Comments: the triangle

tringles were always my favorite shape. cool image!

Posted by Nitsa at November 24, 2004 12:57 AM

Oh yay!! Another photo from my university and yet somehow there has been no photo of my university. ahem ahem (coughing and clearing throat) 'hint hint - wink wink'.

There are some pretty hideous looking statues and works of art at York. I think the art department kinda dropped the ball on decorating the place. However, some of the architecture is really nice and "most" photo worthy (quoting fellow torontonian Keanu Reaves).

As for this photo. The dark image of the pole and the plane are "most" disturbing to my eyes. How in the world did you get a photo of these two in such a bright setting and yet looking so dark. I guess the lighting was incorrect and badly positioned. Did you try to silloette these two on purpose? The end effect to my eyes are that your photo looks very fake to me. I believe this photo is real of course. Just the effect looks so unreal to me. Somewhat surreal I guess. Not one of my favorites even though the colours are pretty and I like my university so much.

Posted by scott at November 24, 2004 01:10 AM

mediocre

Posted by Henry at November 24, 2004 01:29 AM

Very nice shot!

Posted by Felipe at November 24, 2004 01:46 AM

It will be an insult to the city to post photos of York before posting pictures of the beautiful UofT. While York has many ugly parts, UofT has maybe one or two... no offense :)

Posted by anon at November 24, 2004 02:14 AM

in my opinion theres too much post-processing going on here (and previous photos), in this case too much saturation. shouldn't using photoshop on a photo be like a girl using makeup? you know you've nailed it when it looks natural. if you need to process it to the point that it looks unnatural, you probably dont have something special on your hands.

on the other hand i really like some of your other photos, and I check this site daily, (and its 100x better than my site) so take my criticisms as constructive.

Posted by ben at November 24, 2004 07:26 AM

i was hoping for pics of the grey cup parade

Posted by justin at November 24, 2004 08:25 AM

Another bird?

Posted by Kevin at November 24, 2004 10:10 AM

I agree, i do think there is a little bit too much post processing going on here. as beautiful as the clouds look, it almost seems like a snapshot from a videogame. I like the photo, but i think it would be better if it were a little more natural.

Posted by Grant at November 24, 2004 11:30 AM

i didnt even see the moon till i closed the comments box. try moving the comments box over the left side of the photo then over the left. the difference is dramatic. I think i like the left better

Posted by Grant at November 24, 2004 11:31 AM

I'm with most of the other people, this one seems to have a bit to much done to it in photoshop, I've been coming to your site everyday for a long time... probably 7 or 8 months, and it seems like the amount of processing done in photoshop has increased as the months pass... Less is more! lol..

Posted by Brad at November 24, 2004 12:21 PM

Im with the others, to much photoshop here. It seems like you have been increasing the ammount of work your doing in photoshop lately... less is more!!!

Posted by Fotographie~BM~ at November 24, 2004 12:23 PM

Yeah, the processing is a tab bit much. The pure blue top, to the nastier- light/gray/blue, put underneath fake-looking clouds :( . The plane is depressing too... Was this taken in the early morning/late evening? - the light is on...

o well, there's always tomorrow.

--
moscon

Posted by moscon at November 24, 2004 12:29 PM

Yeah, I think you pushed the saturation a bit too far on this one. The jpeg compression probably didn't help either. With the saturation pulled down by 50% or so I think it will look a lot more natural (esp. for the time of day this was taken) and pleasing to the eye. Not crazy about the subject matter either. I guess the moon makes it somewhat interesting but the whole plane-in-the-sky shot is such a photoblog cliché, doncha think?

Posted by Andrew at November 24, 2004 12:48 PM

Not much to see, not much to say.

Posted by Henk Bakker at November 24, 2004 01:12 PM

All of you whiners are forgetting something. This is art, not photo realism. What does it matter how the shot is processed?
What about B+W photography? Isn't that technically under processed?
eg:"The shot appears to be entirely devoid of any colouration at all! I couldn't see the blue of the sky."
It is about the visual impact, not the tools used.

BTW, not the greatest shot today.

Posted by qoJ at November 24, 2004 05:04 PM

I totally agree with qoJ. There is too much emphasis on technical details in modern photography. For me the emotion is very important. Today's picture doesn't really give me an emotion. But usually I really like Sam's photography. And that might be a personal thing.

Posted by Henk Bakker at November 24, 2004 05:57 PM

I'm not with the others, I like the softness of the clouds and the hue and the contrasting sharpness of the 3 objects in the image. I just wished you'd wait a second or two longer so the plane would be right above the lamp-post.

Posted by Mike M at November 24, 2004 05:58 PM

As I've mentioned before I like the breadth of your work (and your sense of color and space, take THAT cliche fighters!).

Styles of yours I've identified

(1) industrial decay (from whitbies to dried paint)
(2) colors of fall
(3) mise en scene (the cops, the glass floors)
(4) streetcars, blurry, subset of some russian camera fetish I've not fully researched I think

and now, finally, what's been before me a long time

(5) shots with unobstrusive flying details, usually a bird midflap but this time a plane hanging in a frame that might have done without it, but which is made better by it's inclusion. Maybe I'm just still high off seeing the bird sillhouette last time.

daily dose as always. cheers

Posted by unger at November 24, 2004 06:10 PM

qoJ, I like this one, if only because I finally figured out a new category of sams and also I am a sucker for cloud images and surrealness (if it comes from photoshop or not, I don't know and care only a little).

Which is to say, I agree totally on your processing comment. Jimi Hendrix was so-so, if only he hadn't used that electric guitar... an acoustic would have been more legit... actually, any instrument is too much tech, he should have only sang. Come to think of it, even singing is too technical, people should only make music from sounds emitted naturally throughout the day.

Don't get me wrong, photoshop complaining persons, you are only expressing your opinion that this shot should have been processed less (not that I'm confirming a belief it was processed too much)... as qoJ did, I only malent the general trend of art purism that implies tools, and specialized tools, are somehow less authentic.

We're talking photos here! the only authentic photos are memories. And they're the least authentic of all!

Posted by unger at November 24, 2004 06:23 PM

this is one of my favorites

i don't care how it was achieved
technology is just a tool for art, as it has been forever

there is no intrinsic value or shame in using it

you bring to an image like this your own manipulation in evaluating it for meaning, pattern or aesthetic

-

Posted by rb at November 24, 2004 10:00 PM

I see Photoshop as the digital darkroom. It's a tool. It's there to be used.

Posted by Ali at November 24, 2004 10:50 PM

wow, gorgeous colors.

Posted by tanner at November 25, 2004 12:13 AM

it's ultra simple. but whoever said sam didn't post UofT photos before York's: you didn't look in sam's archives! sam had tons of UofT library photos, even ryerson's photos. so, pls, look hard before you say sth.

Posted by Peggy at November 25, 2004 07:43 PM

have you seen this photo site? similar image, yes?
http://www.davidoates.net/index.htm

Posted by middler at November 25, 2004 11:51 PM

i've been there a million times and i could never find beauty there. congrats.

Posted by rain at November 26, 2004 03:00 PM

Hey photoshop whiners...

Break Yourself!!
I love pinkinsh clouds against dingy sky. gorgeous

Posted by craiggiej at November 27, 2004 06:10 PM

hm, after thinking about my statement for awhile, that overprocessing is bad, i'd like to take it back. it would be kind of hypocritical because i often process the hell out of my pictures, and i think they end up looking much better, even though they aren't natural looking at all. i think my original point was more like, in this particular picture, something about the colors came off as kind of cheezy. after looking at it more though, cool triangle composition more than made up for it though.

Posted by ben at December 1, 2004 06:18 AM

i love this. any shots of the sky always seem beautiful to me, but this one seems to be subtler in a way. the paleness of the moon in contrast to the light and plane.

Posted by LAKC at January 7, 2005 10:15 AM
Post a comment










Remember personal info?


Note: your comments might not appear instantly due to comment moderation to prevent spamming.