Sunday, November 25, 2007

Maybe



I'm still processing September's photos. Partly because there were so many of them, and partly because I haven't been photographing since. This is getting towards the bottom of the barrel. I'm not sure if I wouldn't have rejected it if there was some fresher stuff to choose from. I can't decide whether this is of interest or not.

Comments:
...and before I forget: many thanks to Matt for the work on the site's look/template. It's back to me now. I'm going to tidy up the sidebar and then we are all done for a bit.

I don't know whether you've noticed, but the post count tripped over 500 earlier this month.
 

I sympathise: I might well look at 'proofs' and think that it wouldn't merit showing but it is quite strong. There is the question of whether the chairs are for sale or, like in Germany, part of the weekly put-your-junk on-the-pavement-and-anyone-can-take it-away. Then there is the oddity of the missing chair. But they all seem to have short right legs! Yeah - of interest.
 
I can't decide whether this is of interest or not

That is why I post here. It is difficult to be your own critic. I am very hard on my own images but here I can try them out and see if others think they have merit, or not!

I have had surprises both ways!

These chairs seem to sit in their own pool of light. They are almost radiant. The incongruity strikes me. I am not sure that the entire environment you have included is necessary.
 
The pool of light Rex mentions seems to be the main interest, but there's also something about that missing chair. Shouldn't there be an even number?
 
Of interest -- yes. I'm interested in everything from the lower edge (chairs, odd light, curb and stones) up to the wall and then, even though I generally like reflections, that busy area of bricks door and window seems to detract and distract.

Still, it is worthwhile viewing for that center lit area, and I have an urge to sit in that light on that single back row chair!
 
I'm interested by the (seeming) consensus that too much of the background has been included. Surely the chairs lose their interest if they are not seen in a context like this?
 
I'm interested by the (seeming) consensus that too much of the background has been included. Surely the chairs lose their interest if they are not seen in a context like this?

I already thought that there was too little in the photo :-)

Although the 'pool of light' was already there (I didn't add the shadows) it was significantly enhanced for this presentation.

The building is a part of St Bart's (very old central London hospital) and there is a delivery van just out of shot to the right. My guess is that this was contract furniture being delivered for an out-patient's department or similar.

An insider's eye would recognise the style of the sign by the door, which is in standard EU hospital form. Apart from that, I cropped to keep the building looking generic.
 
The point about the context here is a good one -- I just found the background distracting from the subject, perhaps in part due to the bright sign and places of reflected light.
 
The light, the missing chair, the open door and the lack of information about the building behind leave a powerful image in your mind. Not many straight verticals or horizontals which adds to the effect - especially within that 'collective pronoun' of chairs. They all seem rather huddled up as if they are reptiles trying to soak up those last rays of energy.
 


Post a Comment