What would you do?

[Mrs T]

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/man-mural-turkey/?source=link_tw20110906photo-pod

I saw this photograph today and I hardly noticed the cable and the dish until I read the commentary below. I know at least one person who would most likely say they should be cloned out. I wondered what people's views would have been on this forum if it was posted by a member for feedback.

I like the photo as it is.

I'm not sure if this is the correct area to post this thread, as it's not my photo I'm asking for comments on, but hopefully it might start some debate.

Amanda

[Zuiko]

Re: What would you do?

http://photography.nationalgeographi...10906photo-pod

I saw this photograph today and I hardly noticed the cable and the dish until I read the commentary below. I know at least one person who would most likely say they should be cloned out. I wondered what people's views would have been on this forum if it was posted by a member for feedback.

I like the photo as it is.

I'm not sure if this is the correct area to post this thread, as it's not my photo I'm asking for comments on, but hopefully it might start some debate.

Amanda

It must have much to commend it as it is National Geographic picture of the day, but I'm afraid it doesn't do much for me. The angel wings themselves are a nice concept but I find all the other clutter too distracting to enjoy it. Maybe that's just me.

[benvendetta]

Re: What would you do?

As it is.
As this is an opportunistic shot, it has to be left as it is.
Like it.

[Guest]

Re: What would you do?

Well I'd give it a quick 1.6% twist clockwise, as it doesn't look right to me.

And it's probably the wrong person in the wrong position for me, couple of kids maybe in the corners with their hands on the wall.

OK I accept the juxtaposition of the cables/dish - but it isn't taking my breath away.

Nick

[Janet]

Re: What would you do?

Sorry, but that did nothing for me...

Janet

[DanH56]

Re: What would you do?

It's great. It is what it is and should be left.

[catkins]

Re: What would you do?

Amongst other things, I record art installations for artist friends
In this case, it appears that the artist has made the artwork with the cables and satelite dish in place, and I would therefore record the work as is - i.e not airbrush out the cables, etc. The artist is reacting to the location and the elements that make up the canvas for their artwork. As noted elsewhere, this is possibly a opportunistic photo but it is in effect recording the scene that the artwork is a key part of.

However, I am at present also compiling a landscape panorama / montage for a client where there are an enormous amount of electricity cables criss-crossing the landscape.
The client wants a record of the view from their office window prior to moving to a new location. When visiting the location and talking to the client, it was obvious that the electricity cables and poles were not something that they really noticed, as the eye is very good at only seeing what it wants. However, the camera records everything and the photographic print will lock the resulting image and its 'view' in front of the viewer.
And when looking at these images, it is obvious that the cables and poles gather far more impact than in the real landscape as seen by the eye. So in this case, I am selectively removing cables and poles, but only where their impact is too dominant within the print view.
In effect, the cables and poles are part of the real landscape, and I strongly feel that they should be visible in my final image, but in the same way that the client's eye now ignores these elements, so will I remove those that are detrimental to the print 'view'!
(hope that makes sense?)

Regards
Chris

[Kees]

Re: What would you do?

I think it's a great shot and the cable and dish are actually to my eyes an essential element in the composition.
Competing signals from the heavens and man walking, seemingly oblivious to both, underneath.

[wfk]

Re: What would you do?

I think it's a great shot and the cable and dish are actually to my eyes an essential element in the composition.
Competing signals from the heavens and man walking, seemingly oblivious to both, underneath.

Actually I see it differently - the man looks as though he is well aware of the camera and is either posing or has stopped on purpose to be in the shot. It all looks a bit contrived and the cable and dish just look untidy. I would like to see more details of the angel wings/white hands without an other distractions, but I don't think it should/would win any awards either way.

[Kees]

Re: What would you do?

Actually I see it differently - the man looks as though he is well aware of the camera and is either posing or has stopped on purpose to be in the shot. It all looks a bit contrived and the cable and dish just look untidy. I would like to see more details of the angel wings/white hands without an other distractions, but I don't think it should/would win any awards either way.

I don't agree. Key is the man is obviously oblivious to the scene behind him, whether he's unaware of the camera is not really important (I don't think it's staged though).

[davidsa]

Re: What would you do?

For me it is the unexpected, slightly jarring juxtapostion of the cable and dish that makes the picture a bit special - the grit in the oyster as it were.

Without them it would be photogenic but much more ordinary. If the wall wasn't damaged at the bottom too it would be a worthy picture but a tad boring.

On reflection (and maybe over-analyzing a bit) the fact that the "modern" wiring etc is itself scruffy adds to the attraction.

Pictures of wrecked and decaying boats, falling-down sheds, rotting jetties - and (this very morning) rusting traction engines in Australia) appear here frequently and are always interesting to look at.

Indeed it is ironic that many of us seem drawn to use our sparkling, pristine ultra-modern cameras to record the derelict!

[wfk]

Re: What would you do?

I don't agree. Key is the man is obviously oblivious to the scene behind him, whether he's unaware of the camera is not really important (I don't think it's staged though).

Well we are all entitled to our opinions, and it's interesting that 2 people see it so differently. I just checked the link and there is no information about the person, so no evidence either way

[Mrs T]

Re: What would you do?

Hello,

Thanks to all of you who have looked and added your thoughts. As expected there are differing views and some interesting comments about editing.

Amanda

[Phill D]

Re: What would you do?

Yes interesting debate, do I like the picture no not especially but I can see the merit in the many aspects people have talked about. One additional thought, is the hole in the wall in the right hand wing a shell hole. If so then there is a lot more going on in the area than the scene initially conveys. If that's true and in context then I can see how the idea of an angel in a war zone might fit in with a National Geographic article.

[Chevvyf1]

Re: What would you do?

Amanda, interesting shot which has stimulated much discussion, for and against the "dirty" elements in the composition.

As the shot is portraying a particular Country & community therein - it does the job well and, that must be why NG selected it. It is also GREAT for NG publicity and may even be part of a "Marketing" to "generate web interest and mentions of NG" !

However, NOT a shot I would vote for to win a competition. Nor a shot I would give wall space or use as a "screensaver" !

Amanda Thanks for posting this link and the Topic - its been fun to while away a moment or two and communicate with fellow 4M colleagues on this