|
|
Elle Elle
{K:10958} 8/29/2007
|
:)))
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/28/2007
|
Smile as long as you live, Mahassa, so you know you're still under the living! From what I see on paintings, sculptures, icons, and any other work dealing with the "afterworld", they never smile nor laugh in paradise or in hell. Such... serious persons all the dead! ;-) That's why I don't care about them! :-) (And they never drink too! ;-))
About *our* point of view, well, a certain kind of self-representation is always present. Even a very "neutral" photo does still reveal, one way or the other, the thoughts, mood, skills, character, etc of the photographer, and thus it can be taken also for some kind of outing - for which the world oughts to be interested??? (Where do I find such questions? ;-))
But the more free, more unlimited, and also much harder to achieve stuff around depth and perspective adopts also a much less strict way of defining what the spectator should "see". A close-up of a flower is nice and beautiful but what else could I see there than the beautiful flower? My mind might "see" something completely different than the intention of the photographer but this is much harder to do in such a case because of the very strict definition that acts as an inductor of further thoughts.
On a hyperfocused wide angle image there is a much higher degree of freedom for me. Of course, extrapolating that to the maximum degree of freedom would mean to get 360°x360° photo, which then... is that a photo? A photo with no visible frame? Presenting the scene in a closed way where the edges of the frame blend seemlessly into each other, letting me see the stuff to the right by turning more than 360° to the left? (You might notice the influences from physics here - you know, relativity and the curvature of space! ;-))
Again back to ego. Is there any way to avoid it as far as possible? I would say, yes! I notice a too strong tendency from many photographers here, to "teach" their own social, philosophical, ethical, moral, or whatever views, using close-ups of some assumed "absolute deeper meaning", that of course everybody were waiting for;-) But philosophy is much harder than depiction, believe me! ;-) It would be as easy, as to depart as far as possible from all those tendencies and to just capture something in a cooled down, detached way. Let the spectator "see" freely. The wider angle is a good start for that, though when it gets perfectly free it is not a photo anymore.
And all the above is self-representation! Shame mode on! ;-)
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Elle Elle
{K:10958} 8/27/2007
|
:)))
I love your style of writing and thinking Nick,
maybe you don't mean it, but there's a slight sense of humor in it which always makes me smile,
..
and don't forget that I told you this is a very personal taste,
but as for "a quite egoistic approach of our days"
I should say that we always give a framed image to our viewers,don't we?
we always give them OUR point of view,
this is what we all do, is that egoistic? maybe!
best to you dear Nick, mahassa
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/27/2007
|
Yes, I see now what you mean. The definition of the object that one "should see" is much more obvious and also much more strict - almost dictatoric! - in your crop.
I find it quite unexpected that (statistically spoken) most suggestions go this way, like your suggestion here, to ommit most elements of depth. This kind of strict photographic definition of what one should see is a bit curious to me as it really hides the depth and sometimes the scene itself, in which anything stands. But nothing stands in vacuum only for itself.
We forgot the magic of depth? And that kind of freedom to look where one wants to look into the very depth and the distance?
Perhaps the fashion of narrow DoF and strict definition given from the photographer is some sign of a quite egoistic approach of our days, where the photographer thinks that he/she *is* the eyes of the onserver? And perhaps that very kind of narrow depth is also a sign of not wanting to bother with the much harder and much more complicated matters of creating depth on a 2D-piece of paper?
Just questions of an unpeaceful mind, you see.
Best wishes and thanks a lot for the idea! I start mentally separating democracy from dictatorship in the photographical sense! ;-)
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Elle Elle
{K:10958} 8/26/2007
|
like this one Nick but with your very nice framing of course,
best, mahassa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elle Elle
{K:10958} 8/26/2007
|
no no
I meant I wouldn't have any green leaves on the right part!
but as I told you, this is a very personal idea,
best, mahassa
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/25/2007
|
Well, let's see, Mahassa. I cropped the right part off, as I understood that you suggested. It looks a bit flatter this way, though not much elements of the depth were cut off. :-/
Anyway, your suggestion could be translated to a greater focal length at shooting time. Or perhaps a turn of the camera to the left.
Thank you very much for the interesting idea!
Best wishes,
Nick
|
Cropped after Mahassa's suggestion |
|
|
|
|
Elle Elle
{K:10958} 8/9/2007
|
nice colors, nice place,
though I would have cu the whole right part and
leave the buildings and the red plants in the frame,
but this is only a personal taste,
best, mahassa
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/4/2007
|
Many many thanks for the nice comment, Vandi!
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/4/2007
|
Thanks a lot for the nice comment, Ahmed!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/4/2007
|
Grazie molto ancora, Simone!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/4/2007
|
Oh well, perhaps... rip that %*/&£ plant off before shooting, Dave?
Thanks a lot for the nice comment,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/4/2007
|
Thanks a lot for the nice comment, Mohamed!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/4/2007
|
And another beautiful thanks but unfortunately only in black letters on white background, Claudia. ;-)
Nick
|
|
|
|
Vandy Neculae
{K:7990} 8/3/2007
|
Very beautiful. Good details and impressive colors.
Great composition, Nick!
Vandi
|
|
|
|
Ahmed Ismail
{K:19853} 8/2/2007
|
The colors and detail here is great! Very beautiful!
Regards, Ahmed
|
|
|
|
Simone Tagliaferri
{K:28180} 8/1/2007
|
Ottima composizione floreale. Complimenti.
|
|
|
|
Dave Stacey
{K:150877} 7/31/2007
|
Great colour, and I imagine there wasn't anything you could do about the green plant, Nick!
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Mohamed Badawy
{K:11828} 7/31/2007
|
Bravo Nick so great and Beautiful composition , with nice colors .
|
|
|
|
Claudia Perilli
{K:31090} 7/31/2007
|
Another beautiful shot in nice colors.
Claudia
|
|
0 
