Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Digger

Kichijoji-minami-cho, Mitaka-shi, Tokyo
Comments:
The digger does not look like it has been used for a while. I disused digger and in the background well pruned bushes and what looks like a truck on the dirt road.
I am wondering what type of garden/landscape this is.
That looks like a lorry beyond the topiary, and the frames possibly support poly-tunnels, so my bet is that this is a large public area with differing uses.
At first I was very taken by the picture: there were lots of shapes and tones coming together. But, although it still appeals for those reasons I am not so sure about the composition as all the action takes place in the top half and it does feel a little bit top heavy.
One might think a terminally finished digger to be a bit of a loss photographically but this has collapsed so like a dead animal with the last supper of a cone now exposed that it almost seems organic.
I like the idea here - dead digger centered in the frame like a beast in a gunsight - but the result doesn't hold me.
Somebody once said of one of my photos that it was almost as if I could sense that there was a photo there somewhere, but that I'd missed it. And that is sort of what I feel about this. Not, I hasten to add, that I have a better solution in mind to what the photo might have been.
'Not, I hasten to add, that I have a better solution in mind to what the photo might have been.'
I'll go there; less DOF and higher contrast, I think, would have made this work better. Or perhaps shooting from a different angle. In short, anything that would have helped it stand out from background; foliage is cluttery stuff.
That said, I'm with Colin in thinking that there is something here. The poor thing looks so forlorn, like a robot overlord put out to pasture.
It does look like a dead and decaying animal with the bones revealed by the skin dropping off. It is in its domain.
Why did you include so much foreground?
I'm still thinking about this one, but Rex's comment leads me to say that I like that foreground area. It is only the "cluttery" foliage in the background -- in particular, the little tree right behind the digger that is bothersome to me.
Thanks for the thoughts. I need to dig deep in to my memory as to why I included so much foreground. It was a deliberate decision. The land is an allotment for use by local residents though it seems primarily stocked with Japanese plum trees (not the big juicy Victoria types the small sharp sour types). I'll probably revisit the site at some stage before the end of the year to re-shoot in a couple of different ways. This was taken early in the morning so I could not get in much closer as the gates were locked.
I agree with the suggestion for the slight boost in contrast. This photo could be anywhere and at first I thought it was Matts but then I recognized the square format.
I like the analogy of the dead bones and I probably would not have gone there, but it is appealing. My take on the foreground is that it provides a little more space and helps place the digger, almost center and the patterns of the cones keeps bringing your eyes back to this part of the photograph. Creates an odd energy.
The more I look, the more I find to like, despite the bit of difficultly with the background shrubbery. If a boost in contrast, I'd say make it quite small and localized to midtones, since overall, the tonality looks good to me and I wouldn't like to see the sky go whiter.
Post a Comment
I am wondering what type of garden/landscape this is.
At first I was very taken by the picture: there were lots of shapes and tones coming together. But, although it still appeals for those reasons I am not so sure about the composition as all the action takes place in the top half and it does feel a little bit top heavy.
One might think a terminally finished digger to be a bit of a loss photographically but this has collapsed so like a dead animal with the last supper of a cone now exposed that it almost seems organic.
Somebody once said of one of my photos that it was almost as if I could sense that there was a photo there somewhere, but that I'd missed it. And that is sort of what I feel about this. Not, I hasten to add, that I have a better solution in mind to what the photo might have been.
I'll go there; less DOF and higher contrast, I think, would have made this work better. Or perhaps shooting from a different angle. In short, anything that would have helped it stand out from background; foliage is cluttery stuff.
That said, I'm with Colin in thinking that there is something here. The poor thing looks so forlorn, like a robot overlord put out to pasture.
Why did you include so much foreground?
I like the analogy of the dead bones and I probably would not have gone there, but it is appealing. My take on the foreground is that it provides a little more space and helps place the digger, almost center and the patterns of the cones keeps bringing your eyes back to this part of the photograph. Creates an odd energy.
