Available. Denver, Colorado, 2013
For this week’s image I have chosen a street photography image from last Sunday, made during a walk between the buildings around the state capitol building in downtown Denver, Colorado.
And my standard call before I proceed: If you have been lurking about this web site and you’d like me to use your image for a Wednesday critique, just send me an e-mail (see Contact tab). That way, you can save me from critiquing my own images, which would be a welcome relief! Oh, and no names will be mentioned–it will be an anonymous critique.
OK, back to the photo o’ the day…I have my critic’s hat on and I am pretending this is the first time I’ve ever seen this photograph…here we go…
The metadata: Nikon D90 (1.5x crop factor sensor) with Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6 zoom at 270mm, f/5.6, 1/80, ISO200, handheld, outdoors with partly cloudy skies.
And following my 7-Step Critique Guide…
1) EXAMINE. This image takes a bit of looking to see what is going on. The main subject–emphasized by the title–appears to be a billboard with the word “Available”, then there are some names and a telephone number. There are what look like lights to illuminate the billboard as well as a wire or maybe two–hard to tell how many as the photograph appears to have captured a reflection of the scene…or double reflection, as the printing is not backwards.
2) EMOTIONAL RESPONSE. I am not quite sure what to think or how I should react when I look at this image. Apparently, the photographer thought that the word “Available” was important as it figures prominently in the photo and is also the title of the image…but I’m not sure what that means. What thing is “Available” exactly? A building? A storefront? A business? Is this intended to be some sort of commentary on the current economic state of many cities? That might make sense. But, I’m a bit confused. The gritty nature of the image and the dirty reflection effect does provoke in me a sense of a grimy, tough, wearying struggle, which is the lot of many cities, especially the older downtown areas. Maybe I also feel a subtle sense of the constant change cities undergo, with businesses closing and new ones trying their luck…thus space is often “Available.”
3) TECHNICAL POINTS. Not a lot to comment on in terms of technical aspects…exposure and contrast seem adequate for a monochrome conversion. I would normally mention that 1/80 is not really sufficient to get a sharp image at a 270mm focal length, handheld, but obviously, in this case, having a sharp image was not a priority. (Note: With good technique, and VR, it is possible–but difficult–to get sharp images with these numbers.) The f/5.6 aperture is fine given that there was no real need for a deep and sharp depth-of-field in this case–in fact, the photograper likely chose f/5.6 to get the fastest possible shutter speed as he/she was handholding the camera. One possible change I would consider: As the sign is the main subject, I might have lightened it a bit relative to the rest of the image (that is, increase local exposure there) in post-processing–as is, it’s a bit too dark.
4) ARTISTIC QUALITIES. The first thing that strikes me is the way in which the leading lines (wires?) pull my eye toward the main subject–the “Available” sign. Those leading lines go from right to left, which is opposite of the way we read in most of the western world. This makes the viewer uncomfortable and introduces some tension (diagonals alone will add tension, too), and the eye moves with difficulty in that “reverse” direction–which, in fact, may be the photographer’s intent. What’s more, if this is indeed a reflection (which it appears to be), then why are the words not reversed? Could it be that the photographer flipped the image horizontally in post-processing in order to deliberately introduce this tension of the right-to-left lines? This would have also served the additional purpose of making the words on the sign more easily readable. Just speculation, Spock, but it could be a key to the maker’s artistic intent. As to composition, it appears to be very unconventional, but actually is not. The image is divided by the “Guideline of Thirds” with 2/3 of the image in the left and 1/3 on the right. Additionally, the left 2/3s of the image is also subdivided in thirds. The whole thing almost runs the risk of being out of balance, with too much weight on the left, but the disjointed right-hand 1/3, plus the texture of the sky across the photograph and the added tension of the “reversed” wires keeps things in equilibrium.
5. POSITIVE POINTS. I like that this image makes you think. How was it made? Is it really a reflection, or was some other kind of manipulation involved? Also, the grittiness and even the dirtyness of the photograph brings on a certain, appropriate mood for the cyclic nature of urban scenes.
6. IMPROVE. I am not sure of the photographer’s message here. I am also at a loss as to how the photographer could have communicated more of the message to the viewer…perhaps by including a bit more of the environment in the image for context?…Or, maybe by adding a bit more to the title? In short, I would ask the photographer this: “What do you think your image is about?” And, “Do you think you communicated that to the viewer?”
7. OVERALL. This is an unusual street capture. Perhaps it might be more effective as one in a series of images, or as part of a more in-depth photo essay of a certain area or aspect of the city. As a single image, though, it may be a bit too confusing to be effective, so I’ll call it an average street photograph.
You might also like
Leave a reply