Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   The Park of the Wall (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t747901-the-park-of-the-wall.html)

mmyvusenet 05-06-2011 10:47 PM

The Park of the Wall
 
Hello:

I recently took this photo from an interesting view:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/

Thanks for your comment.

--
MMYV
http://www.mmyv.com



Bruce 05-07-2011 09:45 AM

Re: The Park of the Wall
 
"mmyvusenet" <usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Hello:
>
>I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>
>Thanks for your comment.




What is the subject of the photo?



David Ruether 05-07-2011 02:36 PM

Re: The Park of the Wall
 

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com...
> "mmyvusenet" <usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:


>>I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>>
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>>
>>Thanks for your comment.


> What is the subject of the photo?


??? "Park of the Wall - Historical Center of Lima" as
seen with the photo kinda covers it, I think. The photo
is a rather good location photo, I also think...;-)
--DR



Bruce 05-07-2011 03:19 PM

Re: The Park of the Wall
 
"David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com.. .
>> "mmyvusenet" <usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
>>>I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>>>
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>>>
>>>Thanks for your comment.

>
>> What is the subject of the photo?

>
>??? "Park of the Wall - Historical Center of Lima" as
>seen with the photo kinda covers it, I think. The photo
>is a rather good location photo, I also think...;-)
>--DR



Since you are clearly unable to answer the question, I will wait to
see if Miguel can suggest an answer. ;-)



shiva das 05-07-2011 03:58 PM

Re: The Park of the Wall
 
In article <m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com>,
Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> "mmyvusenet" <usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >Hello:
> >
> >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
> >
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
> >
> >Thanks for your comment.

>
>
>
> What is the subject of the photo?


Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners. Edges and
corners are at least as important as the center of an image.

David Ruether 05-07-2011 04:06 PM

Re: The Park of the Wall
 

"shiva das" <shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message
news:shiv-2E7543.11581607052011@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> In article <m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com>,
> Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "mmyvusenet" <usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:


>> >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>> >
>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>> >
>> >Thanks for your comment.


>> What is the subject of the photo?


> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
> an image.


I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...
--DR



PeterN 05-07-2011 05:01 PM

Re: The Park of the Wall
 
On 5/7/2011 12:06 PM, David Ruether wrote:
> "shiva das"<shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message
> news:shiv-2E7543.11581607052011@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>> In article<m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com >,
>> Bruce<docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "mmyvusenet"<usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
>>>> I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your comment.

>
>>> What is the subject of the photo?

>
>> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
>> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
>> an image.

>
> I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
> between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...
> --DR


Sometimes the concept of "subject" is used as substitute for interesting.
Certainly color field paintings lack a subject.
Few Jackson Pollock images have a subject. Having said that I can think
of some abstract expressionist images that indeed have an almost
traditional subject.

e.g.
<http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2146/2491287902_e6ef4d15c9.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/artsyt/2491287902/&usg=__Y8phorjcJ6cefZO1f9ZlG95z8M8=&h=378&w=500&sz =193&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=yJ52nK3pzJbefM:&tb nh=132&tbnw=173&ei=-3fFTYKaCsXUgQeEvr3NBA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dabstract%2Bexpressionism%26hl%3Den%26 sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1T4GGLL_enUS335US335%26biw%3D1117%2 6bih%3D591%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divnsb&itbs=1&iact =hc&vpx=822&vpy=285&dur=270&hovh=195&hovw=258&tx=1 50&ty=204&page=1&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:0>

<http://tinyurl.com/3rfb3r4>

In my opinion the subject photo is a simple flat snapshot that says:
this is what <fill in the blank> looks like. It it's probably an
accurate portrayal of the area, but the image lacks interest to me.

--
Peter

David Ruether 05-07-2011 07:17 PM

Re: The Park of the Wall
 

"PeterN" <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4dc57af9$0$12453$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> On 5/7/2011 12:06 PM, David Ruether wrote:
>> "shiva das"<shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:shiv-2E7543.11581607052011@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>>> In article<m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com >,
>>> Bruce<docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "mmyvusenet"<usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:


>>>>> I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your comment.


>>>> What is the subject of the photo?


>>> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
>>> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
>>> an image.


>> I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
>> between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...
>> --DR


> Sometimes the concept of "subject" is used as substitute for interesting.
> Certainly color field paintings lack a subject.


This can be disputed, since the color fields themselves
(and their interactions) *are* the subject, as with Rothko,
Motherwell, etc...;-)

> Few Jackson Pollock images have a subject.


This, too, can be disputed, since the whole can easily be taken
as "subject"...;-)

> Having said that I can think of some abstract expressionist images that
> indeed have an almost traditional subject.
>
> e.g. <http://tinyurl.com/3rfb3r4>


This is a *very* interesting image, but in *all* of its parts, the
assumed "backgrounds" are as interesting as the supposed
"subjects", and they are an integral part of the whole of the
image. *All* of its parts are necessary to complete this image.
If the "heads" were cut out and placed individually on white
backgrounds, most of the power of the combination would
be lost.

> In my opinion the subject photo is a simple flat snapshot that says: this
> is what <fill in the blank> looks like. It it's probably an accurate
> portrayal of the area, but the image lacks interest to me. --
> Peter


Tastes can vary, but ALL such images are "flat", and what is
done within the entire frame is what counts (which is why I
hate soft photo edges - they destroy the graphics within
relative to the frame). IMNSHO, the OP's photo is a rather
good one, if not one I would likely spend money on to have
a copy of for hanging on my wall...;-) This one is a different
matter, however, since I like <http://tinyurl.com/3rfb3r4> a
lot.
--DR



Bruce 05-07-2011 08:45 PM

Re: The Park of the Wall
 
"David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"shiva das" <shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message
>news:shiv-2E7543.11581607052011@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>> In article <m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com>,
>> Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "mmyvusenet" <usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
>>> >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>>> >
>>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>>> >
>>> >Thanks for your comment.

>
>>> What is the subject of the photo?

>
>> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
>> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
>> an image.

>
>I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
>between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...



Who mentioned the centre of the image? Since when was the subject
defined as "the centre of the image"?



David Ruether 05-07-2011 11:47 PM

Re: The Park of the Wall
 

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cpbbs69ftagu6i2a1b45dl1t19t9fe4lac@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>"shiva das" <shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:shiv-2E7543.11581607052011@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>>> In article <m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com>,
>>> Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "mmyvusenet" <usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:


>>>> >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>>>> >
>>>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>>>> >
>>>> >Thanks for your comment.


>>>> What is the subject of the photo?


>>> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
>>> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
>>> an image.


>>I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
>>between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...


> Who mentioned the centre of the image? Since when was the subject
> defined as "the centre of the image"?


Huh? I don't think anyone did... It was just pointed out that all
parts of (and the relationships between the parts of) an image
(which includes center, edges, and corners, not just some
supposed "subject", which may or may not be near the middle)
are important. Too often, I think, people see in images things
they regard as "the subject" while neglecting "context" which
may be an equally important part of the whole...;-)
--DR




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.