unbalanced

Something about the way this composition is unbalanced appeals to me. Everything is weighted on the right side, making it feel as though it will tilt down. But it doesn’t. Fancy that.

Comments
Posted on September 17, 2004 by Craig

For me, the arrow gives it a sense of motion towards the right.

Posted on September 17, 2004 by stef

Oh, this must be my Jewish day: yours is the second picture I see with a man with a religious cap. The other one wore a hat like those of chassidim guys. Funny coincidence. Interesting shot.

Posted on September 17, 2004 by Joseph Holmes

I also like the unbalanced feel—the busy-ness of the right feels like a sharp contrast to the peacefulness of the left, the two halves joined by the repetition of those blue-green poles. I would have considered taking photoshop to that Car Return sign, just to see how that looked, but that’s me…

Posted on September 17, 2004 by pixpop

Hmm, perhaps you’re right Joe. I’ll see if I can put up an alternate version later.

Stef, it’s Jewish New Year at the moment, maybe that explains it.

Craig, that’s what I originally thought as well. But there’s still the walking man and the leftmost car pointing to the right to counteract the two cars in the foreground pointing to the left.

I think if I remove the sign, and those light patches on the wall, then the true nature of this image will come out; It sets up an opposition between the left and right sides, where the left is empty, and the right is crammed full of stuff. I’ll work on it some more later.

Posted on September 17, 2004 by Mark

I like it very much. Has the repetition of the cars, the splash of color from the posts, and the sign & the man that gives it a center of interest (although in this case, 2 center of interests works well). Yes, I belive I would have sharpened the sign, plus corrected the sign color to white. On my monitor, it has a blueish cast. I also like the reflection in the window. The picture has a lot to hold your interest. It’s an uncommon picture of a common scene.

Posted on September 17, 2004 by pixpop

Mark, thank you. I think Joe was suggesting that I remove the sign, not sharpen it. It does have a blue cast, because it’s illuminated only by the sky. I’m going to make an updated version later tonight, and I’ll see how it looks if I change the sign to neutral.

Posted on September 17, 2004 by pixpop

OK, I’ve added a modified version, which can be found here. I’m thinking that I actually prefer the alternate version, without the sign.

Posted on September 18, 2004 by jonne

Oh look a Volvo!

Posted on September 18, 2004 by Mark

Yes, I like the modified version better. Or maybe two versions, with the other one having the man removed . Still think the color balance is wrong on the sign. Volvo! yeh-man! (and it’s a pre-ford version). Mine is black.

Posted on September 18, 2004 by Joseph Holmes

Neil—I do like the version without the sign better. First version—the sign becomes a large part of the interest. Second version—it’s all about the colors, shapes, contrasts, surfaces. For the first version, I keep looking for the irony in the sign, or the humor, but in this case it’s not rewarding.

Which of course brings up the question of whether to photoshop without telling anyone. I have to admit, I’ve done surgery on a few of my shots and never let on.

Posted on September 18, 2004 by pixpop

Well, I often remove distractions, but I don’t say anyhitng. Not because I have something to hide, but because I don’t think it’s relevant. Certainly, if anyone asks I’ll be happy to say what was done.

I think you’re right about the sign. These days, text in an image is more or less a indicator of irony, and there’s none to be found here. I’m going to swap the images, and leave the version with the sign up as the alternate version. I like that, as a rule of thumb: try to avoid text, unless it adds a layer of meaning to the rest of the image, or creates a tension, etc.

Posted on September 18, 2004 by pixpop

OK, it’s done. If you see the wrong version here, you may need to refresh your browser.

Posted on January 20, 2006 by anamesa

Actually the modified version is better. The fullness of the right side vs the emptiness of the left. The sing just distracted. And even more: it gave a precise meaning to the car which is disappearing in the background, something you had to avoid, since the picture is not a game of explanations. So the picture gains its “full” meaning, which is not only a juxtaposition of empty and full, but also of appear and vanish or disappear. Of course it’s as if everything is crammed to the right, stuffed in a way, and what isn’t, hurries to do so. In a sense, the left side is hunting the right, the sense of motion is partly due to the move of the man in the religious hat and the car in the background, but also because all of them are trying to escape the hunting of the emptiness that tries to reach them. So you may extend your reading of the picture as a metaphor, it’s not only a non balance that appears to be balanced out but contains also a sense of threat in this. It’s all the more obvious since the moving of the man is at a very normal pace, when the emptiness is going to reach him (and the baby). This picture is almost unnatural, supernatural, dreamy, maybe even psychotic in a way.

Posted on January 20, 2006 by pixpop

Anamesa, thanks,

There’s a dreamy state that happens when you’re in your car, waiting for the light to change. You’re sealed off from the world, somehow not part of what’s happening around you. Outside the window, the people come and go, talking about Michaelangelo.

Add a comment
name
email or url
  

Copyright 2003 - 2008 by Neil Baylis