Response to Ugly Beautiful (Response #70)

Uploaded 737 Days Ago by King - 7 comments

Photo © King (Here at the End, Farewell!) - www.kingdouglas.com/
Unauthorized reproduction not permitted.

User Comments

rbaezd said 737 days ago:

it is a beautiful landscape, a little depressive but certainly not ugly

Jem said 737 days ago:

I see you're talking about digital noise here, and I think the impact actually is excellent! I've never been a fan of digital noise, but in this shot you've really made it relevent to the topic because I think it is actually a very nice shot with it. The only distracting factors are what looks to be reflections from the window it was taken out of? Despite that, I really like the shot, and very good choice for this topic - well done!

King said 737 days ago:

Hi Jem and thanks for the generous comment. It seems that I don't have any existing photos that are highly relevant to the theme, so I'm dragging out my closest analogues.
This was shot in west Texas before daylight, on film, in a fine mist (as you can see). I set the camera on the dashboard and did a long time exposure. It's still underexposed, so the grain and noise are multiplied. Other noise comes from out-of-focus water droplets on the windshield and some reflections of things on the dashboard that I decided not to remove.

rajal said 737 days ago:

grainy and myserious!

timmybomb said 737 days ago:

I know the noise is intended, but I find it too colourful. I kind of like the effect, but the colours are just too distracting.

King said 737 days ago:

timmybomb,

Thanks for your comment.

The noise is not intended, it's just the way a grainy negative responds to digitization (i.e., scanning with my little, old HP S20) and correction in Photoshop.
I think that *film grain* can be one of the most beautiful aspects of photography and I don't consider it to be noise.
Digital noise is another thing. It seems to me, from the comments I've read on the topic in W.S., that noise of any kind, including the digitization of film grain, is generally disliked by digital photographers.
Having been an advertising photographer who has worked with 11x14 transparency film and 8x10 Polaroid, I know the difference between grainy and not grainy. It's just that I don't mind grain (or noise) when, to me, it enhances an image.

uncommondepth said 737 days ago:

Is this another test to see how people rate? I hope so b/c otherwise my comments will just seem ignorant.

1 for quality b/c of the excessive noise and blobs. 1 for technique because the exposure is not right - if the image has this much noise it was either severely underexposed or heavily processed, or both. 3 for composition - I might have scored higher but the image quality is so poor it's hard to judge how effective the shot actually is. Impact is 5 - this image makes a creates a strong and immediate impression. Relevance is 3 b/c it's backwards - an ugly photo of a beautiful subject.

Finally, if this wasn't a test, I apologize.

You could comment on this photo if you were logged in.