The moving leaves by Pascal Riben

[pascalriben]

Bangkok, Thailand - Click the picture!

 

[Shipman]

In my opinion the motorcycle needs to be cropped out

-comment by Michael Shipman

 

[pascalriben]

In my opinion the motorcycle needs to be cropped out

Thanks for your comment. Without the motorcycle, I didn't shoot the photo as it would have been uninteresting.

 

[pascalriben]

Thank you to designer for the "I like"

 

[412 Burgh]

Well, to me the whole photo is uninteresting and I agree that the motorcycle should not be in the shot. However, the moving leaves are not portrayed in this photo as "moving" it's a still image and it doesn't look like their is any sort of movement. IF you used a slower shutter speed and showed the movement with the leaves, I think it would have been a much stronger image.

 

[pascalriben]

Well, to me the whole photo is uninteresting and I agree that the motorcycle should not be in the shot. However, the moving leaves are not portrayed in this photo as "moving" it's a still image and it doesn't look like their is any sort of movement. IF you used a slower shutter speed and showed the movement with the leaves, I think it would have been a much stronger image.

Thank you for your comment. By moving, you must undestand "going in direction of...".

 

[Shipman]

"Going in the direction of" is not the definition of movement as opposed to pointing or leaning. Moving implies an object that doesnt appear stationary, which in this case the leaves do. I think you could have gotten a better feel had you shown the tree in the shot. If the tree was perfectly still and the branches were all going in one direction it would give the audience the feel that the leaves are moving.

 

[sashbar]

To me it is clear that the plant is watching the motorcicle. And as the motorcirce is moving the leaves must be moving as well. For those who do not get it there are arrows that show the direction - four of them ! If you still do not get it, just imagune that it is not a plant but a gigantic alien caterpillar.

 

[pixmedic]

I think if the motorcycle was meant to be part of the "scene", then all of it should have been in the frame.
with part of it cut off, it looks like it was accidentally caught in the frame, and you just forgot to crop it out.

 

[sashbar]

I think if the motorcycle was meant to be part of the "scene", then all of it should have been in the frame.
with part of it cut off, it looks like it was accidentally caught in the frame, and you just forgot to crop it out.

The motorcycle is in the frame. The motorcyclist is not. I believe if the motorcylist were in the frame, he would be too much a point of interest and the balance of the image would be broken.

 

[pixmedic]

I think if the motorcycle was meant to be part of the "scene", then all of it should have been in the frame.
with part of it cut off, it looks like it was accidentally caught in the frame, and you just forgot to crop it out.

The motorcycle is in the frame. The motorcyclist is not. I believe if the motorcylist were in the frame, he would be too much a point of interest and the balance of the image would be broken.

could be, but to me, it just looks like something that either should all the way in the frame, or cropped out completely.
I think this would have been a far more interesting shot moved up a few feet with the motorcycle and rider in the frame, and the leaves gone. leaving just the rider, the lanes, and the arrows.

 

[sashbar]

I think if the motorcycle was meant to be part of the "scene", then all of it should have been in the frame.
with part of it cut off, it looks like it was accidentally caught in the frame, and you just forgot to crop it out.

The motorcycle is in the frame. The motorcyclist is not. I believe if the motorcylist were in the frame, he would be too much a point of interest and the balance of the image would be broken.

could be, but to me, it just looks like something that either should all the way in the frame, or cropped out completely.
I think this would have been a far more interesting shot moved up a few feet with the motorcycle and rider in the frame, and the leaves gone. leaving just the rider, the lanes, and the arrows.

I am just trying to understand what would be interesting in the image with just the motorcycle, lines and arrows.. To me it would be boring. Just note the white lines in the lower part of Pascal's image - they all are pointing at the motorcyle, accentuating the direction of the plant. This is all about some intricate geometry. If we cut it, what we have is just the parallel lines and arrows.

 

[pixmedic]

The motorcycle is in the frame. The motorcyclist is not. I believe if the motorcylist were in the frame, he would be too much a point of interest and the balance of the image would be broken.

could be, but to me, it just looks like something that either should all the way in the frame, or cropped out completely.
I think this would have been a far more interesting shot moved up a few feet with the motorcycle and rider in the frame, and the leaves gone. leaving just the rider, the lanes, and the arrows.

I am just trying to understand what would be interesting in the image with just the motorcycle, lines and arrows.. To me it would be boring. Just note the white lines in the lower part of Pascal's image - they all are pointing at the motorcyle, accentuating the direction of the plant. This is all about some intricate geometry. If we cut it, what we have is just the parallel lines and arrows.

to me, this image is just boring.
thats the interesting thing about posting images to a forum like this. you get many different opinions and viewpoints.
I understand the concept of the lines, and the motorcycle, and the geometry of it all. I understand why he took the shot the way he did, im just saying it doesn't do anything for me. The forum would be a pretty boring place if we all had the exact same tastes.

 

[sashbar]

I am not going to argue with the obvious part, regarding the difference of opinions. But you have stated that if he cropped the botttom half and left just the motorcyclist and arrows, it would be "a far more interesting shot". I was just wondering why? Why would it be far more interesting? I think it is a legitimate question.

 

[Shipman]

I actually agree with that. I would prefer the leaves completely gone. I would like to see the geometricalside of it, where only the lines would be there and then the cycle in the upper side. This just looks like a snapshot that has parts of 2 pics together.