Avebury 3

[Pete Askew]

Still not sure about this one. I wanted the image and view to be dominated by the stone and I liked the way the curve could be made to bisect the scene, almost symmetrically. I think a moodier sky would have helped. Anyway, see what you think.

Leica M Monochrom + Zeiss Distagon M 18mm f1:4 + B+W 090 (light red) filter. ISO 320, 1/500s at f1:5.6. PP in LR and Nik SilverFX Pro 2.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I quite like it Pete ... I wonder if it not being all there is due to the stone not being grounded in anything? The lack of contact with anything looses some of the context and the feeling of the stone is lost a little.
but then looking again after putting the phone down to deal with Connie for a second ... I can see what I thought was missing ... I dunno, I got a migraine so it's probably best not to listen to me anyway

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I like it. The big monolith just photo bombs the scene It's like a whale exploding on the scene when you were fishing for minnows. A great timeless presence - deep, sombre, meaningful. I love it!

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks both (and sorry to hear about the migraine Hamish). Actually, funny you should mention a whale Rob (and I love that analogy - the idea of the monoliths grabbing the attention, which of course they do). When I was standing in front of the stone and thinking about how to show its presence, the idea of some great mammal (and despite being in the middle of Salisbury plain, a whale did come to mind) moving across the field of view did strike me. The idea of the stone occluding the view was my aim. Still not sure if I achieved that.

- - - Updated - - -

There's a couple more from Avebury on the Babelsberg site.

http://www.babelsberg-studio.com/default.asp

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Direct link, Pete? I couldn't see any there - lots of other interesting things, though!

 

[Pete Askew]

No, just to the site. If you select me as a photographer and then look through the galleries you'll find Avebury.

 

[Brian Moore]

I've gazed at it a while now. Is it the prow of a great paleolithic ship? I think maybe a moodier sky might have started to compete with the grays. Plus I like how the outer branches of the wee tree are rendered that much more soft and ethereal by the light in that area. I'm lichen it!

 

[Pete Askew]

That's how they got them there! And I thought it was aliens!

Thanks Brian. I think what is missing proper focal point. While the eye moving from stone to horizon helps give a sense of unease, if you will, there is something missing. A figure on the hill would have done it.

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

Can I come from a different angle after saying I like Robs take a lot.
The image has a dominant abstract quality that does not work with those irregular shapes, combined with the angle it is sitting at, it is not convincing as being anything in particular. But that is also it's strength which is what I like about it.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I'm seing it more as a statement

Nature is arranged in natural horizontal layers - grass, embankment, tree, sky, cloud etc

Man cuts across all that with a big bold statement - the monolith

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks Julian. I think the original idea of juxtaposing the stone with the landscape behind, with the stone becoming the dominant object was a nice idea. I then became interested in the mirroring of the space top and bottom in the frame. But for that to work it needs something else. And that is missing.

This was the original idea.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Found time just now to look at the babelsberg site. I like the unified pp on all the mages from this series. I try doing the same sometimes, but there's always one image at least which doesn't suit the chosen parameters. I like especially your Silbury-2 - can't resist a path shot

Good stuff, Pete, and a really good website.

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks Rob. I tend to create a recipe for a series and then vary areas with control points to suit a specific image. Basically what you'd do in the darkroom really.

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

Thanks Julian. I think the original idea of juxtaposing the stone with the landscape behind, with the stone becoming the dominant object was a nice idea. I then became interested in the mirroring of the space top and bottom in the frame. But for that to work it needs something else. And that is missing.

This was the original idea.

The original is more whole. Works better . On the cropped version I was going to suggest the square crop maybe did not work? Drawing this scene would be a way of highlighting the obvious, in that you draw as in any drawing, what are the so called the negative spaces, as well as the objects, even though the object may appear to be dominant, the space around an object creates the object as much as the object itself. Basically saying the spaces need to have value in themselves as much as the objects? Hope I conveyed a little of what I mean, as I find the way of seeing and visuals fascinating and how different it is for everyone. Even more so when it becomes three dimensional.
Looks like an amazing stone.

 

[Beth Carter]

i like the second one. the rock and hill frame the tree pretty well without leaving too much space up top.

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks Julian. Thanks Beth. I think the original idea does work the best, I just got carried away with the shape I saw when reviewing the image - never a good idea. Shooting so close to the stone does make it slight uncomfortable and that probably conveys the right sort of feeling.

 

[Steve Boykin]

I gotta go with Rob on this one. I like the way the curve of the stone works against the rigid square. Plus I really like the grain of the rock vs. the out focus areas of the hill/tree. What does it look like in color?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I think a figure on the hill would work if it was not posed but just happened to be there. Just my two cents (pence?).

 

[Nihat Iyriboz]

I like it, Pete. An abstract of wheat mill stone and the fields of wheat.. Historic!

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks Steve, thanks Nihat. Well, the stone was grey and the grass was green but I can't show you as it was shot in B&W with a red filter on a Leica Monochrom.

 

[Steve Boykin]

Thanks Steve, thanks Nihat. Well, the stone was grey and the grass was green but I can't show you as it was shot in B&W with a red filter on a Leica Monochrom.

Ok. I think B/W is better anyway.