Resqu2 wrote:
What you see here is a car crash/fire last night, crappy IPhone photo but it's all I had. What you don't see and the basis of my question is that the car went over a guard rail and what looks like a simple walk to the car was anything but that. From the road to the car was a nearly vertical 50ft drop. Me and my partner had to be lowered down with the hose to get to it, no way to stand up without falling all way down and landing on a fully involved car fire. I took a bunch of pics trying to show the steep drop but all of them look like you can walk right up to the car.
Maybe what I was trying to convey in my photo isn't even possible or maybe it was just the grass, had it went over a rock wall you may of been able to convey that.
What you see here is a car crash/fire last night, ... (
show quote)
What about any occupants?? Did they survive?
IMHO - Had you shown the edge of the roadway at the bottom of the picture and the car at the top that may have better shown the dropoff. Maybe even climbing onto an engine for a higher viewpoint would hace helped a bit.
Thank you for your service, too.
twowindsbear wrote:
Don't you see the two live humans in the scene???
Yes but they are not identifiable for scale in that photo. To give context and scale they have to be clearly visible human forms, and you need one on top to give scale comparison. Just a little blob of something, which on careful scrutiny, turns out to be a human next to the car does not do it. The grass in the foreground is a hint, but you need two comparable objects to give the eye a distance scale measure.
twowindsbear wrote:
What about any occupants?? Did they survive?
IMHO - Had you shown the edge of the roadway at the bottom of the picture and the car at the top that may have better shown the dropoff. Maybe even climbing onto an engine for a higher viewpoint would hace helped a bit.
Thank you for your service, too.
The first thing I found after I packed up to fight fire was a young guy, laying beside the guardrail not moving, he was dark skinned and I though he was badly burned but it was very dark and poring rain. He had got out and was helped to the top by ones that stopped. Minor injuries for the ride he took. He was lucky to get out as the gas tank was busted in the landing and caught fire immediately. I'm just so glad he was alone and not trapped. He was lucky that night.
The brightness of the foreground goes against a portrayal of depth because it holds the eye when what you want is the eye to be led into the distance (the car). And a bit less foreground might help. You could also try using a Transform or Perspective tool to make the distant stuff retreat further into the distance.
bdk
Loc: Sanibel Fl.
Ive always had trouble shooting down hills, putting someone at the top, would help give scale. Putting them at the bottom, may not help unless u have something at the top to judge distances etc.
Composition relates to placement or positioning in the image while depth refers to separation in distance. If you had a strong object in the foreground to look over or see beyond, it may create the distance or dropoff you seek. Perhaps darkening the grass would offer the same type of result.
Get low down to the ground, just a few blades of close blurry grass, try to catch some sky. With the car in the upper 2/3 of the image there is nothing "above" it.
My amateur guess would be to have the auto in the lower part of the photo and more trees to give you possibly more depth perception.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.