Talk about your likes, dislikes, technical flaws -- but try to be specific -- "I don't care for this because..." or "The grain in this photo really works for me because..." Let's try to turn this into (keep this) an educational process for everybody and hope it bleeds over into the comments/critiques on the challenges.
I'm leaving the title off this one for now for a couple of different reasons. If you know the shot, please don't give it away.
|
|
10/02/2002 01:49:49 PM · #2 |
Ah! a mystery photo. *grin*. Straight out of film noir. It bugs me that I can not figure out what is being photographed. A bomb? What is the man holding in the lower left. Microphone? Flash unit?
Excellent capture of a place and time. Compostition: all shapes and lines lead to the objects at the base of the collumn; The circle of hats, the beam of light shooting between the gap in the bodies, the dager point of the collumn itself, the edge of the pavement leading back to the men. Point of Veiw: high, remote, the men are anonomus in thir overcoats and hats, croped heads, the paving as background further obscures the location. The one man who dares to be different looks like Peter Lawford to me (ancient flame).
Interesting picture.
aelith |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:05:57 PM · #3 |
| Looks like a crime scene phototographer, getting the camera turned on him. Is that a head? I like the mood of the photo, dark and mysterious, almost like Al Capone is watching. I'm having a hard time picking a focal point, is it the base of the pole, or the photographer? At first my eyes are drawn down, but immediatly shoot to the photographer. Newspaper photo? |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:29:15 PM · #4 |
| That's an interesting story that it's being told here. Unfortunately, I don't quite know what the story is. Agree with Aelith's description. The lines and light are very effective in drawing the attention between the man with the cloth and the base of the column with its significant props. It is odd that THE object isn't recognizable but the letter is so clearly in focus. I'm just having a wild guess at this: it looks to me like the crime scene of a kidnap with a ransom note. Initially I thought the man under the dark cloth was a photographer, too, but actually I'm not so sure. He may be the crime suspect and is being led to the scene (my imagination is running wild this morning). If he's a photographer I don't see how in the world he's going to take a picture and don't quite make out a camera either. There's the symbolism of the anonymous authority figures with their hats hiding their faces and then there's the barehead man in the sportcoat. It's high drama here. Is this a still taken during a movie shoot? I confess being clueless. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:31:17 PM · #5 |
Looks like a good 'photojournalism' shot... It does appear to be a head on the ground being photographed. I don't think the intent of this photo is to be technically correct so i won't even comment on that.
I think this is a high impact photo that is defnintely supporting a news story. This photo probably ran in a newspaper at some point. Technical quality and composition are not as important here as the story telling qualities. The photograph's purpose is to visually support the story in print that it will accompany. It's NOT for the puropose of framing and placing in an art gallery. Compositionan and technical critique for this would be pointless...
Now... tell me that it's not photojournalism... lol... If it's not, I would have no interest in the image :(
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:48:49 PM · #6 |
Oh but John the composition of the elements is telling the story. And Journey, I have the zoom function on my IE tool key. I thought the thing under the cloth was a camera because it is on a tripod. The thing that looks like a head looks more like a broken mop head to me. I'm more interested in the metal box and the pipe/cane? behind it.
Yes, excellent photojournalism. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:50:55 PM · #7 |
dunno about it being a "GOOD" photojournalism shot. Shouldn't a good one tell a story instead of being a mystery? Just my opinion of course, and a humble one it is...lol
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:55:00 PM · #8 |
| Thanks, Aelith. You're the better sleuth. Take your word for it that it's a tripod; I thought they were the legs of the stool the photographer/suspect is sitting on. I don't recognize the head; it looks like crumpled newspaper to me. This image reminds me of Orson Welles movies; it has that sense of "drama". |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 04:04:56 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Gracious:
dunno about it being a "GOOD" photojournalism shot. Shouldn't a good one tell a story instead of being a mystery? Just my opinion of course, and a humble one it is...lol
This does tell a story. It's not supposed to tell the entire story... it accompanies the story that is in print...
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 04:32:51 PM · #10 |
| Mostly I can't stop looking at the headless guy in the upper right hand corner. Hey! Maybe THAT'S what they're photographing. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 04:45:41 PM · #11 |
The "cameraman" is positioned very oddly. He seems to ber sitting down (the pose is surely too awkward for anything else) and, while I am sure it must be a camera (movie camera?) under that hood, it could just as well be a piece of exercise machinery.
I am most interested in what it is that appears to be projecting from the face of the man at bottom left.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 4:45:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 05:17:02 PM · #12 |
I upgrade the guy under the black cloth from suspect to photographer (wouldn't I make a great FBI profiler???:). He is sitting down behind a tripod and the picture he just took is slowly emerging from his "camera". What I took to be a letter is actually a packaging box for some product. THE THING is still undefinable. (Yep, I did a save-as and zoomed in and even flipped the image to see whether I could get some clues from the emerging picture but no luck - couldn't read the letters on the box either).
Sorry, Patella, for having turned this art critique into a mystery whodunit. Very curious though what we are looking at here. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 09:33:49 PM · #13 |
Hay J, take another look.
|
|
10/02/2002 09:45:05 PM · #14 |
| I still think it is a head, photojournalist, and a tin box (film box perhaps?). If the guy under the cape was holding a big thing of flash powder there wouldn't be any debate. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 10:21:39 PM · #15 |
| I like this photo because it tells all kinds of possible stories. I believe this picture to be taken for a newspaper back in the '40's or 50's. There has been a crime comitted, possibly a kidnapping. Police officials and maybe the media have come to a spot where they have found evidence. It is really hard to tell what they have found, however the child that was kidnapped may have dropped her stuffed animal (could be a lion) here. Or her stuffed animal was planted by the kidnapper. The box is where the ransom note is. The man is operating the old fashioned camera (high tech at that time) and is documenting the find. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 11:51:11 PM · #16 |
Sleuth aelith, you are good! Thanks for the new evidence. Right on the tripod legs, the arrow and the funny round wire sticking out of the box. That arrow could be the letter W though. So, what is The Thing, which seems to be the point of the whole picture. I give this one a 3 for not meeting the challenge very well. All the props that are important (I assume) are barely discernable and not recognizable. This picture is very dependent on the accompanying story; it doesn't stand well on its own (although it has given us much occasion for weird speculations). Clarson, glad you picked up on the kidnap theme :) Why is the photographer under the cloth? Why is the lens of the camera also covered by the cloth??? No wait, I think seeing the lens right beyond the empty frame at the edge of the cloth. What IS with that cloth?
Okay, Patella, we have wasted a lot of time on this today. What is it? Patella, Patella, Pateeeeeeeella, where are you? (perhaps it is Patella hiding under that black cloth).
(Patella is totally disgusted with us. lol)
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 11:52:58 PM. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 12:08:47 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Journey:
Clarson, glad you picked up on the kidnap theme :) Why is the photographer under the cloth?
Well, didn't the first cameras have the tents that the photographer stood under? And, in the picture, if the person taking the picture were above the scene and the photograper IN the picture is has the camera pointed down to shoot a pic on the ground, the lens of the camera would look covered? That's my take on it.
Connie
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 08:54:12 AM · #18 |
Bump, because this is the most interesting discussion on the site.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 09:16:38 AM · #19 |
Thanks Jak, So --- what do you think. heh heh
Just as I was falling asleep last night my subconsious identified that y-shaped object as the shadow under the knob of the top of a fire hydrant. I think the extreem perspective has us fooled.
I wonder what the person who took this shot what standing on. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 09:25:31 AM · #20 |
| People still use dark cloths on larger cameras even today... helps to focus the image. I had the fortunate experience of using these kinds of cameras already this year. Wonderful image quality. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 09:40:46 AM · #21 |
| That's interesting. How does the cloth help focus the camera better. I've always wondered about that. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 09:56:29 AM · #22 |
Where o where is patella to put us all out of our misery?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 09:59:02 AM · #23 |
| the focusing part of a large camera is most of the back of the camera. it's this glass plate that shows the image upside down. Without the focusing cloth you get so much glare from outside light sources that you cant see what's on the glass to focus it! the cloth provides darkness which will help you see what the camera is projecting onto the back :) |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 10:01:35 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by CLarson557:
That's interesting. How does the cloth help focus the camera better. I've always wondered about that.
View cameras like the one being used have a mineral glass 'full screen'
focus - basically you look through the open lens and it focuses on a
back plate, which later on you put the photographic plate to expose
the film.
You have to have the cloth over your head so you can see the image on
the glass clearly enough to manually focus/ compose the image, then
cover the lens, and put the sheet of film in - on cover the lens for
the right amount of time and you've made your shot.
You also have to compose/ focus on an upside down and backwards representation
of the image, which is just because of the optics involved. It is
apparently quite a 'freeing' way of composing pictures, as you are
more detached from the scene.
I've tried this a few times with my G2, because you can flip the LCD
to give that same sort of dissassociation - you tend to focus much
more strongly on the elements within the composition as abstract
visual pieces, rather than the picture they make up, because it is
scrambled in your view.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 10:12:17 AM · #25 |
| You're much more conscientious of whta's going into your picture as well because you are limited to 2 sheets of film per holder. and each shot is quite expensive... $1.50cdn each plus do it yourself chemical processing, or $3cdn each plus lab processing (about $3 each sheet) for colour c-41 and $3.50 each for e-6 processing. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 01:27:22 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 01:27:22 AM EDT.
|
