2 thoughts on “Tenacity”

1. Fun border work. It really helps make the image. But the base pic itself is quite good, too. Textures, dynamic shadowing, powerful horizontal lines, life and death … it works.
   Though you may be up loading this and “Checkered” as half-hearted workings while playing with new editing programs (as I read your note), I think you’ve found something very worthwhile in these two images.
   Only problem … the horizontal pipe does not appear horizontal … it seems to drop to the right.

   LikeLike

   Reply

2. It does, yes. But if you run a straight line across the base of the building you’ll see that it’s level. The pipe does, in fact, lose altitude.

   I have known for awhile that I’m a whole lot better processor than I am a pure shooter. I just try and get the composition right in the camera because I know I can fix just about everything else in post.

   But sometimes you look at a raw shot and you don’t see the possibilities. I think the way it’s supposed to work is that the tech helps you refine what the pure capture was, but the basic fact that is that the tech opens entirely new doors. Even better than the real thing, as a certain band once put it.

   There are lots of naturalist types out there who’d hate everything I do on principle. But I’m NOT a naturalist. I’m not a purist. I’m not worried about the photo as photo. I’m interested in the photo as the jumping off point.

   If you saw the raw shot of Checkered you’d be able to accuse me of all kinds of things, and “inauthentic” would be the nicest on the list, probably. But not all great stories are realist stories, at least not in form.

   I’m never going to have the skills I might otherwise have accumulated had I been a shooter for all of those 35 years I wasted writing poetry. But I’m enjoying finding ways of presenting a perspective and a point of view, nonetheless.

   Long live fuckery.

   LikeLike

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.