Your interpretation of this image.

[alfredo]

What does it say? What emotional impact (if any) did it have on you. What elements of the image add to that impact.






Taken with a Canon S50, then converted to Black and White.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. To me it's quite sad

This lone man standing with his sign protesting these grotesque numbers, as the people in the background walk by oblivious. A voice crying in the wilderness maybe.

[alfredo]

2. Do the buildings in

the background help tell the story, or do they detract?

[Blue_In_AK]

3. I think I like them. n/t

[alfredo]

6. I thought of them as somewhat

oppressive, but perfect for the subject. Other's may see them differently or not have any reaction to them at all.

I first cropped out a lot of the building and it didn't alter the impact. I was still not impressed. The big change was when I went grayscale. For me, that was when the image started showing some merit.

Some things look better in black and white. It seems to be a better story telling medium.

[RagingInMiami]

4. I wouldn't say the buildings necessarily distract

But to me, the photo will stand out much stronger against a naked sky.

But this is the type of photo where you can't really have him move or pose for your benefit. It's photojournalism, you have to capture the moment as it is.

Also, like Blue_In_Ak says, the people around him who are oblivious to his efforts -- as well as the fact that he appears to be the only person protesting -- is a reflection of how oblivious we are in this country as a whole.

BTW, I also have the Canon S50. It's a great camera. I always wear it on my hip where ever I go, even if I'm out taking photos with my Canon 10D.

[alfredo]

5. Sometimes you have to take what you get.

To me the buildings say something. They dwarf the man.



What I am doing here is having us look at what makes a good, or bad image. What do we see in the image that attracts us.

What inspired me to post a thread on photo critiques was "The Ice Flowing Down The Chicago River."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=280&topic_id=2250&mesg_id=2250

That photograph made me think, why is this picture of ice so interesting. There were so many "hooks" in that picture for me. I love that image.

It may do us some good to look at images to learn what makes a good photo.

[amazona]

7. not sure if I agree with decision to go with Black/White

For me Black/White is distancing. It takes us back through time. Color is more immediate. More "now." Since the matter is not just of historical interest, I think color might work better for me. But I'm not sure having not seen the color image.

I agree that keeping the buildings is the right way to go, rather than a close crop of just man with sign. The indifferent people walking around in the background is a nice touch, sort of a Brueghel/Icarus thing.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[alfredo]

8. My wife pointed out that the windows echo

the words in his sign.

I took the color out to add some distance from reality. I wanted the picture to tell a story I couldn't tell in color. I wanted to narrow it down, to make it claustrophobic, oppressive. The building is like wall. It was a dreary day, and that added to the mood.

We have a man with a sign, against all that.

[Blue_In_AK]

9. I agree with you on the black and white...

I think it emphasizes the loneliness and alienation.

[alfredo]

10. They say a snapshot is made in the camera, but a

photograph is made in the darkroom.


My mood that day might have had a lot to do with why I went black and white. Luck of the draw.