Asher Kelman said:
Thanks Brian, Mary Jack and Carl! I just came back from celebrating mt wifes birthday with my boys who flew in the the event.
Then a belated "many happy returns of the day" to your wife, Asher.
I came back to these pictures and what a wonderful surpise.
I have enjoyed seeing the one that Brian (my very intuitive fellow-amateur, whose technical skills surpass mine) posted, with the antiqued b/w look he chose.
And I found that Carl's rendition managed the disparate compositional elements quite well--I think it's the way that he gave the light and color a more natural feeling. Pushing the contrasting greens of the grass and the foliage helps to offset the manhole cover a bit. One could walk into this scene as Carl presents it and feel at home.
Then, Jack's two renditions are a really big help to me, in understanding what is going on visually here.
And even more, Jack's analysis. I didn't know why I couldn't use the manhole cover, when I was working with the original image--since I wanted, essentially, a portrait of the little boy--but after reading what Jack said about the compositional elements, and your reply to those comments, I understand my instinctive reaction that I had to eliminate the round intrusiveness of that cover.
If it had been directly ahead of the cyclist, I might have kept it, for the sense of danger downhill. But, then, I don't know. It would still have competed with hia face. Too sculptural--almost 3D in its impact--too much "see-me-first" in that manhole cover.
I found that the round manhole was much more powerful than everyting else. The boy and his shadow couldn't come to balancing the heavy cast-iron manhole cover. Worse, if one is not careful, the boy's face will be lost and overpowered altogether!
I found it so. And, actually, the shadow of boy-and-bicycle competes, as Jack and you note. That's why I decided to warm the temperature and increase the luminosity--I thought perhaps the emphasized light on that golden hair would pull the eye where I wanted it to go.
We'll see what other ideas people have. Mary, you make me laugh; a smart accident you had. Art can also be derived from acidents. What makes it smart is one's ability to recognise the value of that chance mistake as a new option of expression.
Well, I wasn't too sure of the judgment call I made. I almost didn't post this rendition.
My instinct for what is good art is very shaky, when I compare my intuitive likes to the comments on images made by the professional artists and experienced amateur visual arts practitioners who post at OPF. Sometimes what I think is good turns out to be what the consensus of posts here say is good.
And, in contrary mode, quite often, I like something that others label pejoratively "postcard" or say isn't well composed or too blurry or something.
So, at this point I have shaky judgment as well as shaky camera focus (at times) and my taste is still in process of formation. I am here to learn, and Learning I Am < Yoda's disciple speaks > .
Maybe the kid racing down a hill might add something!
Future competitor in the Tour de France?
I love this little boy. He arouses all my maternal instincts.
Mary
