Vintage Truck

[crzyfotopeeple]

 

[manaheim]

If I may philosophize for a bit in hopes of being helpful...

Photography is an annoying challenge, because you see something that interests you and you take a picture of it, but the picture does not necessarily carry the same emotional impact as the scene as you saw it.

The struggle, then, is to figure out why.

Ultimately, the problem is that the camera sees only the 4:3 (or similar) frame you snip out of the environment. It lacks all the other visuals, the smells, the sounds, the motion. There's just a ton missing. And in most cases just taking a shot of the thing that grabbed your attention will not be able to carry the same impact.

SO... you have to look at the subject differently. Look for things that CAN be communicated in such a limited medium. Angles, lines, colors, textures. You look for ways you can show these that are appealing using tried and true methods like the rule of thirds, the golden ratio, etc. Then you start pulling off pictures that at least deliver something to the viewer beyond a simple snapshot of what you saw.

This is, I think, where you are struggling. The GOOD news is you're identifying interesting things. The challenge for you is next how to render those things in a way that have impact for the viewer.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

If I may philosophize for a bit in hopes of being helpful...

Photography is an annoying challenge, because you see something that interests you and you take a picture of it, but the picture does not necessarily carry the same emotional impact as the scene as you saw it.

The struggle, then, is to figure out why.

Ultimately, the problem is that the camera sees only the 4:3 (or similar) frame you snip out of the environment. It lacks all the other visuals, the smells, the sounds, the motion. There's just a ton missing. And in most cases just taking a shot of the thing that grabbed your attention will not be able to carry the same impact.

SO... you have to look at the subject differently. Look for things that CAN be communicated in such a limited medium. Angles, lines, colors, textures. You look for ways you can show these that are appealing using tried and true methods like the rule of thirds, the golden ratio, etc. Then you start pulling off pictures that at least deliver something to the viewer beyond a simple snapshot of what you saw.

This is, I think, where you are struggling. The GOOD news is you're identifying interesting things. The challenge for you is next how to render those things in a way that have impact for the viewer.

Pllllleeeeeeaaaaaassseeee. Is that the best you can do?

 

[manaheim]

Um... what would you like?

How about this... "Nice shot! 'attaboy!"

How's that? Better?

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

No.....Actually I want real comments no philosophical mumbo jumbo...Thanks

 

[Watchful]

Nice composition and subject, well done.

 

[manaheim]

No.....Actually I want real comments no philosophical mumbo jumbo...Thanks

When you attend a class, do you explain to the teacher how their method of instruction is invalid or doesn't fit your needs?

Whatever. I won't bother to comment on your images any further.

Good luck.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

I'm really not trying to sound like an a-hole. I actually really like your comments

 

[tirediron]

No.....Actually I want real comments no philosophical mumbo jumbo...Thanks

You might want to re-read that, slowly. That is a very real, very insightful comment.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

No.....Actually I want real comments no philosophical mumbo jumbo...Thanks

You might want to re-read that, slowly. That is a very real, very insightful comment.

Yeah. Your right. It's highly insightful.

 

[Tim Tucker]

No.....Actually I want real comments no philosophical mumbo jumbo...Thanks

You might want to re-read that, slowly. That is a very real, very insightful comment.

Yeah. Your right. It's highly insightful.

I would agree with manaheim, (apart from the bit about "rule of thirds" as this is much misunderstood by many).

What he's saying is that you were there, you remember the impact of actually seeing it. You heard the sounds, smelled the air, saw the surroundings and atmosphere, etc... You not only remember it but recall it at least in part whilst you were editing and every time you look at the photo. To you it's part of the scene.

We weren't there. All we see is a photo of an old truck, and it's rather brown, drab... A dime a dozen shot with a effect filter added.

Instead of pointing the camera at a subject and lining it up in the viewfinder take that extra moment to look round. I don't understand why the out of focus tree on the right is there. All it does is distract confuse and take your eye off the main subject. A small movement in camera position would've taken it out of the frame. Similarly I do not understand why it's the bumper of the truck that's levelled and not the scene. It's a too large a subject to explain here, but essentially it's the objects that are referenced by the frame that acquire significance or accent. Those that have no relationship to the frame tend to to be seen as less important. Skewing does not add a cool perspective, but rather your use of it here is telling us that the bumper and truck front is important and the way the truck sits in the shed is less so.

With the pp instead of looking at separate elements and processing for a clever feature or a cool look, stand back and look at the picture as a whole. Don't be afraid of shadows (not everything has to show contrast and detail! ), instead you could let the truck sit in a darker, cooler, more forgotten place.

It's not a bad shot, just remember that we weren't there when you took it.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

No.....Actually I want real comments no philosophical mumbo jumbo...Thanks

You might want to re-read that, slowly. That is a very real, very insightful comment.

Yeah. Your right. It's highly insightful.

I would agree with manaheim, (apart from the bit about "rule of thirds" as this is much misunderstood by many).

What he's saying is that you were there, you remember the impact of actually seeing it. You heard the sounds, smelled the air, saw the surroundings and atmosphere, etc... You not only remember it but recall it at least in part whilst you were editing and every time you look at the photo. To you it's part of the scene.

We weren't there. All we see is a photo of an old truck, and it's rather brown, drab... A dime a dozen shot with a effect filter added.

Instead of pointing the camera at a subject and lining it up in the viewfinder take that extra moment to look round. I don't understand why the out of focus tree on the right is there. All it does is distract confuse and take your eye off the main subject. A small movement in camera position would've taken it out of the frame. Similarly I do not understand why it's the bumper of the truck that's levelled and not the scene. It's a too large a subject to explain here, but essentially it's the objects that are referenced by the frame that acquire significance or accent. Those that have no relationship to the frame tend to to be seen as less important. Skewing does not add a cool perspective, but rather your use of it here is telling us that the bumper and truck front is important and the way the truck sits in the shed is less so.

With the pp instead of looking at separate elements and processing for a clever feature or a cool look, stand back and look at the picture as a whole. Don't be afraid of shadows (not everything has to show contrast and detail! ), instead you could let the truck sit in a darker, cooler, more forgotten place.

It's not a bad shot, just remember that we weren't there when you took it.

View attachment 120918

I'm glad you took the time to expound on the exact same after school special message as manaheim. If it doesn't do it for you that's great, and if it doesn't convey anything to you or anyone for that matter I get that. At least you tried by saying it's a drab, brown photo of an old truck, now that's a real comment. It's truly what you think and is helpful and it has reasons as to why it's not an interesting shot, not some dribble like the following "Ultimately, the problem is that the camera sees only the 4:3 (or similar) frame you snip out of the environment. It lacks all the other visuals, the smells, the sounds, the motion. There's just a ton missing. And in most cases just taking a shot of the thing that grabbed your attention will not be able to carry the same impact." Then you have this truly insightful gem "It's not a bad shot, just remember that we weren't there when you took it." What is that even supposed to mean? By the way it smelled of duck farts, the trees were gently swaying in the breeze and a little furry mouse scurried by rustling the leaves and the sights, oh the sights. Next time I'll work that into the shot.

 

[KenC]

I think people are really doing their best here. I find it is often difficult to comment on an image that just doesn't quite work for me. The explanations and "philosophy" that others provided are intended as starting points for thinking about making better images. The only alternative is for us to speculate on what we might have done differently, which is always hazardous because what we might do could be counter to what you were trying to do. However, if you prefer that type of commentary, just say so and I'm sure some of us would give it a shot, or you could allow edits and get a different take on it that way.

 

[Tim Tucker]

I'm glad you took the time to expound on the exact same after school special message as manaheim. If it doesn't do it for you that's great, and if it doesn't convey anything to you or anyone for that matter I get that. At least you tried ... SNIP

My apologies, I was sure that I checked that your photos were ok to edit, my mistake and I'll remove that edit.

Edited, apart from the apology, because I said it all in the first post really.

 

[MaximS]

No.....Actually I want real comments no philosophical mumbo jumbo...Thanks

You might want to re-read that, slowly. That is a very real, very insightful comment.

Yeah. Your right. It's highly insightful.

I would agree with manaheim, (apart from the bit about "rule of thirds" as this is much misunderstood by many).

What he's saying is that you were there, you remember the impact of actually seeing it. You heard the sounds, smelled the air, saw the surroundings and atmosphere, etc... You not only remember it but recall it at least in part whilst you were editing and every time you look at the photo. To you it's part of the scene.

We weren't there. All we see is a photo of an old truck, and it's rather brown, drab... A dime a dozen shot with a effect filter added.

Instead of pointing the camera at a subject and lining it up in the viewfinder take that extra moment to look round. I don't understand why the out of focus tree on the right is there. All it does is distract confuse and take your eye off the main subject. A small movement in camera position would've taken it out of the frame. Similarly I do not understand why it's the bumper of the truck that's levelled and not the scene. It's a too large a subject to explain here, but essentially it's the objects that are referenced by the frame that acquire significance or accent. Those that have no relationship to the frame tend to to be seen as less important. Skewing does not add a cool perspective, but rather your use of it here is telling us that the bumper and truck front is important and the way the truck sits in the shed is less so.

With the pp instead of looking at separate elements and processing for a clever feature or a cool look, stand back and look at the picture as a whole. Don't be afraid of shadows (not everything has to show contrast and detail! ), instead you could let the truck sit in a darker, cooler, more forgotten place.

It's not a bad shot, just remember that we weren't there when you took it.

View attachment 120918

I'm glad you took the time to expound on the exact same after school special message as manaheim. If it doesn't do it for you that's great, and if it doesn't convey anything to you or anyone for that matter I get that. At least you tried by saying it's a drab, brown photo of an old truck, now that's a real comment. It's truly what you think and is helpful and it has reasons as to why it's not an interesting shot, not some dribble like the following "Ultimately, the problem is that the camera sees only the 4:3 (or similar) frame you snip out of the environment. It lacks all the other visuals, the smells, the sounds, the motion. There's just a ton missing. And in most cases just taking a shot of the thing that grabbed your attention will not be able to carry the same impact." Then you have this truly insightful gem "It's not a bad shot, just remember that we weren't there when you took it." What is that even supposed to mean? By the way it smelled of duck farts, the trees were gently swaying in the breeze and a little furry mouse scurried by rustling the leaves and the sights, oh the sights. Next time I'll work that into the shot.

I actually think the picture's pretty decent, but your responses are as one might call... douchey.