>I do wish *I* could shed my worldly possessions
Am reserving the S5IS :D

(Reply to this) (Thread)

You got it wrong dude.. its S3IS.. its mine :P

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

damn!! I knew something was wrong ..

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

sigh...that's it...attachment (and I am not talking about Googledocs)...I do, ultimately, want my MLC and my laptop and my electricity and....and...and...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I do wish *I* could shed my worldly possessions and stride off towards the forests

deponti , *we* need to talk. How about meeting for coffee ;-)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

NO, you can't have the S3, I know that's what you want to talk about!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

there are a lot of other things to talk about ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Very good analogy for the picture. !!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I would say those are Jain monks.

Also, must say, if you crop the structure out of the photo, it not only brings the tree into the corner, but opens up the left portion of the photo (as that's the direction the monks are facing).

I've never been a big fan of post-processing photographs, though -- in a weird way, I feel it takes away the honesty of the moment the photograph was clicked.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Double that, would have like the gate out of the scene its way too distracting to focus on any particular thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

oh...I didn't know you still read LJ at all!

See my reply to Karan. What you are saying is precisely the point of the photograph. Instead of being free and open the way the monks are on the road, we are distracted and restricted by our own boundaries, as typified by the gate and the boundary wall. Our worldly limitations distract us from the song of the open road.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Ya but someone who sees it first time will mostly look from the perspective contrary to yours. So unless you do all this explaining he won't find the pic interesting. At the end of the day photography is personal choice, but just wondering how many people look it from your perspective.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Ah.But I didn't post the pic on its own...I did explain why, by the usual rules , the photo was not a "good" one, and why I liked it the way it was. It's going to be my LJ reader, who will read my explanation, who will decide what s/he likes. Some, like you, even after reading the explanation, will not find the perspective appealing; some might see the pic differently after knowing my point of view.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Words are still words. The image captures one's imagination before any of the words are read. The rules for photos are the same as the rules for art. Most cultural eyes read from left to right. Thus the eye moves and when it encounters a heavy object it stops and traverses that path downward (for example the tree trunk). The image on the right side of any heavy or dark object is somewhat lost. If that object is in the middle of the shot, most of the picture will be lost or distracted from.

While I like the idea of the gate and your words about it all, it makes the image of the monks more mundane. So the "thoughts" in your head about "our own" boundaries do not entirely translate to mine. However, I think that there is a way to compose the photo to incorporate those feelings. One of them would be to give more weight to the left of the image - so that there's more to see before the eye stops at the tree. This may mean more road in front of the monks - more "openness" "ahead" of them. Then the gate can still be there and the tree, being a little farther right on the image will not stop the eye as abruptly in the middle.

The openness of the gate will spread its continuity to the road on the left and the tree is more likely to become a piece of the puzzle rather than the larger looming mass.

In Art class we'd often do the excercise of massing out the components of any frame. Just large charcoal blobs will tell the tale of where the viewer's attention will be drawn - against their conscious will.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"Double that" you said...

did you mean his comment,

"I've never been a big fan of post-processing photographs, though -- in a weird way, I feel it takes away the honesty of the moment the photograph was clicked"?

If so, ha, ha.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

That's precisely my point. The gate and and all it represents is a counterpoint to what the monks and the road represent; so I want both in the photograph.

The post-processing controversy is going to be an eternal one; it has valid points on both sides of the argument, even to me!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

They are Shwetambar Jain Monks(self evident! :D)... I have seen them walking barefoot from Mysore to Bangalore powered only by a small bag of soaked gram!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Of course that's what they are! Thanks for the "id".

And of course I would not take a pic of Digambar monks....

Eating soaked gram! That's amazing.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

and while I thank you for the info...who *am* I thanking?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Post processing is the act of creating art consciously. If people are very good at framing the shot on the spot (having a "good eye"), or the photographer simply "sees" things in an artistic manner (unconsciously), then post processing is less necessary. But the difference between art and documentation is precisely what story the photograph tells and what content is included in the frame and in what rhythm and patterns to catch the viewer's gaze. Whether this is done after the fact or during the shot is not very important. But I am sure how "good" a photographer one is can be measured with how quickly they know and find confidence in deciding.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)