Graffiti Vandal
- Thread starter robinchun
- Start date
- Messages
- 352
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
The title presumes that graffiti is vandalism, in many case it is wonderful art form.
In this example its not artistic and as an image as a whole looses any link between the figure and the implied vandalism in the title.
In this example its not artistic and as an image as a whole looses any link between the figure and the implied vandalism in the title.
- Messages
- 135
- Name
- Philip
- Edit My Images
- No
Until I encounter a graffiti "artist" who is willing to tag his own property, I'll regard all graffiti as ugly vandalism!
In this image, I don't see any connection between the figure and the tagging. It looks more like a passer by than the perpetrator of the crime.
In this image, I don't see any connection between the figure and the tagging. It looks more like a passer by than the perpetrator of the crime.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
So is that guy the one who put the graffiti on the bench? Title suggests that it is.
- Messages
- 41,872
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Does it matter if he was or wasn't the 'vandal' ... maybe it's easy to make an assumption? ... Is every image a news report? ... Maybe it's enough to generate discussion?
Anyway, gritty processing Robin and whether he was or wasn't the 'vandal' the fencing leads our eyes nicely from the graffiti down to him in the distance ... works for me
Anyway, gritty processing Robin and whether he was or wasn't the 'vandal' the fencing leads our eyes nicely from the graffiti down to him in the distance ... works for me
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Shadows are blocked up when I view here... overall it's very dark.
OP
- Messages
- 996
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks guys for the comments..as an aside to most comments, has no one heard the term 'poetic license'! the figure did actually just happened to be walking by, I saw the opportunity for an 'interesting' photograph with a relatively apt title and went for it..now I could have stood there from then until next Michaelmas Wednesday and waited for Rael the Imperial Aerosol Kid to walk by, but I doubt that would have happened..but hey, its provoked a reaction so I'm happy! Thank you
Robin
'
Robin
'
OP
- Messages
- 996
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks David..I set my in camera settings and with some pp in Lr to achieve the dark, shadow, heavy contrast end result..this is how I like my mono images..it's what you can't see as well as what you can that makes a picture for me
Robin
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 996
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I get the dark thing, absolutely, but dark shouldn't mean blocked up shadows. You can have a very dark and menacing image, but still have it look correctly exposed. Simply darkening an image is, ironically, the worst way to make an image dark. careful use of curves and the histogram can make an be read as dark and heavy, but still have a beautiful tonal range. This image just has areas of black nothingness where shadow detail would have been.
I also suspect your monitor is too bright. It;s not as if there's anything in those shadows that strikes a chord with my subconscious or my hidden fears... I know it's just a bunch of leaves and crap. The other dark area on the left is just the fence... again it's not leaving anything to my imagination at all.. it's just a fence that has lost of shadow detail due to aggressive processing. There's no menace lurking there
It's too dark dude.
So any reaction is a good reaction? I just don't see why you wanted anyone to think the man in the shot was the vandal, as that's what the title is definitely doing. If you'd merely called it Graffiti... then no, it wouldn't. Adding the noun Vandal, makes the man the subject of the photograph (and title)... not the bench. Surely you see that.
OP
- Messages
- 996
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- No
I get the dark thing, absolutely, but dark shouldn't mean blocked up shadows. You can have a very dark and menacing image, but still have it look correctly exposed. Simply darkening an image is, ironically, the worst way to make an image dark. careful use of curves and the histogram can make an be read as dark and heavy, but still have a beautiful tonal range. This image just has areas of black nothingness where shadow detail would have been.
I also suspect your monitor is too bright. It;s not as if there's anything in those shadows that strikes a chord with my subconscious or my hidden fears... I know it's just a bunch of leaves and crap. The other dark area on the left is just the fence... again it's not leaving anything to my imagination at all.. it's just a fence that has lost of shadow detail due to aggressive processing. There's no menace lurking there
It's too dark dude.
So any reaction is a good reaction? I just don't see why you wanted anyone to think the man in the shot was the vandal, as that's what the title is definitely doing. If you'd merely called it Graffiti... then no, it wouldn't. Adding the noun Vandal, makes the man the subject of the photograph (and title)... not the bench. Surely you see that.
Thanks again David..when I said ..its what you can't see as well as what you can, is what I meant by darkening or, if you like, removing the shadow detail i.e it was there but I got rid of it! the figure could well have been the vandal..nonchalantly, innocently walking away after the deed is done..again its what implied rather than actual fact, that's what I meant by poetic license..anyway it don't mean a hill of beans, I like it and I'm glad others have taken the time to look and comment..and yeh, any reaction, for me on forums unless someone gets personal and nasty, is a good reaction..I'm too long in the tooth to be that bothered!
Robin