What's new

The moving leaves by Pascal Riben

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.

are you looking for some technical or artistic definition for why it would be better as defined in some textbook? i don't understand why I cant just feel that this picture doesn't do anything for me and I would have liked it more shot a different way for no other reason that that's what i felt when I looked at it. Its just the vibe i got.
I don't have any particular reason except that I dont really find this shot all that interesting, and I think i would have liked it shot the way I suggested.
Also, I didn't say just to crop the bottom half, I said to have shot the picture with the motorcycle AND rider in the frame, whereas the picture would be the motorcycle, rider, lanes, and arrows...just minus the tree branch.

you might as well ask me why I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla. Or why I think German shepherds are cuter than Pugs.
maybe it IS a legitimate question, but i am not entirely sure what sort of answer you are looking for.
I don't have any math equations or photographic "rules" to throw at you as to why I feel the way I do about this picture.
I only know that I don't find this particular picture appealing, and if shot the way I suggested, I think i would have.
I obviously can not say that with 100% certainty, since I cant actually see the picture the way I envisioned it.

I hope I have managed to answer your question to your satisfaction...I don't know how else to explain it.
It was just my "instinct" maybe? or, "gut feeling"? I dunno. its just how I feel when I look at the picture.
 
Thanks for your detailed explanation pixmedic, appreciated. It looks like we differ in our approach to estimating a picture. You go with your "instinct" and I often try to analyse, because I believe there is always a logical explanation why do we like this or that image. In the end I just find it more productive and useful for my own photography. I do not analyse the ice cream, but then I find there is some difference between ice cream and art. I do not think this particular image is a masterpiece, but I believe Pascal's work is well worth analysing. I have learned some useful things analysing his style. And he has a very distinct style.
 
"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.

The title is just here for the forum, otherwise I don't give title to my photos.
 
This is one of those shots that Pascal takes that I feel like there is an artistic element there that is just lost on me. It's a sort of minimalist thing, and it's clearly intentional, but it just doesn't quite click.

Doesn't mean it's good or bad, but for what it's worth I didn't "feel" it either.
 
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.

Many thanks for all your comments sashbar, but you should pass less time on the forum, more time to take photos !!!
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom