I think it's worthy to mention the picture John Easterby considered the most "working" of my street series, in the tutorial. Here it is:
The
haredi family having a pic-nic in the Wall Plaza was definitely a subject to work on but, sure enough, I had
not included this frame in my selection below! Instead, I had chosen an earlier shot, where the standing man is looking down at the people. That's an extra reason to think twice about it. John pointed out visual elements such as the motion of the man, his shadow, and the vertical grid dividing the frame in two sides, where the subjects are. Composition is balanced, exposure is correct and the contrast between the dark suits of the men and the light background works fine. Also, the colors of the stones of the ground parallel with the horizontal grid on top of the wall. From a formal point of view, the scene is neat, without distracting elements. Now, what is this picture
saying? And why does it work better than the other one? Here it is again, for comparison:
Definitely, the first one is more
dynamic: there is movement and the shadow of the man stands out of the background, while in the lower frame it remains glued to his body. Also, the wall looks better uninterrupted on the left side of the frame. But if I look at
what actually happens, in the first frame there is no connection between the subjects, while in the second one there is. Even for a moment, the man is interested in the people beside him. He has noticed them, and he leads the viewer to look deep at the father sitting next to his son, lost in their own world. Perhaps there's a bit of envy in his eyes, or may be a touch of contempt for they are having a pic-nic where they're not supposed to. Who knows. All in all, the upper frame works much better from a visual point of view, but the second one holds different options inside, asking for more than a glimpse to be deciphered.
The haredi family having a pic-nic in the Wall Plaza was definitely a subject to work on but, sure enough, I had not included this frame in my selection below! Instead, I had chosen an earlier shot, where the standing man is looking down at the people. That's an extra reason to think twice about it. John pointed out visual elements such as the motion of the man, his shadow, and the vertical grid dividing the frame in two sides, where the subjects are. Composition is balanced, exposure is correct and the contrast between the dark suits of the men and the light background works fine. Also, the colors of the stones of the ground parallel with the horizontal grid on top of the wall. From a formal point of view, the scene is neat, without distracting elements. Now, what is this picture saying? And why does it work better than the other one? Here it is again, for comparison:
Definitely, the first one is more dynamic: there is movement and the shadow of the man stands out of the background, while in the lower frame it remains glued to his body. Also, the wall looks better uninterrupted on the left side of the frame. But if I look at what actually happens, in the first frame there is no connection between the subjects, while in the second one there is. Even for a moment, the man is interested in the people beside him. He has noticed them, and he leads the viewer to look deep at the father sitting next to his son, lost in their own world. Perhaps there's a bit of envy in his eyes, or may be a touch of contempt for they are having a pic-nic where they're not supposed to. Who knows. All in all, the upper frame works much better from a visual point of view, but the second one holds different options inside, asking for more than a glimpse to be deciphered.
No comments:
Post a Comment