Hey Chris, it's my pleasure!Tim,
Thanks very much for taking the time to respond.
I am pretty new to photography and don't know much about tilt/shift lenses. Perhaps I should read up? As you point out, some of the lines are definitely not straight and this was a major issue for me in post-processing.
Hi Chris,I'd like your feedback on a series I am working on called "choice"............
Or maybe you just don't like it . Either way, thanks for taking the time to give feedback.Hi Chris,
If you'd presented one well chosen photograph titled "Choice", itr may have attracted my attention. But an endless series of similar shots I find quite boring.
Perhaps I don't understand
Anyway, I wish you all the best with your project.
I agree with you that some of the shots would have been better off composed more tightly. I like the way you did that.Wow, the Hammers are great! The cereals are the best out of the bunch though. I'm not a huge fan of the canned vegetables, but maybe because it includes more of the "ceiling" - the under-side of the shelf above. The shot has more of an "up" angle, and so the composition makes me probe the empty spaces, not the products themselves. It's almost as though that shot is about the negative spaces...
I notice that I composed my shots more tightly, in part to avoid the shift of angles. Obviously boxes on the left will show their right side, and conversely products on the far right of the images clearly show their left sides. The same for tops and bottoms.
Must be a beholder thing, I think everyone of those shots are quite unique.
My fustration with my shots is softness. I couldn't set up a tri-pod, so I worked off a cushioned surface (jacket bundled into baby-seat of cart) to provide some stability. Nonetheless my shots ended up soft. My goal had been to print quite large, larger than the actual products would be in the super-market. But softness doesn't work for a shot like that, and I dare say your shots seem to suffer the same fate.
I'm suddenly in the mood for a bowl of Cookie Crisp, not sure why...
I have little faith in the conclusions obtained by interviewing many people. You will find most of them believe in talking snakes and real devils and so forth. People think syphilis is evil, AIDS is a curse from God, their Nation has diving providence on their side and so forth.Yaron,
You might enjoy reading a book by a psychologist named Barry Schwartz called "The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less". He shares the results of his research into how choice affects human psychology and society. His conclusions are as follows:
1. We would be better off if we embraced certain voluntary constraints on our freedom of choice, instead of rebelling against them.
2. We would be better off seeking what was "good enough" instead of seeking the best.
3. We would be better off if we lowered our expectations about the results of decisions.
4. We would be better off if the decisions we made were nonreversible.
5. We would be better off if we paid less attention to what others around us were doing.
These aren't his personal opinions; they're the results of surveys he and his colleagues performed of thousands of people from all walks of life.
Thanks, Michael.Chris, Yaron: I think you guys are doing good stuff. You're starting with a concept and figuring ways to illustrate it. It's a philosophical approach to photography that contrasts with alternative aims to make a pretty picture however vacuous the meaning or to capture decisive moments. There's nothing at all wrong with either of these alternatives - the success of photography is indeed built on their foundations - but the conceptual approach has an established history, too. Keep on pushing at the boundaries.