Friday, March 16, 2007

Beach hut, the sequel.



Two minutes after the previous one. I turned on my right and saw this. I know deep down it is a weaker photograph. I also happen to like it. I knew the previous one was a good one. I don't have a clue if this one is good or not. I still feel thrilled to have taken it, but in a kind of guilty way, like feeling uneasy because I went for the obvious, the easy. Very mixed feelings. But why do I like it?

Comments:
I don't know why you like it! I like it for its opalescent sky and the harsh shadows that combine to create the mood of the day. The hut on the left with the beach on the right creates the environment despite the back view.
 

I can't decide whether the fluffy cloud on a stick (top left) is the making or the ruination of this :-)

Whatever, it seems to be holding my attention. Why is there a sheep grazing on the other side of the roof?

Ahem.

I'm not sure that it is "the weaker photograph" that you think. It is less obviously a crowd pleaser perhaps. But I'm more in this picture than the first one. The kids are round the front. I'm on ice cream duty and coming back to the hut. A bit bright. Not very hot. Very lazy.
 
Funny that cloud hit me when I first looked at the image, and then I forgot about it..............
 
Of the series of three: the first is history, place and dramatics, the second is an innovative (and quite dramatic) look at an institution far removed from the normal and this one is closer to the norm if still different, if only because it is in b/w. In fact, the virtue of this is to point up how there isn't anyone up front and the ice cream vans have gone. I'm not sure that it is only the British who have an obsession with second homes but we have marked our seaside with beach huts and caravan sites. You probably like it because it is an 'inside looking out' type of photo, creating a frame with the beach hut. Apart from a vague hint of doubt about how much of the hut should be included in the composition (there is just the slightest awkwardness at the base) it achieves the purpose of linking land to sea.
 
The hut doesn't add much to the experience and if anything is obstructing a big part of my potential view (Sugimoto seascapes anyone?). Your previous post is much stronger to me. The sheep that Colin mentioned also caused me an slight concern. It's just so different than the rest of its flock up there in the sky.
 
The first image seems more studied -- and I don't mean that in a bad way. This one shows the spontaneity that you describe -- you turned and saw it -- that comes across to me. "Wham" there is the brightly lit side of a very solid, geometric building in contrast with the natural scene beyond.

Somehow having that building there really helps me feel just what this beach is like -- it puts me there much more than the first. That is not to say that I like it better -- just different.

As for the "sheep" -- initially it didn't bother me, and now that I've read about it, it still doesn't bother me!
 
The contrast between the sky and the side of hut is intriguing, but I think a plain old seascape might have been the better way to go. Seeing that last little bit of the bottom corner of the hut might have helped.
 


Post a Comment