Discussion in 'Photos taken with Any Brand of Camera' started by runswithsizzers, Jul 16, 2017.
Interesting...you have raised more questions than answers . What is the context? What is in the upper right corner?
The location is Fort William Historical Park, a facsimile North West Company post on the Kaministiquia River in Ontario, Canada. Our tour-guide in period costume explains the fur trade from beaver pelt to top hat.
I believe the object in the upper right corner is a hanging pelt or flattened skin of some animal with the furry edge of it catching some backlight (?) In hindsight, perhaps I should have cropped a little tighter, but honestly, the capture is not sharp enough to withstand close examination.
Here is another one from the same day, tho in less dramatic lighting:
My wife knows a bit about historic clothing and will appreciate the information and opportunity for a second look at it.
As for cropping the fur out, I would not do it. The image composition would be damaged. And I like the mystery.
The image also looks plenty sharp for the type of image it is--it isn't a slot canyon image. Her face looks to be in focus and the image is pleasing.
Thanks for your kind words.
Our little conversastion brings to mind an issue I've thought about some, but never resolved to my satisfaction.
Many of the photos on my website are "travel" in nature (vacation shots, really), and as such I try to provide descriptive captions for the viewers. A *few* of those transcend being merely vacation shots, and, I hope, have some merit as stand-alone photos worthy of attention outside of the contex of the vacation. Should I show those with or without a caption?
*IF* you subscribe to the dichotomous right-brain / left-brain model, then enabling the viewers of my photographs to read captions (left brain activity) could interfere with their ability to enjoy the esthetic qualities of my photograph (right brain activity). How often have I found myself in an art museum reading the notes on that tiny little card next to the wonderful painting, which I am mostly ignoring?
Are we photographers better off to keep our keyboards silent and preserve the mystery? Or is it helpful to our viewers if we document the world with words as well as images?
Trying to figure out what's going on isn't too conducive to peaceful contemplation of aesthetics, either!
I like a short caption...
Hard to give an answer that addresses all situations. I'm reminded that a joke that requires explanation is hardly a joke (although it may be a "joke" of a joke). Curiouser and curiouser.
Were animals harmed in the making of ...
#1 -> Vermeer would have seen it that way too
I like both , nice work , nice theme .
If the image doesn't make the viewer stop, it has failed. If the viewer moves on quickly, it is ok. If the user lingers, you have achieved a degree of success. If the viewer returns to look at the image, it begins. If it stands up to living on the wall and being contemplated over the years, you are an artist. If the image is passed down, you have arrived.
I'm not sure there is a right answer about captions and such. What is the purpose of the image? Does the caption destroy the mystery or deepen the relationship with the image?
No doubt there are many different categories of photography, call it journalism or documentary on one end of the spectrum, and fine art photography or something like that on the other. In print media and online journalistic and documentary photos almost always get a caption, and rightly so. In the fine arts world, say a photo hanging on a wall in a museum or gallery, there is a lot more variability. Sometime the little card on the wall just says "Untitled. gelatin silver print, 1967" or something like that. Same as no caption, for all practical purposes.
In a non-journalistic context, is a caption, any caption, even a good one, a distraction? Does reading text interfere with the ability to see in the non-verbal world of colors, light, composition and textures? Once a person has started talking about an image, have they stopped looking at it?