From the Town to the Country

[Donald]

Ok, we'll try another one.

Before we leave the village of Tramayes in France (where the cycle race took place and I made the picture of the man wearing his beret), I was struck with the contrast between town and country that I could see as we waited for the main race to come up the hill into town.

As always, any comments will be welcomed.


40D, 70-200mm f/4L IS USM @ 183mm. ISO100. 1/45@f11

[ScoutR]

Hello Donald, very nice I love the concept and the way you have brought out the textures in the wall. The country side looks so serene and beautiful I wish there was more country and less town. I also wonder how it would look with a different crop to remove the light standard on the left and if it would look better without the house lower right. There seem to be too many things competing for attention in this one. I like the idea of the wall the shutters and the serene countryside. The contrast is not only between Town and Country but also the difference in the beautiful textures in the wall and the totally different tones and textures in the fields and bushes. I'd really like to see that played up more. I love it, but somehow or other your shots look different to me. Is it PP or is it just because you were on vacation and could not possibly wait for the perfect light. This one and the village in the morning just don't have that Donaldesque feel to them. I am not used to looking at your shots and wondering how it would look at a different time of day or this or that. Usually when I look at your shots I would not want to change anything. Are you in a transitional period and I need to catch up?

Ummm one more thing, I'm also wondering if this need just a slight counterclockwise rotation.

I hope this did not sound negative, it's not meant to be and I hope to see more feedback which will also help me to understand this shot a little better.

Wendy

[Donald]

I love it, but somehow or other your shots look different to me. Is it PP or is it just because you were on vacation and could not possibly wait for the perfect light. This one and the village in the morning just don't have that Donaldesque feel to them.

Wendy

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

You've got me worried now because I'm not sure I know what a 'Donaldesque' image looks like!!

But to answer your point - I think that on holiday/vacation, you are freed up to try different things. For example, on this afternoon in the village of Tramayes, I filled a card. I was shooting the cycle race using the high burst (6 fps) on my 40D and AI Servo focusing. That, as you know, is not the usual 'me'. Normally, a heavy shooting session for me is if I come home with 12 frames.

So it was all very different. Also, although I was constrained to some degree by the light available at the time that I was in a place, it is also a very, very different light that you are working with - much more intense. So everything was, to that extent, experimental.

I hope, however, that some of those from this trip that I still have to post are more representative of my style to which you refer.

The other interesting aspect/question to all of this is - Is the fact that I'm quite pleased with this one because it is good, or is it because it's different and I'm pleased with having made something decent with something so different ... if you see what I mean? Or am I just thinking too much about it? ( I know the answer to this latter question is 'No, I'm not'. If we don't think about what we're doing, why are we doing it?)

[wilgk]

I too like the concept if this one very much and am pleased to hear that I am among friends if you are comfortable with thinking too much, having been a sufferer from analysis paralysis as I have been for some time now.....
Anyway what I see here is a desire to se what it would look like without the wee extra house and the second Lamont, I know that section adds lots more tone with the different 'colour' fields around it, but just the 1 building and then the countryside round the corner...is what I mean.....

[ScoutR]

Wendy

So it was all very different. Also, although I was constrained to some degree by the light available at the time that I was in a place, it is also a very, very different light that you are working with - much more intense. So everything was, to that extent, experimental.

I hope, however, that some of those from this trip that I still have to post are more representative of my style to which you refer.

Donald, I think you are right that it is just the different light and I certainly have a preference for the northern light of Scotland. The subject matter and everything else has you signature and is just lovely.

Wendy

[ucci]

Wendy



You've got me worried now because I'm not sure I know what a 'Donaldesque' image looks like!

Yes, well, 'dinna fret ov'r it, there's a good Laddie,' for many of us do know. It is excellence in B&W from which we can always learn something about just how it should be done.
As for seeing more of the countryside as Wendy suggests? I would love to know what lies around the corner of the building. And that is part of the power of your study. It has fired my imagination and drawn me in. I need to see what is there hidden from view. So, would I want you to actually reveal all and pander to my curiosity? No way. The interest is in not knowing but trying to imagine.
I tend to agree that the RH lantern is a bit distracting. But this then begs the question. Do we present the image it as it is and try to show it in its most interesting aspect? Or do we use jiggery pokery to transmogrify the image to fit our concept as to how it should look by chopping out what we don't care to see, and to heck with the original which caught our eye in the first pace and induced us to press a shutter to capture it?
A very nice study Donald. Thanks for sharing.
Ken

[Donald]

Thanks Ken.

The same thoughts about 'what's round the corner' struck me once I saw it up on the compuer screen. And the answer is, 'I don't know', because we didn't arrive in or leave, town by that route. But I think we can guess it was the same beautiful countryside that was everywhere else in the Beaujolais area. This view was facilitated by the fact that the road fell away very steeply from where I was standing, around the edge of the building and out of town. The fact that, a few minutes later, several dozen cyclicts came roaring up that very steep hill as if it was just a slight incline in the road, made me very aware of my general lack of physical fitness.

[ScoutR]

I tend to agree that the RH lantern is a bit distracting. But this then begs the question. Do we present the image it as it is and try to show it in its most interesting aspect? Or do we use jiggery pokery to transmogrify the image to fit our concept as to how it should look by chopping out what we don't care to see, and to heck with the original which caught our eye in the first pace and induced us to press a shutter to capture it?
Ken

LOL, well when you put it like that....
Wendy

[Donald]

I tend to agree that the RH lantern is a bit distracting. But this then begs the question. Do we present the image it as it is and try to show it in its most interesting aspect? Or do we use jiggery pokery to transmogrify the image to fit our concept as to how it should look by chopping out what we don't care to see, and to heck with the original which caught our eye in the first pace and induced us to press a shutter to capture it?

But that then begs the question - If we are very good at 'seeing' images and composing them in-camera and we hold to a principle of not using excessive jiggery pokery to transmorgify (even if it's allowed between consenting adults!), should we not then see that such as the RH lantern is distracting from the shot and say to ourselves, " Nearly good enough, but not quite" and not make the image?

I ask the question in all seriousness, because I have found myself with images that I 'want' to work and just about work and which I'm tempted to tweak to death to make them work, when, in reality, I should have seen in the viewfinder that it was close, but not close enough and left it.

So, irrespective of what we personally think of this image, the question is that if we have a consensus that that lantern detracts, then should the image have been made at all?

Discuss!

[ScoutR]

To me it's very simple. If I have an image that is not quite right, I will try to learn from what I did wrong, and hopefully not keeping the same mistakes. BUT if i have an image that is not quite right and I can make it right without wrecking it then I'm all for jiggery and pokery. I feel the same way when I am shooting. If there is something that does not fit my vision that cannot be removed or eliminated by changing point of view, but I feel I can PP around it, I will plan that into the shot.

Now on the other hand if my purpose for capturing the image is to show a tourist attraction, or for journalistic purposes, then of course it MUST be left as is

Wendy

[Donald]

And I think that's as good a description of a sensible and practical approach to the subject as will be found anywhere.

[ucci]

\
So, irrespective of what we personally think of this image, the question is that if we have a consensus that that lantern detracts, then should the image have been made at all?

Discuss!

Most assuredly. If only for the aspect of the picture having generated this discussion and hopefully broadening our horizons and understanding. I agree with Wendy's practical approach. Not a matter of if, but where, to draw the line. In fact I have just been down this road with John C in a recent post 'Rain Birds' where there was some use of PS to try and improve a shot of two birds sitting in a tree by bringing them closer together. Over all improvement, yes, but total deception.
Anway, I am off to follow up the clues left by Donald on how I might improve my B&W work!
Cheers
K