolting, so that's what I sent. I used a Rollei, which are particularly
good at that type of thing. I shot HP-5 for a shot that called for PanF, but
I ran out. Outside of that putrid color, there's no manipulation . Thanx
much for your comments.
Bob Hickey


  #5  
Old March 28th 05, 06:30 PM
Ken Tough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Bob Hickey wrote:
damn that's some nice grit. what is this a detail from? how far off
do the values represented vary from reality?


That's a doorway on Mercer St. It started out as a sickly creme a very long
time ago,. and looked bad enough as is, but that shade of red was unusually
revolting, so that's what I sent. I used a Rollei, which are particularly
good at that type of thing. I shot HP-5 for a shot that called for PanF, but
I ran out. Outside of that putrid color, there's no manipulation .


It's a wonderful shot. I think the dereliction is beautiful,
very appealing.

--
Ken Tough
  #6  
Old March 31st 05, 08:36 AM
Ken Nadvornick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Aaron J. Grier" wrote:

- Ken Nadvornick:
how bleh. good composition. it looks a little under-printed,
though, like there should either be more contrast, or it should
be just a tad darker. the color tint does throw me off a little
and add to the mood; I converted to B&W and it doesn't seem
nearly so sinister.


Hi Aaron,

Thanks for all of the reviews, mine included.

Interesting, your comments regarding contrast/darkness. This print was made
using a variable-contrast paper exposed through a contrast grade #5 filter.
It highlights an optical illusion problem I frequently experience in the SI
and which has no reasonable solution for me.

Black and white photos (including these digitized SI likenesses) often
utilize their background display mount (or screen color) tones to help key
their shades of gray. B&W photos are normally mounted on white, or
off-white, museum boards. Alternatively, the SI "photos" are by default
displayed on a black background color.

Against a white background the tones in a photograph will appear to be
darker and/or richer than they really are as the pupils of the viewer's eyes
are reduced to accommodate the glare of the white boards. Against a black
background the opposite becomes true.

If you flip back and forth between the following two versions of my
submission, I think you will see the dramatic effect these two opposite
backgrounds have on the final appearance of the image. In both cases the
picture is the same one as was originally submitted:

http://mysite.verizon.net/kjnadvor/C...n/UglyDark.htm

http://mysite.verizon.net/kjnadvor/C.../UglyLight.htm

Since I manually print my original photos in a traditional wet darkroom they
are printed to look pleasing to me when displayed against a white mount
board background. I do not alter them to look good against the black
background of the SI where, I agree with you, they do look weaker.

Ken


  #7  
Old April 2nd 05, 07:55 AM
Ken Nadvornick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lionel" wrote:

It might help to put a big white border around them in Photoshop
before submitting them.


Hey Lionel,

If such a white border did not come at the expense of those precious 800
long dimension pixels I would do so. But anything greater than the 800
limit get resized down to that limit for display. And the reproduced image
can suffer mightily in that process, especially if it's true scanned size is
only slightly over the limit.

I once inadvertently scanned to something like 804 pixels on an early SI
submission and the resulting downsized display image made the original photo
appear to have been enlarged through a snot-covered negative. Yuk...

(I kinda' suspect I'm the only SI participant anal enough for all of this to
make any sort of difference.)

Ken


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SI] Symmetry - My Comments Alan Browne 35mm Photo Equipment 35 March 8th 05 02:24 PM
[SI] Symmetry - My Comments Alan Browne 35mm Photo Equipment 0 March 2nd 05 01:23 AM
[SI] Vivid - comments Alan Browne- 35mm Photo Equipment 20 January 9th 05 04:01 AM
[SI] Reflections - my comments Alan Browne 35mm Photo Equipment 17 December 4th 04 05:07 PM
[SI] Brian's Comments Brian C. Baird 35mm Photo Equipment 10 July 22nd 04 04:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.