Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

I posted this image in the Photo Gallery and got 4 comments, none of which were about the image. I enjoy taking separate photographs and combining them into what I call an image. I call them images because they are not true photographs of what was, they are images of what could have been. I put the photos together in order to tell a story and I would appreciate comments on the story aspect, the image as if it were a photo, and finally the Post Processing. The story aspect is important to me, it is the reason for the image in the first place. There are some obvious titles I could add to the image to push the viewer toward the story; I prefer that the image tell the story on its own.

(Download)

anotherview Loc: California

A photograph cannot tell a story in the conventional sense (a narrative) because photography functions as a wordless medium of human expression. At best, then, a photograph has a visual voice.

A photograph (or an image) conveys any message it may have by means of its composition and exposure along with an interesting subject.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

A very creative piece! The man's body language tells a tale of woe even before we notice his broken toy. Having someone strut past with their perfect shiny plane is just going to put him right over the edge

I'm interested in knowing your reason to keep the bit of lattice fence and sign. For me it clutters the image and makes it harder to see the broken plane. Re pp, I did not notice immediately and I could easily second-guess myself, but it sort of seems like the yellow plane is too large - that the man walking to the right is going to hit the wing with his leg.

I think your decision to not include a title is ideal in this case. Let us interpret the story, as I did. It keeps us engaged.

As a side note re use of the word "story" - it seems to be one of those terms that is either heartily embraced, or totally rejected as incorrect language when applied to a photo or composite. I've seen the word frequently used in magazines and photo articles, as well as lynda.com training videos, so I've come (slowly, at first ) to embrace it.

Of course it's possible that Howard's intent is not what my own imagination came up with. This happens to me a lot when I'm trying to create a certain mood with stylized pp; I just don't take it far enough for viewers to understand my intent. I believe I got this one, but we'll see...

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

This image is composed of two photographs; the lattice is part of one of the photographs and it never occurred to me to remove it … I'll think about it for awhile. As for the man's leg hitting the wing, I think the shadows show the separation and distance between the two men and I'll look at this for awhile also.
Re "Story". When it comes to a photograph, the actual photograph indicates a thin slice of time. If done correctly, the period of time before the slice and/or the period after the slice will be in the viewer's mind even as the viewer looks at the Photo (image). "The Story" will be in the viewer's mind AS the photo is being viewed, it is not something that has to be thought about and it's this immediate understanding that is the story.

Thank you for your comments.
Oh, as for my "Intent" ... it was to tell a story. As long as you came up with a story, I feel the image has succeeded.

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

"Wordless medium" , yes; the narrative is in the viewers mind. A photograph that can IMMEDIATELY invoke a narrative is the photograph that has told a story.
Thank you for your comment. It made me place into words my idea of "Story" and whether an image achieves telling one.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

As someone who used to fly RC aircraft, including giant scale, I can relate to the gentleman walking with his head down, and the gentleman's body language as he walks past the crash. That giant scale biplane with the broken wings was at least a few thousand dollars. I loved the hobby, but after a few losses like what he experienced, "she who must be obeyed" decided that it wasn't the hobby for me. Now I primarily fly quads, and got certified so I actually make enough to cover to the costs of crashes. So far, only one drone in the "boneyard," thank goodness.

The photo tells a story to those of us who enjoy (or enjoyed) the fun hobby of RC.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

First of all, I'm curious about what the individual elements of the composite are and how they were original depicted. I think it's VERY well done. I admit that I'm no expert in this field, but I see no telltale signs of it being a composite. Contrary to Linda's thinking, I don't see any spacial problems. I believe there's plenty of room for the two to pass without touching. It appears to me that the entire image is tilted just a bit. Or is it my astigmatism? The path behind them seems to slope a bit and the figures to not appear to be perfectly upright.

As to the "story-telling" effect, I think you've done it. Leaving the field with a broken toy versus coming to the field with a new(?) toy is clear. The body language of the persons adds to that.

As to PP, I think the image needs a bit more contrast. But then, I like high-contrast images, so that's probably my personal taste. I think just a couple of ticks of the contrast slider would add a lot. You might try it. One question about this, though. If you're using two or more images for the composite, do you do PP work on each one individual and them put them together? Or do you wait and do all the PP work on the final image?

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

My critical eye tells me the shadows are wrong. Combining two images also includes getting the light and shadows to be the same. The shadows are in opposite directions, both people and planes. If the light is from the right then the lattice would be showing of the taller person. The shadow of the second plan says the light is from the left. The foreground plane and person shadows says the light is from the right. This causes me to miss the story.

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

The shadows from both men and their planes are clearly seen on the ground, in the correct position. I know it's the correct position because I made no changes involving any shadows. The lattice is about 30 feet away from the men so there would be no shadow from these men on the lattice. There is a shadow on the lattice; it is from someone standing in front of the lattice and is hidden by the guy in the yellow jacket. One other point ... I checked the metadata and the two photos I used were taked 15 minutes apart. Yes I know the sun moves and shadows will swing around - that is not the case here. Bottom line is ... I do not see incorrect shadows or shadows in opposite directions so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

I agree the shadows are fine and not enough time lapse to be a problem. It took me a minute to notice the broken plane but once I did the "story" was clear. :)

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

I need to correct something I wrote ... The shadow on the lattice was of a person standing in front of the lattice - it was actually cast by a red post in front of the lattice. The post is hidden by the man in the yellow jacket. BTW, people with a critical eye might notice that I removed the guy (and his shadow) standing near the lattice.

Nightski

I think it would be better if the subjects were not merging and if the planes were not cut off at the edge. If you are going to crop .. commit.

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

You are correct. Unfortunately, the dejected guy's photo had his plane cut off as you see it. The other guy's photo had to be enlarged some to get the proper proportions and the tail of his plane got lopped off in the process. I looked at this and thought ... "Well, they are both cut off more or less equally ...". Oh well, you are still correct. Thank you for your comment.