The one by thomas cooper is close up, you feel like your right in the action and it has more contrast. The one by ansel adams is more of a long shot where you can see the whole waterfall and there is less contrast so you see more detail. I like the close up better, i think theres more emotion and you feel like your right there in it.
The two photographs that depict landscapes are very different from one another. I felt that the first picture by Thomas Joshua Cooper did not even appear to be a landscape photograph to me. There does not seem to be a major focus of the picture. It is full of action and it brings the viewer into the action. The picture also seems unrealistic with all the cable coming out at the bottom. It seems that it is a picture of technology mixed with natural elements. The mysterious mist leaves the viewer in the unknown. I really do not know what to interpret it as. It looks as though it could be a waterfall, but it could also just be mist. There is a set foreground, but the background is lost in the mist. One reason for this is to let the viewer decide what is actually in the background. Therefore it can be said that this picture has somewhat of a shallow depth of field. The second picture by Ansel Adams has a different approach to a landscape photograph. This picture is an example of what I feel all landscape photographs are like. It shows a variety of different elements in the landscape. The focus of the picture is more apparent than in the first photograph. The viewer has a larger view of what is actually happening. There is action in this picture, but the viewer is not brought directly into being in the action. The motion of the picture stays in the picture, while in Thomas Joshua Cooper’s picture the action it directed toward the viewer. This picture shows the whole foreground and background and can be categorize as having a deep depth of field. It is a very realistic picture, and it does not lend itself to make the viewer really think about the photo. It is a picture that lays everything out for you.
4 comments:
How are they the same?
You tell me.
I'm more curious to know how my students perceive them to be different or if they perceive them to be different.
The one by thomas cooper is close up, you feel like your right in the action and it has more contrast. The one by ansel adams is more of a long shot where you can see the whole waterfall and there is less contrast so you see more detail. I like the close up better, i think theres more emotion and you feel like your right there in it.
The two photographs that depict landscapes are very different from one another. I felt that the first picture by Thomas Joshua Cooper did not even appear to be a landscape photograph to me. There does not seem to be a major focus of the picture. It is full of action and it brings the viewer into the action. The picture also seems unrealistic with all the cable coming out at the bottom. It seems that it is a picture of technology mixed with natural elements. The mysterious mist leaves the viewer in the unknown. I really do not know what to interpret it as. It looks as though it could be a waterfall, but it could also just be mist. There is a set foreground, but the background is lost in the mist. One reason for this is to let the viewer decide what is actually in the background. Therefore it can be said that this picture has somewhat of a shallow depth of field.
The second picture by Ansel Adams has a different approach to a landscape photograph. This picture is an example of what I feel all landscape photographs are like. It shows a variety of different elements in the landscape. The focus of the picture is more apparent than in the first photograph. The viewer has a larger view of what is actually happening. There is action in this picture, but the viewer is not brought directly into being in the action. The motion of the picture stays in the picture, while in Thomas Joshua Cooper’s picture the action it directed toward the viewer. This picture shows the whole foreground and background and can be categorize as having a deep depth of field. It is a very realistic picture, and it does not lend itself to make the viewer really think about the photo. It is a picture that lays everything out for you.
Post a Comment