I have re-viewed your photo and left a comment. Must say that this was a brilliant photo that went over a lot of heads. Mine included. I have added to my favorites, just so I can keep going back and viewing it! Great shot!
I have re-viewed your photo and left a comment. Must say that this was a brilliant photo that went over a lot of heads. Mine included. I have added to my favorites, just so I can keep going back and viewing it! Great shot!
Wow! Thanks for the comment... I didn't expect that much but I'll run with it!
This post mortem highlights two very valuable points for photographers:
First, we see our images differently from fresh eyes. The average time any image has to hold the viewer is just under 3 seconds (just over 3 seconds in a formal exhibition.) At that point the mind has been made up to move away or to become involved on a deeper level. Three seconds does not allow for much detailed study. The photographer, on the other hand, is intimate with the shot. Probably spending, at a minimum, an hour pouring over the piece, even if only the most minor processing work was required. It is a miniscule percentage of people who will see all the photographer sees upon cursory glance.
Second, as photographers, we can adapt our style to compensate and meet the most possible viewers with a "winning" photograph if we study the formula for doing so. But doing this will not be as satisfying as using the information gathered here and blending it into the accumulated energy of art that is trying to develope into a unique style within those who seek its release.
The photo in question here is obviously not what it appears on the surface. Many aren't. But what is below the surface in the image, could have been better presented (were this reshot) in order to bring revelation to a greater number of viewers. This is the hybrid goal that any successful artist seeks to achieve.
I can see the triangles but I wouldn't have given it higher than a 5. Reason being that I'm not sure what your subject is (the people, the skyline, etc).
I would think the subject would be the entire image.
I think in general people have gotten lazy (not picking on anyone here!) and expect the image to tell them what to think or what to look at. Explains why so many people hate expressionism in art. Sometimes, the colors can be the subject or the composition can be the subject or the mood can be the subject. To demand that every piece of art or every photograph grab us by the gonads with a central subject that also smacks us in the face is sad. And we miss out on a lot of good art.
But, this explains why Thomas Kincaid is so popular. ;)
I didn't see your picture during the challenge but as soon as I opened it up from this thread I could see the triangles immediately and very obviously. I like your interpretation a lot and like the scene too. It's a tricky one in terms of exposure because, in order to retain detail in the lighter areas the lower area of the image is somewhat underexposed and feels too dark to me. But I do like the image a lot and would likely have given it a 7 or possibly an 8.
I didn't vote this round....but I went and checked out the photo...and the only triangle I saw was the top left hand corner one with part of another building sticking above it. After you said how it was and I looked at the thumbnail, I immediately saw it! I don't know how many newbies are out there...but if they're like me and still learning - they probably didn't see it either! I'm putting it in my favorites too - what a great photo AND learning tool!
Learning to 'see' things differently is enlightening! Especially for me as a newbie!!! Thank you! :)
Challenge discription: Take a photograph where this basic shape is clearly shown as a key element. This may be a triangular object, or a group of items forming a triangle.
I suggest that amongst the 400+ images voters did not see the triangles as "key", since they do not jump out.
I used a prism which is a triangle in the middle on my pic.....but i hid it in plan view you could see throgh it...........also on cig pac the indian head is in the wronge place because of the prism....I will agree that it is not the most eye pleasing but the lighting was good the colors where good and the clarity was good and i have many triangle shapes also in the cube next to the prism.........all of which all comenters failed to see .I got hammered O well...till next time... the photo is called Prism
I used a prism which is a triangle in the middle on my pic.....but i hid it in plan view you could see throgh it...........also on cig pac the indian head is in the wronge place because of the prism....I will agree that it is not the most eye pleasing but the lighting was good the colors where good and the clarity was good and i have many triangle shapes also in the cube next to the prism.........all of which all comenters failed to see .I got hammered O well...till next time... the photo is called Prism
comment left during challenge:I see circles, half circles, squares, rectangle_alot of shapes, no triangle. The title does not help me either. Well shot image, its a little dark on my monitor though
Just looked again. after looking for a few more minutes (not being mean) I do see a triangle. I gave you a 6 for the above stated reasons and the benefit of the doubt since voting was so long and eyes going , going, almost gone. The challenge said "key element" or I think you would have rated much better (didn't look to see where you ended).
"Key element" does NOT equate to primary element. For example, if the challenge specified "leaves" as a key element and the user photographed a bird but used leaves to form a border. Those leaves are still a "key element" although they are not a primary element.
"Key element" does NOT equate to primary element. For example, if the challenge specified "leaves" as a key element and the user photographed a bird but used leaves to form a border. Those leaves are still a "key element" although they are not a primary element.
I don't think you would get any arguement from me on that point, Saj. Do you misinterpet my statement as a critisism?
"Key element" does NOT equate to primary element. For example, if the challenge specified "leaves" as a key element and the user photographed a bird but used leaves to form a border. Those leaves are still a "key element" although they are not a primary element.
I wish everyone thought that. Many DPers believed Key meant Main.
I think there are several "almost" triangles. But the man, the dog and the ???? would have made a stronger statement. Had you placed one more subject at the approximate intersection of many of the triangles, all the more subtle ones would have reinforced the concept. (Jus' my lil' ol' opinion....)
thanks KaDi, i completely agree that another subject would have been helpful but that's tough on candids. I thought the fact that the stairs and railings converged there was enough to make it a focal point. Curious why your bottom line doesn't go across the bottom of the bottom stair. Or just add another line perhaps?
thanks KaDi, i completely agree that another subject would have been helpful but that's tough on candids. I thought the fact that the stairs and railings converged there was enough to make it a focal point. Curious why your bottom line doesn't go across the bottom of the bottom stair. Or just add another line perhaps?
You have some excellant shots on your profile page that would have been good triangle shots too (LOL)(wouldn't ya know it). Brooklin Bridge and Artic A.. are terrific. The anger in the bears is awesome.
Curious why your bottom line doesn't go across the bottom of the bottom stair. Or just add another line perhaps?
So, you feel that the stairs are your strongest triangle?
I feel that there may be too many things breaking it up. The dog intersects the bottom line...not terribly, but... The railing posts interupt the concept, the graduated lighting on the stairs do not help to define it, and, finally, the cropping nearly eliminates two other potentially large triangular elements.
Disclaimer: I did not enter, comment or vote this challenge...I'm just evaluating "environmental triangles" because I think it's fun. (Damn, I need a hobby...oh, wait, I have one!)
Now that Grand's excellent image has been through its post-mortem, IU wonder if people can venture an opinion as to why the following finished at roughly 5.2? I didn't expect anything close to a ribbon, but I thought it was a clean, well-lit picture of great compositional purity that fits the challenge to a tee... I see triangles of the wazoo, inclucing the huge, implied triangle from the tip of the steeple to the lower cotners, and the derived triangles that fall inside that huge triangle, of sky-against-roof. I'd actually thought this was an interesting picture, and still do. Where did it go wrong?
