Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Winsted, Connecticut, 1/8/08, 2:47:59

Set Piece, Or Action?

Something a little different for the blog today. Yesterday the light was a bit interesting in the afternoon so I went out to shoot with a specific thought in mind. I'd decided I might be shooting too fast, too many frames, a bit giddy over the 'free film' of digital capture. So I resolved to spend an afternoon shooting only one frame of each subject. To see whether this made the results overall better or worse. Then I made the first of these shots and could hear a car turning into the side street, so I decided that rules really are meant to be broken. I waited forever, as it seemed, for the car to enter the viewfinder and move to a good spot for a second shot.

Winsted, Connecticut, 1/8/08, 2:48:01

So, influenced by some posts Martin has made at The Public Eye Blog, I'll ask if there are any reactions about which shot works better?


promenadeur said...

In my opinion, the first picture is the better one.
It is calm an closed.

The car opens the picture to the left and disturbs the ensemble of the building behind.

Carl Weese said...


So, does this lean the experiment toward 'just one shot'?

Anonymous said...

Hi Carl:
The first picture works better. BTW, it seems that you are working with a tripod.

Carl Weese said...


"The first picture works better."

I agree, actually. It's only that I love pictures with vehicles moving through them that I have any interest in this one.

"BTW, it seems that you are working with a tripod."

Nope, hand held.

Ernest Theisen said...

Well I like the shot without the car better. But what amazes me is the fact that you made two shots, hand held with out moving the camera. Notice the distance between the power line and the corner of the building. You are one steady dude! E

promenadeur said...


if there is time and the opportunity I always try to circle around a motif.
But when examinating the pictures on the screen, I recocnize very quick, which picture "works".
First I'm looking for "plausibility", than for the "potential" of a photo.
And this is probably the issue I have with "straight photography": sometimes the potential of a photo needs to be worked out.
I mean not to be photoshopped!
But to do all the things, we have done in darkroom-times.

Ted said...

There are those who argue that art is what an artist says it is. And he says it be the determined act of framing.

So many artists are reluctant to communicate a sense of place without seeming to make the place only what they sense. You've given us more here. I lean toward the image with the car in its authenticity. I'm guessing if time is offers up a test for the value of an image that the car will resonate longer than the image which shows no life... or at least such a strong slash of energy.

Thanks for sharing,


Scott Kirkpatrick said...

I prefer the first, as it is very organized. I haven't thought carefully about why it is instinctively appealing to have a slightly blurred car in the picture, and this makes me want to think more about it.

As for steadiness, I suspect that the shot was taken at eye level, which would be about 6' agl, that the little brown triangle sticking out of the front of the store just touching the diagonal line on the sign fixed the horizontal position,
and that Carl's camera just naturally tends to stay level and make the lines in the bricks come out horizontal. Ah, but what fixed the edges at left or right?