|
|
|
Andrew Lopez-Calvete
{K:2441} 10/8/2003
|
This is my favourite, but it doesn't show the amount of growth of ivy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Lopez-Calvete
{K:2441} 10/8/2003
|
Yep, I hear you all on this one, unfortunately I stumbled across it with suprema 200 in the camera, went back with tri-x and the car was gone!! This is one of several shots taken of the car, the attached is more off centre, does it work better?
|
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
{K:24381} 10/8/2003
|
If you visit this place again, it might be worth doing a close-up shot featuring the notice, if the writing on it is still in such a state that it would be clearly readable on the photograph.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
{K:14949} 10/8/2003
|
Andrew,
Nice image here although I think it's cropped to tight on the left. Also I think the angle is a bit to straight on to work here. I get the feeling of a crime seen photo or a quick snapshot. The tones are really nice even for a converted color shot. Probably work better shot with tri-x rated at 1000 to introduce some nice grain.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Lopez-Calvete
{K:2441} 10/8/2003
|
As I mentioned before, the white square is an official notice from the council to remove the car. The frame is a little tight, mainly becasue I wanted to ultimately get in much closer when I cropped in PS. In retrospect I prefered it a little looser so I left it, but yes, you are right it would be better back a couple of steps. The bit of white in the left hand corner never bothered me, but now you mention it it does! I'll post a MkII version with suitable amendments. Thanks for the feedback Matej, helpful as always!
|
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
{K:24381} 10/8/2003
|
OK forget about the white box question, I opened the image while there were still only 2 comments :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
{K:24381} 10/8/2003
|
Once again a good subject, and this time the tonality seems fine as well. The partially covered graphic on the front bonnet is so cool. A couple of questions though:
1) What's the white square on the rear of the body? Was that actually there, or was there some graffiti on the car that you felt the need to censor, or what?
2) Why the tight crop on the left? I'm not saying it's bad, but is there any particular reason why you decided to have it the way it is, instead of either taking a step back to create more room, or cropping the car in a more decisive manner? I respect your choice if it was intentional - I'm just curious to know.
3) A nitpick - that small bright bit on the top edge just to the right of the top left corner. Apparently that's the top of the hedge with the hint of a house visible beyond? Once again, my choice would probably be to either try not to have that bit visible in the image at all, or to clearly show more of the surroundings (which, I gather from the 'About' text, could provide an interesting contrast to the discarded wreck). What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Lopez-Calvete
{K:2441} 10/8/2003
|
The overexposed-ness (is that really a word, if not, it is now!) is soemthing that happens whenever I upload B&W images to the site. I've mentioned this on all the discarded series so far and I'm trying to fiddle with colour profiles and all sorts to get these images to not look washed out. The white box is a notice saying, you have 30 days to shift this heap or we'll do it and charge you for the privaledge, or something like that. Don't mess with Richmond borough council!!!
Thanks for taking the time to make constrcutive comments jake, its a rare thing these days!
|
|
|
|
|
jake griffin
{K:3439} 10/8/2003
|
maybe a bit overexposed but a worthy subject, good commentary. I'm curious about that white box, is this a form of censorship, or is that box really part of the photo?
|
|
|
|
Teunis Haveman
{K:53426} 10/8/2003
|
Beautiful, Andrew
Not pretty for the car
Regards Teunis
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly Anbach
{K:4375} 10/8/2003
|
Great thought put into this photo. Nice compostion. A real property maintenance issue!
|
|
0 
