Alone

I think this is a great subject, but I have the feeling that I should have taken this picture differently, but how?

Indeed it is a great subject and a very appropriate venue.

A full image of the building without the grafitti ( spelling! ) portion would focus my attention to the
upper third with the color pulling my eye.

If there was something to hold my attention in the lower left corner it would balance ( not necessarily improve ) the image.

Maybe a little closer or more definition in the figure ( ? ) would add to the dynamics.

Just my pov.

Regards.

Thank you for the comment.

It is graffiti, 2 f, 1 t.

I would have straightened myself up in viewing the scene and shot the image a little closer, framing that guy on the rule of thirds and using the symmetry of the building to better effect.

Jerome Marot said:

I think this is a great subject, but I have the feeling that I should have taken this picture differently, but how?

Click to expand...

Jerome,

It can stand as is. It would just need to be large. When one looked up, the edge of the graffiti would be normal. However, shooting it again, I'd include the graffiti and ignore the rule of 2/3.

It's serendipitous that you post your photograph with a giant world of the building facade and then the discrete interest we must have in the single figure by the window, (and ? fire escape). It made me think of Roland Barthes two concepts in taking a picture to one's mind. Sandrine just told us about a review of his book. Read her link here and then my own brief comment. Your picture has a lot to explore, the "Studium", the facts of the matter. Then there are interesting places within the picture to stop and contemplate, the lone figure at the window is one such "Punctum". The graffiti, would enhance the picture and give it a new layer of reference for the "studium".

Asher

Hi Jerome,

I like the picture and in fact I am known to be a sucker for similar images myself.

So coming back to your question, could you have taken this picture differently? Yes of course! But it would then be a different picture and not this one. This is about capturing the moment. The possibility is that the man would retreat from the window in case you would decide to seek a better pov/composition; a few meters to the right, a few meters closer, etc. During that time, light might have changed, etc. So from that perspective, I doubt you could have taken the picture differently. You can of course go back and choose your vantage point and focal length carefully and wait for the opportunity to re-appear. It sometimes does.

As Asher has pointed out, this will look OK when printed large. I have gone to see two photo exhibitions today (one by Chema Madoz in the Dutch Photography Museum and the other one by the famous Dutch photojournalist Vincent Mentzel in the Kunsthal Rotterdam). One of the things I have noticed is that there were some pictures which contained smallish details like this one but it was perfectly OK when the pictures were printed at a size of 60x90cm or larger.

I think what will make this picture more worthy is if it would have been a part of a project (or body of work) which stand stronger together. So IMO, the way to do this one better is by complementing it with others.

Cheers,

Cem_Usakligil said:

I think what will make this picture more worthy is if it would have been a part of a project (or body of work) which stand stronger together. So IMO, the way to do this one better is by complementing it with others.

Click to expand...

You mean other metallic objects like this:



or rather something more abstract like that?

Hi Jerome,

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that you did not have a body of work on this, not at all! I was hoping that you would have and if you didn't hopefully you would start on it someday.

Jerome Marot said:

You mean other metallic objects like this:



or rather something more abstract like that?

Click to expand...

Both of these images could be a part of a set along with the original one. But I think that you would have to define for yourself what the set/project is about. Without knowing the definition, it is difficult to comment about them as a whole. Even if your pictures do not belong to a particular set together, your "signature" might be present in all the pictures you take and when viewed together they will undoubtedly stand stronger. A while back, there was a thread by Cedric who has consolidated his urban pictures into a book. That is the kind of synergy I am referring to.