I know what you mean about the sky but I do wonder whether if it was more constrasty it would wrench your eye away from the lines and shadows on the floor and the wall…and that would be a shame.
I think that if you wish to make the sky ‘pop’ then you cannot do that on its own because as Lillput says the balance of the image disappears. You’d need to do something with the wall and parking spaces to balance the attention grabbing contrast. I think you have the current balance right but having been tempted with the promise of a popping sky I think a little work could keep the balance and win you (and us) some pop! The wall produces a conveniently easy line for having different layers and masks.
That said the thing that appeals to me most is that I cannot see the horizon, it makes the image an understatement, I think.
It is difficult to imagine the photo that you are thinking of as opposed to the one you present, but, for me, the sky is incidental. If it was more attractive to the eye then I might not spend so long on the wall and (what I assume to be) horizon.
As is, the clouds work well as a space filler. Substance, but not draw.
Not that I have ever been to one, but this reminds me so much of a drive-in-movie theatre. I guess I feel this way as the sky seems so flat (in a 3D sense not contrasty sense). It just sits on the wall and the wall stops you falling over the edge (of the world). The shadows cast in this shot, like you prior car park scene, are very important. But unlike that shot, any cars in this one would have ruined my enjoyment.
I think this is a case of going looking for one thing and finding something else without realizing it. The sky was vibrant this day, so I stuck the filter on, which naturally leads to looking for pictures of clouds. The shadow – and the confusion of wall and horizon – presented themselves, but don’t really have anything to do with the sky. Perhaps a case of equipment leading me by the nose.
It is the positive and negative demonstrated by the two columns(?) boxes(?) and the repeated diagonals that interest me. I agree that if the sky had more pop, I would be drawn away from that foreground. (And, I am a rabid fan of great skies with plenty of pop.)
The angles of the wall and shadow counter the clouds well but that wouldn’t have been quite enough for me here – oddly for me, it’s the birds that pulled it together.
Stills V3
I’ve been struggling with the sky on this one. It was shot through a red filter, so the sky should have a bit more pop than it does.
Comment by matt — November 1, 2009 @ 15:21
I know what you mean about the sky but I do wonder whether if it was more constrasty it would wrench your eye away from the lines and shadows on the floor and the wall…and that would be a shame.
Comment by Lillput — November 1, 2009 @ 22:14
I think that if you wish to make the sky ‘pop’ then you cannot do that on its own because as Lillput says the balance of the image disappears. You’d need to do something with the wall and parking spaces to balance the attention grabbing contrast. I think you have the current balance right but having been tempted with the promise of a popping sky I think a little work could keep the balance and win you (and us) some pop! The wall produces a conveniently easy line for having different layers and masks.
That said the thing that appeals to me most is that I cannot see the horizon, it makes the image an understatement, I think.
Comment by Rex — November 2, 2009 @ 21:25
It is difficult to imagine the photo that you are thinking of as opposed to the one you present, but, for me, the sky is incidental. If it was more attractive to the eye then I might not spend so long on the wall and (what I assume to be) horizon.
As is, the clouds work well as a space filler. Substance, but not draw.
Comment by Colin — November 2, 2009 @ 21:28
Forget the popping, this works extremely well as a semi-abstract image with a certain feel to it. Quite a classic.
Comment by John Ellis — November 3, 2009 @ 07:50
Not that I have ever been to one, but this reminds me so much of a drive-in-movie theatre. I guess I feel this way as the sky seems so flat (in a 3D sense not contrasty sense). It just sits on the wall and the wall stops you falling over the edge (of the world). The shadows cast in this shot, like you prior car park scene, are very important. But unlike that shot, any cars in this one would have ruined my enjoyment.
Comment by akikana — November 7, 2009 @ 12:12
John’s comment echoes my feelings about this well. It’s a wonderful image — working on several levels for me. (I think I even see birds).
Comment by Christina — November 8, 2009 @ 02:46
I think this is a case of going looking for one thing and finding something else without realizing it. The sky was vibrant this day, so I stuck the filter on, which naturally leads to looking for pictures of clouds. The shadow – and the confusion of wall and horizon – presented themselves, but don’t really have anything to do with the sky. Perhaps a case of equipment leading me by the nose.
Christina, yep, I believe those are crows.
Comment by matt — November 8, 2009 @ 15:12
It is the positive and negative demonstrated by the two columns(?) boxes(?) and the repeated diagonals that interest me. I agree that if the sky had more pop, I would be drawn away from that foreground. (And, I am a rabid fan of great skies with plenty of pop.)
Comment by Anita Jesse — November 16, 2009 @ 01:09
The angles of the wall and shadow counter the clouds well but that wouldn’t have been quite enough for me here – oddly for me, it’s the birds that pulled it together.
Comment by doonster — November 17, 2009 @ 11:31