This topic contains 21 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 3 years, 7 months ago.
March 1, 2015 at 2:09 pm #9110March 2, 2015 at 10:40 am #9130
OK, this is just about as vibrant as you will get from me! I am cheating a bit, took this last week. Roof of arcade in Buxton.
100S 1/80 at f8 ISO 1000. Processed in Lr, vibrancy flat.March 2, 2015 at 11:41 am #9133
<blows whistle> Foul! <shows yellow card> 😉
Well, it may be outside the proper time frame, but it’s certainly Vibrant! Great example to get us started, John.March 2, 2015 at 12:27 pm #9139
ExcellentMarch 2, 2015 at 1:26 pm #9143
Vibrant and pleanty of energy in a good pattern.March 2, 2015 at 8:13 pm #9155March 4, 2015 at 3:43 pm #9170
NOT MY WORK–been having a makeover in my porch entrance–and found this picture in Dunhelms to to complete the facelift.March 4, 2015 at 8:05 pm #9174
Vibrant colours all around. In Ian’s first photograph I find the colours vibrant and contrasting, The blue receeds against the orange giving a 3D effect. The tulips just had to put in an appearance. In these I feel the shape is more vibrant than the colour so, for my different styles of vibrance are illustrated. Ken’s picture just makes me feel ready for summer.March 17, 2015 at 2:46 pm #9234
A couple more…
Both of these were taken with a Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/1.8 lens on a FujiX-E2 camera.
I don’t know about you, but I’m struggling to think about ‘Vibrant’ in any other terms but colour. I wondered about resonating strings (guitar / violin / etc) or about metal springs vibrating, or pulsing jets of water, or very active dancers. But finding photographable subjects is proving a bit of a problem…March 17, 2015 at 9:01 pm #9240
Very vibrant Ian. The colours explode out ofthe frame. Both the colours and the lighting are contrasty inthe first photograph. The daffs are a bit less vibrant but being one main hue which I prefer. I love to see back lit daffs.March 19, 2015 at 9:44 pm #9251
It’s amazing how a bit of sunshine make you want to get out and take a few pictures. I dusted down my compact and couple a couple of snaps down in favourite subway. It’s got potential and I’ve got some ideas to improve on these. How do members think is the best way to photograph some elses art?March 20, 2015 at 6:58 am #9252
They’re all very vibrant, but I like the middle one best, Peter. I think there are two reasons for this: the person in the picture faces the viewer, which connects us with the picture; and there’s a visual relationship between the graffiti ‘trumpeter’ and the real person, which is, in addition, a visual gag (the man seems to be ‘power-walking’ with a coffee or Red Bull or such, and the trumpet is blaring directly at him – what a wake up!).
And I think this tells us something about how to photograph graffiti (or someone else’s art of any kind): you shouldn’t just record the art work; the photograph should be more interesting / beautiful / striking than the art work alone. And this is just what your middle photograph gives us in spades.March 20, 2015 at 9:57 pm #9257
Thanks for your comments Ian. I agree with you as I think the middle one is the best of the bunch. Like you say there’s more apparent interaction between the art and the guy in it. If you’re photographing street art I think you need to show how people react to it. I want to ask some to stand at the trumpet with their fingers in their ears!March 21, 2015 at 11:17 am #9263
Yes, just recording a work of art, like making an illustration for a book is useless – how can the judge assess the photography you have put into it? (This is not to belittle making art prints which is a very technical job – mainly in getting the colours right). Otherwise if the work is used as part of a photograph, or viewed in an imaginative way, that is fine. Just don’t show it to Brian Law, who believes that any photograph which features a work of art is unacceptable in our competitions and that includes shop displays. If one extends the logic a little one can readily see that architectural shots and many other things are taboo. Fundamentalists might also include natural history and portraits.
Carry on, Sir!March 22, 2015 at 6:50 am #9264
Not sure if I’m a Fundamentalist (I suspect I might be!), but I think Nadav Kander nailed it when he said ‘beautiful pictures aren’t necessarily pictures of beautiful things’. It’s easy to win admiration for a picture of a beautiful young woman or a lovely owl. Kander thought the greater skill was to take beautiful photographs of unlovely subjects. But be warned: you might not get first prize with an absolutely brilliant photograph of a dead cockroach.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.