|
joe
Oct 2, 2003, 2:22 AM
Post #1 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2003
Posts: 897
|
|
|
|
|
|
joe
Oct 2, 2003, 2:25 AM
Post #2 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2003
Posts: 897
|
what works better in the above two? please comment only on the composition. the scan SUCKS, i know. my scanner is trying really hard to piss me off and is succeeding.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 2, 2003, 2:28 AM
Post #3 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I think that the landscape beats the portrait. The landscape gives context to the space that the climber is involved in. I guess for me that the feeling of exposure is conveyed through the landscape whereas that is entirely missing with the portrait. Thanks for posting the two options as this conveys to me in pictures what has been said in words some of the criticism of my own photos. I now understand the value of context.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Oct 2, 2003, 7:15 AM
Post #4 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
I also like the landscape, for the reasons Phil gave. It's nice to know what he's up against. His body position is also more aesthetic in the landscape.
|
|
|
|
|
dc
Oct 2, 2003, 1:15 PM
Post #5 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2003
Posts: 355
|
i also prefer the landscape shot.. mainly because you get to see more surrounding scenery and the position of the climber is better too... however the portrait shot is good too as it really conveys a sense of height.. i.e. it really shows what a challenge the climber is undertaking.. and what lies ahead of him... ..they're both amazing pics though!
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Oct 2, 2003, 3:22 PM
Post #6 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
I actually much prefer the portrait. For me the shot is all about the stellar vertical cracks that we see running up the face. Composing the short vertically emphasizes this aspect of the composition. I get a much better sense of being in the vertical world in the portrait version. The landscape feels a bit flat and static. Also, to my eyes there's nothing interesting enough about the landscape in the distance to deserve the extra real-estate.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Oct 2, 2003, 4:09 PM
Post #7 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
my vote also goes to landscape. It adds a lot how the climber is feeling. With the portrait, we do not get the exposure, it might be a usual day in the usual crag, but in landscape mode it feels something special is going on. It might still be the usual day (i wish it was a usual day for me, huh) but it feels more than that in landscape mode.
|
|
|
|
|
justuspr
Oct 2, 2003, 8:14 PM
Post #8 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2003
Posts: 153
|
Well I like aspects of both. I agree with dsafanda that the portrait shows more of the crack, wich to me illustrates the struggle more than the scenery in the background. I don't like how the climber is kinda bunched up there. The position of the climber in the landscape is much more dynamic and dramatic. Both are good shots though, to me having them be B&W adds drama and tension. Love that.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Oct 2, 2003, 11:37 PM
Post #9 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Landscape for me. I think this is because the background just looks cool, all far away like that, and adds some depth to the pic. Sweet pic, by the way. :)
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Oct 3, 2003, 6:23 PM
Post #10 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Depends on what you are going for Joe: The Portrait (as dsafanda) said does show more what the crack is all about, it purveys more action etc. The Landscape on the other hand has a more artisitc feel to me. It looks like a painting, like something I could put up in my office. I think the landscape will have wider appeal. (I LOVE Landscape orientation so I'm slightly biased). Climbers can more easily realated to what's going on, so we don't need it all, infact some of us are more interested in the crack ( :shock: :P ). The only suggestions I have: perhaps crop the Landscape shot so the crack ends in the corner (or one on either side of the corner etc. The left side is slightly wasted space. OH and that dime sized spot of sky in the top right corner too. ;) The portrait is a tad too centered (I do this myself A LOT :P), you may want to play with that....but sometimes centered works...I'd have to play with it in PS to really give you more of an idea.
|
|
|
|
|
arrigetch
Oct 6, 2003, 6:28 PM
Post #11 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2003
Posts: 10
|
I'm gonna go with the landscape. I agree with above statements that it has wider appeal due to the context. And it has a more of a dramatic "fly on a wall" feel to it. The landscape in B&W looks like it came from Rowell's "Vertical World of Yosemite". Very nice Joe!
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 6, 2003, 9:04 PM
Post #12 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I tell you what else hits me with the landscape pic. It is a feeling of the climber being a gnat or an ant who has no business being in this world of giants. The apron of miniature trees lend scale to the scene and then we see the tortured nature of the cliff beyond the trees. The climber is almost an affront to this magnanimity. I like it, I like it a lot. Man overcoming adversity.
|
|
|
|
|
padwarmer
Oct 7, 2003, 8:40 PM
Post #13 of 13
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 27
|
The landscape. I like the climbers position better in the landscape. I agree that the image could have the left cropped a little, ending the crack in the corner. The portrait shows more detail of the climb but the landscape gives more of a feeling of exposure
|
|
|
|
|
|