All the world's a stage-in the ruins of a church.
Now I really like that shot. Especially the invitation of the missing section of fence. I considered a collapsed roof to explain the lighting, but couldn't explain the absence of that kind of debris, or any reason for it to have been cleared away.
What an evocative, haunting, intricate, and beautiful scene! Not sure I agree that the dark foreground should be cropped out; for me it (pardon the pun) sets the stage. Gorgeous lighting on a holy catastrophe. Agree with Linda, EXCEPT that I wouldn't mind knowing the "how." Wouldn't ruin it at all for me. I'm also wondering, now that you've shown us the exterior, whether I'd have had the courage to set foot under a roof that had already partially collapsed....
cabunit wrote:
What an evocative, haunting, intricate, and beautiful scene! Not sure I agree that the dark foreground should be cropped out; for me it (pardon the pun) sets the stage. Gorgeous lighting on a holy catastrophe. Agree with Linda, EXCEPT that I wouldn't mind knowing the "how." Wouldn't ruin it at all for me. I'm also wondering, now that you've shown us the exterior, whether I'd have had the courage to set foot under a roof that had already partially collapsed....
Thanks for the comments. About the "how": as soon as I saw the scene, my mind recognized the great light. Than I saw it was a stage. Then that there was still scenery. That there was obvious passing of time.
Only took a few shots of different fields of view and framing (18-55mm Nikon lens).
In post processing, I burned some lit areas soas not to distract from the stage. Brought up the stage values a bit so things were barely recognizable instead of near invisible in the darkness, and did some sharpening.
This shot was one of those gifts.
I shot 59 pix on this excursion, and am down to about 12. Likely will end up with even less. At the time, I didn't know this would be the outstanding shot, having several others in mind—as usual.
artBob wrote:
About the "how"...
Thanks (sorry Linda, don't look!)--appreciate the info, and can certainly identify with a) the culling of the original image set, and b) seeing the potential of some compositions after the shoot. I know a great photographer "gets it" right away, and works a scene to distill a particular presentation (and so on, and so on); guess I'm still working on that!
Be careful photographing inside old buildings. Have you heard of Richard Nickel?
cacompton wrote:
Be careful photographing inside old buildings. Have you heard of Richard Nickel?
Who is he? Something dastardly must have befallen him?
fergmark wrote:
Who is he? Something dastardly must have befallen him?
A wonderful photographer who took pix of historic buildings and their decorations before, and sometimes during, their razing. In one that was being razed he died, killed by falling debris.
artBob wrote:
A wonderful photographer who took pix of historic buildings and their decorations before, and sometimes during, their razing. In one that was being razed he died, killed by falling debris.
Such dedication to the cause. I have seen a photo of a photographer looking through the viewfinder, camera on tripod, and the feet of the tripod are catching fire, and his own sneakers are as well. He's on a lava flow, apparently completely engrossed.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.