Friday, October 24, 2008

Oranges are not the only fruit

Yashica FX-3 Super 2000
Yashica lens 50 mm f/1:1.9
Kodak Gold 200
Walgreens scan,

6 comments:

Matt Dick said...

No, no. The other pear shot was much, much better. Nothing wrong with this one until you think of the other one.

Josh Gentry said...

The other one is better, but you think its so much better this one isn't worth taking?

Anna said...

I like this one, too. I might even like this one better.

Josh Gentry said...

:-) Thanks, Anna.

james Parsons said...

Hmm, depends what you're interest is... mine is to be extraordinarily pedantic. Here I go!...

I think this one shows off the color of the pear and the color of the light beam on the table better (except for the blown-out spot on the pear). It's also slightly better framed by having less dead space to the right and no odd cut of the table edge across the top. I think there could be some drama from the negative space in either shot, but both times it feels like it wasn't much part of your consideration. Might be better to have the empty space trailing off in the direction the shadow is cast - i.e., lit side of pear is at the corner of the frame; light beam extends diagonally across entire frame; pear shadow is fully in frame; negative space stretches out behind and to either side of the pear.

I think if both shots were in b/w then the backlit one could be the more dramatic. You could do your own print and gradate the contrast with burning and dodging, time in the chemicals, and even the film and paper stock. On the pear in this shot there's the dark shadow on the left, the full light/color on the right-center, and that awesome band between them of dimpled shadows cast by the pear's surface texture. I would love to see that detail level in the backlit shot instead of the shadows and highlights as pretty much solid blocks.

I think either shot would be served by putting the pear further down the light shaft so that the stem was lit as well.

Ummm, enough critiques!

Josh Gentry said...

I think my response to James' comment will have to be an entire post of its own ;-)

Blog Archive