This photo was presented on August 17, 2009.
On that post, DHaass said: “I'll make note of the cut off arm to the left and the boys head so close to the edge of the frame. If the little girl had that arm in her lap would it be better? Yes, but it's not a deal breaker. The boy is looking down more than out of the frame so I'm okay with that too.”
When I looked at the scene, I thought that this was a scene that could have occurred anytime during the past 100 years. I really did not think about the little details in the composition. If I had, I would have posted the photo more like this. There was a post just outside the girls hand on the left side, so I did exclude it from my original composition.
Out of laziness, I had slapped the frame on it. In the revised photo, I increased canvass sufficient to allow for the girls hands to be shown and also included more room to the right of the boy’s head. The photo presented here is more the one that I took except that I did clone-out the flip-flops—which did not seem to go with the scene.
The reason, I selected this photo as my first to revisit is simple, I think it raises an interesting question: “When does bothersome details really distract from the essence of the photograph?"
I do not have an answer to the question, and would welcome your comments.
Enjoy.
Not sure I get your question, but to me, if the photograph has impact and evokes emotion, then the details do not come into play. It is when I only see a photo that I start looking for detail. Not very clear but I hope you understand.
ReplyDeleteDebbie
I like the new crop better but to me the flip-flops were never a distraction. Maybe that's my answer to your question. At least in this specific example I only saw the flip flops as part of the scene rather than "bothersome detail." To me "bothersome detail" would more likely be power lines, a hanging branch in the foreground, or even the post you mentioned cropping out.
ReplyDeleteSince you are willing to change some details here, what about selecting the standing boy and flipping him so that he is facing into the scene and not out of it? I agree with Larry that the flip flops were not distracting, they added to the moment. I do like seeing more of the arm and more room in front of the standing boy, everything is less crowded now. And I agree with Debbie that if an image has a lot of impact, I can overlook some distractions. I guess it would depend though, on how "bothersome" those details are to me, and that is somewhat subjective.
ReplyDeleteI look at different photos differently. Some are about the feel. Others are about the details. So what is troubling would depend on what type of photo it is. If it is about an ageless feeling, then the flip flops bother me. If it about the children playing then the hand and the direction the boy is facing might bother. I think everyone has to read the photo from their own perspective.
ReplyDeleteAnne
I made the comments on the original that Larry speaks to today.
ReplyDeleteThe girl's arm was the only thing that "bothered" me to the point where I wanted it either in front of her, or as Larry has done, move the frame back to encompass it. I think it improved the shot. I noted the direction the boy was facing, but did state it was not a real issue as he was looking down, and not out of the frame. With that said, the extra space in front of him works better for me.
I'm one of the few who didn't commment on the flip flops, as they didn't bother me in the least. I wasn't viewing this as being authentic, or as a timeless photo where you could go back in time and it would fit in. I was viewing it mainly from a compositional viewpoint. I liked the concept of the photo from the start.
I hope this lets you in on my thought process from when I first commented on it.
DHaass