Good cop Bad cop

[Brian Ellis]

Second one by far. The first one is basically a documentary shot of an old car in the woods. The second has an air of mystery about it, a ghostlike or almost spiritual quality.

P.S. I typed this before looking at any of the other responses. Then I read them and of course saw Drew's. Great minds working together . . .

[sly]

I plump for the second one, it looks more like a Galli photo!

[Steve M Hostetter]

second photo,,, the truck is the subject no doubt and to me the second photo is a more artful rendering,, I get the feeling the grass will soon obscure all signs of the truck

[sun of sand]

I think the second is much better
First is a bit in your face and dull but with that angled branch removed would be better
Too much truck detail that I don't think is the point of the photo. The truck is abandoned whatever and yet the sharpness makes it appear to be showcased in a way that for me just doesn't jive. Dull as in tonally.

The second gives the impression of abandonment. The truck is off in the distance spirit-like
The glow helps with that aspect and sets tones apart. It's no longer a Nevada 1952 FORD stuck in the woods but a FORgotten FORmer FORD truck without a life to lead


I really dislike that angled branch, though. ..Drew mentioned Ghost-like I see

[JohnGC]

I don't see an abandoned truck, I see a truck hiding in some grass and trees. The second shot is reminds me of a model directed to become part of the background setting. "Almost ghost like" is a fitting term. The truck is fading into it's hiding spot. I like it.

[Struan Gray]

I bracket depth of field much more than I ever bracket exposure, or 'work the subject'. I still find it hard to judge Bokeh and the three-dimensional feel of a narrow focal plane while looking at the ground glass.





These two were taken at f11 and f16 with a 420 mm lens on 4x5. Even at moderate enlargements the seperation from the background and the concentration of attention change quite radically (to me, at least :-). Click on the images for larger files.

I don't think in terms of 'better' or 'worse', but rather closer or further away from the effect I want to promote. Jim's first photo is more about the car, the second is more about the undergrowth. In my case I feel the emphasis switches from a bias towards isolated twigs to the tree as a whole structure.

[mandoman7]

I always try to come back to "what is the point I'm trying to make" or "what is the look I'm trying to depict", and then decide on the equipment choices AFTER that. The idea or the sitter's persona should guide the equipment choices, rather than being subjected to them.

Having said that, the 2 choices presented represent 2 different intentions in my view. I like the lens characteristics of #2, but the foreground branching creates a tension that may not work for everybody. The foreground branches seem to work better in #1 although it still isn't clear what their contribution to the idea would be.

Its great to read these opinions, though, and to hear what people are thinking. I would've had no idea about some of the approaches.

[Jim Galli]

I bracket depth of field much more than I ever bracket exposure, or 'work the subject'. I still find it hard to judge Bokeh and the three-dimensional feel of a narrow focal plane while looking at the ground glass.

These two were taken at f11 and f16 with a 420 mm lens on 4x5. Even at moderate enlargements the seperation from the background and the concentration of attention change quite radically (to me, at least :-). Click on the images for larger files.

I don't think in terms of 'better' or 'worse', but rather closer or further away from the effect I want to promote. Jim's first photo is more about the car, the second is more about the undergrowth. In my case I feel the emphasis switches from a bias towards isolated twigs to the tree as a whole structure.

Struan, these are great. Only one stop yet in the first one, I very much see the tree while in the second I only see a mess. My problem is I'd very likely never see that on the ground glass. Also I'd never see the difference in B&W either I suspect. Color is a huge player in your example.


Thanks all for great replies. This image isn't destined to make my name a household word in either of it's iterations here. FWIW I of course like the second one better. It's a dream scape where my brain is trying to get to the details of that truck but can't quite get there. Why? What does it mean? The first is just a rather poor documentary shot. (as noted ) I've shot this truck 2 times in the past. I thought it was gone for a couple of years but last weekend when I peered into the overgrowth I saw it was still there. I failed to get that feeling of near lostness in growth with either picture. And so it goes.

[Daniel_Buck]

I sometimes do similar things, different lensing, and sometimes different apertures/movements. I've got a few more variations of this shot that I can't find right now, but I still hope to get down to it and shoot it a few more times! Sometimes I think I enjoy the act of shooting more than the final result Not all taken on the same day.

[Jim Galli]

I sometimes do similar things, different lensing, and sometimes different apertures/movements. I've got a few more variations of this shot that I can't find right now, but I still hope to get down to it and shoot it a few more times! Sometimes I think I enjoy the act of shooting more than the final result Not all taken on the same day.

..a man after me own heart. That last one is sweeeeeet.