Photo By: Ed Clark
Image Source: http://www.thegreatleapsideways.com/?p=209
I see devastation among all the faces in this photograph. I interpret the man playing the accordion as the central focus of this image. This image means despair and gathering together during a hard time to me. I see true sadness in this image as president Franklin D. Roosevelt is mourned. As Donald Webber explained, "These days, the most in-demand news photo is that of happenstance — typically dodged, burned, cropped, dramatized and with “extraneous” details within the frame excised." I don't feel like this photo is exaggerated or un-truthful. But I might have trouble spotting a fake or non truthful image because I tend to see on the "sunny side of the street".
Rule of thirds: The main subject is off center, he is towards the left side of the image. He is partially in the outer left third of the photo. The subjects position allows the eye to focus on the subject but to also view and appreciate those in the background.
Obvious main subject: The main subject is 2/3 of the photograph. If certain people in the background were left out it wouldn't have the same effect of a group coming together to mourn. The size of the main subject is appropriate without again taking away from the emotions and feelings of those behind him.
Black and White: The black and white if this image makes the emotions even stronger, this was not a colorful day. Color photography was present during this time period. I don't think this image in color would be as powerful.
Image A-
Photo by: Ramon Espinosa October 5th 2016
Photo source: http://www.nbcnews.com/slideshow/week-pictures-sept-30-oct-7-n662101
With this image my emotions and intuitions kick in and that is why I find this image truthful. This image is of a women crying on her home that was destroyed by Hurricane Matthew in Baracoa, Cuba. As Oliver Kim stated, "You know certain things because you feel them emotionally". Without even reading the caption, I could sense the sadness of all those around the subject as well as the subject herself. This image's sadness reminds me of what an article about Betty Lane spoke on, "Lane’s dramatic photos of of thousands of women marching through Manhattan were dramatic proof of feminism’s rising influence and potential to change society." The picture of the women marching was also a wide view like this one to try and show more people involved. The main connection I see between the two photo's is that they are both very dramatic, but truthful. They are not dramatized purposely in my opinion. It also related to Professor Nordell's Image of nurses striking in front of Franklin Medical Center he stated, "I brought a ladder with me so I can get this higher angle looking down, but the effect is from this angle it looks like there is more people, Im also using that telephoto lens that compresses the scene and makes it look more crowded." I believe that Ramon Espinosa was looking to do the same effect with this photo maybe with a certain lens to make the scene look more crowded. But the emotion in that women's face speaks very truthful to me.
Feelings & emotions: This photograph like I stated above shows great sadness.The image mainly captured my attention because of the truth represented throughout it. The devastation is clear and I don't believe it's over dramatized or edited. The image grows on me the more I look at it because its so cluttered I keep finding more and more within it.
Depth of Field: I think the right amount of area is in focus. I believe the photo uses maximum depth of field to get the other residents of the destroyed area in the image as well. It still directs your attention to the subject sitting, I feel like because she's huddled over the background doesn't distract from her emotions, it adds to them.
Keep it simple: The composition of the image above is very cluttered. If it wasn't including all of the destructive clutter it wouldn't represent the hurricane damage as well. It is cluttered due to all of the houses pieces being scattered and all the people moving and cleaning up in the background.
Image B- non- truthful
Image A-
Photo by: Ramon Espinosa October 5th 2016
Photo source: http://www.nbcnews.com/slideshow/week-pictures-sept-30-oct-7-n662101
With this image my emotions and intuitions kick in and that is why I find this image truthful. This image is of a women crying on her home that was destroyed by Hurricane Matthew in Baracoa, Cuba. As Oliver Kim stated, "You know certain things because you feel them emotionally". Without even reading the caption, I could sense the sadness of all those around the subject as well as the subject herself. This image's sadness reminds me of what an article about Betty Lane spoke on, "Lane’s dramatic photos of of thousands of women marching through Manhattan were dramatic proof of feminism’s rising influence and potential to change society." The picture of the women marching was also a wide view like this one to try and show more people involved. The main connection I see between the two photo's is that they are both very dramatic, but truthful. They are not dramatized purposely in my opinion. It also related to Professor Nordell's Image of nurses striking in front of Franklin Medical Center he stated, "I brought a ladder with me so I can get this higher angle looking down, but the effect is from this angle it looks like there is more people, Im also using that telephoto lens that compresses the scene and makes it look more crowded." I believe that Ramon Espinosa was looking to do the same effect with this photo maybe with a certain lens to make the scene look more crowded. But the emotion in that women's face speaks very truthful to me.
Feelings & emotions: This photograph like I stated above shows great sadness.The image mainly captured my attention because of the truth represented throughout it. The devastation is clear and I don't believe it's over dramatized or edited. The image grows on me the more I look at it because its so cluttered I keep finding more and more within it.
Depth of Field: I think the right amount of area is in focus. I believe the photo uses maximum depth of field to get the other residents of the destroyed area in the image as well. It still directs your attention to the subject sitting, I feel like because she's huddled over the background doesn't distract from her emotions, it adds to them.
Keep it simple: The composition of the image above is very cluttered. If it wasn't including all of the destructive clutter it wouldn't represent the hurricane damage as well. It is cluttered due to all of the houses pieces being scattered and all the people moving and cleaning up in the background.
Image B- non- truthful
Photo source:http://time.com/4564067/donald-trump-barack-obama-2/
According to an article based on the ways of knowing by Oliver Kim,"You know certain thing because you can apply logic and reasoning". In the Time's this photograph was described in the article as, "Scenes at an election night party for Republican President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016 in New York's Manhattan borough." I believe the setting when I look at this photo the mother holding her child with the soccer blanket is very truthful, and showing the hat over the child's head is pretty realistic. But the photo seems enhanced and edited, and it was an action placed for a photograph not a action photograph of people during the event. This photograph could have been taken outside of the event even because it's not showing much. There is no sense of the crowd at the election night party in this photograph. According to Donald Weber, "A technically proficient image that looks like those of past photojournalism will catch the eye. A technically proficient image may trick the viewer into thinking he or she is seeing something of substance, of what is commonly referred to as truthful." I feel as though this image is "too slick to trust". This image just look fake and enhanced its trying to hard to represent our new president's motto, "Make America Great Again". When Professor Nordell takes about Yellow Journalism he states, "There was definite bias the publishers of the newspapers were trying to get across a certain point, a certain attitude." I feel like Dina might be trying to portray a really positive enhanced image here, relating to families and children because of all the controversy surrounding the debate.
Contrast: I feel like the contrast is very high in this photograph and like I stated above it looks enhanced to me. The contrast is very high and lot's of very bright and dark areas are shown. I feel like its appropriate because it's meant to be dramatic.
Shadows: The shadows are almost to perfectly placed, this image looks fake to me. The shadow is most likely purposely covering the identity of the child photographed at the election party. The shadow along with the contrast make this image look enhanced or fake to me.
Abstract: This photograph is very abstract, I feel like its trying to represent families and their support at his election party. You cannot distinguish who these supporters are, but again I feel like the image is very posed and placed. Meaning most definitely emerge from this photo, showing hope and promise and power; but I don't see the truth behind it.
No comments:
Post a Comment