Title:
Hidden in Plain Sight
Mandate:
You know, those everyday things that go unnoticed?
For instance, when in Chicago a few weeks ago I noticed some drain pipes
coming down from the L. Where they met the street they'd built up quite a
patina of paint, weathering, dirt, and oily grease. In a way, they were
quite interesting, but they go unnoticed by all but those like us, the
artists, and psycho paths... ;-) Capture something like that. Try to make
it beautiful.
The Images:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/hidden
The Reviews:
Bret Douglas: not what I intended, not beautiful and an archive shot. Need
I say more? Keep trying, though, pal!
Jim Kramer: meets the mandate as there are many beautiful insects that go by
unnoticed (though the butterfly pushes that, as everyone tends to agree that
butterflies are beautiful...they even named a movie after it, or was that
butterflies are free? ;-)
The composition isn't particularly strong and the lighting is harsh.
Perhaps if you moved around 120 degrees to the right? ;-)
Brian Fane: I believe signs do meet the mandate--I'm often intrigued by them
myself. The trick is to get a decent image of them, and I feel this makes
strides towards that end. The lines of the image work well in moving one's
eye through the composition. The power lines are a bummer, and the
ground/sign could have been lightened a bit in Photoshop, a legitimate
darkroom technique, and so available to us in the Shoot-In. Well done
overall.
Al Denelsebeck: meets the mandate, and I appreciate that you at least walked
out the front door to get the shot. Could've worked more at lighting and
composition.
Bowser: You're spot on the money in terms of mandate, though the fact that
the tide hides these is besides the point. The shapes in the sand are
interesting enough, and would escape the notice of most passerby. Now I
think you need to go back and get your feet muddy, getting down low with a
wide angle lens and really filling the frame with that subject.
Ken Nadvornick: Good one Ken, though I'm not sure exactly what you were
thinking in terms of the mandate. That's beside the point, as I can see
that the overall scene is quite interesting, with a certain aesthetic beauty
to it that could be easily overlooked by the casual passerby, and which
you've managed to capture quite well. There's also the homeless man, and
they do tend to be hidden in plain sight, if for no other reason than eye
contact often results in solicitation. The foot bridge on the left is a bit
distracting.
Matt Clara: Certainly one of the loveliest of the bunch, though as Jim
pointed out, it's been done before and so may not be the strongest candidate
for the mandate--still, the average passerby wouldn't give this area a
second glance. This image would have been improved 100% if only the leading
edge of the mushroom cap was in focus. (I have another roll with more
attempts, so I'm sure I've got at least one that will be "perfect"!) This
is my personal favorite for this mandate, though I may be a bit biased...
;-) Still, it fulfills the mandate and is well composed and "beautiful",
which I perhaps did not emphasize enough in this mandate when I said "try to
make it beautiful."
Eric Quesnel-Williams: You've got the right idea, and not a bad image,
though I'd crop more from the bottom. The cabin certainly is hidden in
plain sight, though, again, not exactly what I intended.
Steve McCartney: again, I think signs have lots of potential for this
mandate. These seem to have some irony going on, what with Power Av getting
cut short. The power lines do accentuate "Power Av", too.
R. Schenck: It's true, art like this is overlooked by the people passing it
by everyday. Then again, art like this is crap. Not your photo, just the
sculpture, and just my opinion. Not a bad image of it, though a wider lens
might have made it more powerful. The sloppy crop with the big white
triangle in the upper left corner is, um, sloppy.
Mike Henley: not sure what's hidden in plain sight, unless it's the London
Camera Exchange.
Vic Mason: again, not what I intended, though, if not for the telephone
poles in the foreground this could have been a powerful shot.
Brian Baird: Great shot, and exactly what I intended. Archive loses
points, as it's easy to go to one's archive and pull a great shot that fits
the mandate.
That's all folks. Hope I wasn't too hard on y'all, and sorry they grew
progressively shorter, but I got tired of it!

Signature
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Sabineellen - 21 Jul 2004 03:20 GMT
>Mike Henley: not sure what's hidden in plain sight, unless it's the London
>Camera Exchange.
It's the photographer/camera that was hidden in plane sight. It's a play on how
often we're watched without realizing it.
Ken Nadvornick - 21 Jul 2004 04:32 GMT
> Ken Nadvornick: Good one Ken, though I'm not sure exactly what you were
> thinking in terms of the mandate. That's beside the point, as I can see
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> contact often results in solicitation. The foot bridge on the left is a bit
> distracting.
Hi Matt,
I found your comments very interesting - and helpful. Thanks for both the
theme and the reviews of everyone's efforts.
Actually, you alluded to exactly what I was thinking for the mandate when
you mentioned the "homeless" man as being a hidden individual - and hidden
not by his actions, but by ours. However, as I mentioned earlier in
response to Jim Kramer's comments, I did not initially presume the gentleman
to be homeless (a "bum"). I simply saw a sleeping individual who had found
a small niche (closed on five out of a possible six sides) in which to hide
out for a nap within a large, bustling city. Interesting that so many seem
to automatically assume him to be indigent. He may well have been, but I do
not know it to be so.
I immediately saw this image as an overlapping, three-layered composition
with the added benefit of converging lines on the left center. That's one
reason I included the foot bridge on the left. It's angle was counterpoint
to the receding highway bridge. Taken together, the lines all draw
attention away from the person, thus contributing, I felt, to his "hidden"
condition. I did, however, worry that not enough of the foot bridge was
included to balance the highway. That you found it distracting hits the
problem dead on and confirms those very worries. (Thanks!)
Regarding the "beautiful" portion of the mandate, there are, of course, many
different interpretations. This subject was mostly gray concrete of varying
shades which I was pretty sure I could render reasonably well in a
silver-based B&W print. That and the high level of detail visible in the
negative (and mostly lost when one has only 800 pixels maximum per long
dimension to work with) make for a final print which one can gratifyingly
explore up close for additional content.
Finally, since this *is* an equipment group, it's also interesting to note
that the 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AIS manual Nikkor zoom lens used for this
picture proved to be unbelievably sharp in use. If you look in the distant
background to the left of the upper highway light pole you will see a faint
flag pole with flag raised rising from a building. Upon inspection of the
negative on a light table (using my trusty Hastings Triplet 10x hand
magnifier from my field geologist days) it is actually possible to see
sharply distinct individual strips in that flag. Amazing...
Regards,
Ken
jimkramer - 21 Jul 2004 06:03 GMT
> Title:
> Hidden in Plain Sight
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> The composition isn't particularly strong and the lighting is harsh.
> Perhaps if you moved around 120 degrees to the right? ;-)
The insects are there only to accentuate the pile of, Oh wait, this might be
polite company, The "puppy land-mine." I've five rather large dogs and they
tend to leave piles, also rather large, that when stepped in get violently
sworn at as nothing that big should be so hard to see, i.e. hidden in plain
sight.
The lighting is harsh, direct flash rather close, but I wanted to bring out
the colors and details on the scales on the butterfly; not that this
compressed image shows particularly well.
I was stalking the butterfly and took a series of shots as I got closer, I
chose this particular one because of the flies, which I didn't see until
after I went back to look at the images.
Now, if I had tried to take it from another angle I would have been standing
in another said pile-o'-poo and swearing up a storm and producing a rather
large shadow over my subject. ;-) But in all seriousness, by the time I was
that close there were several four-footed-friends that wanted to "help," and
I use that term loosely, because whatever I am doing has to be at least a
thousand times more interesting than what they were doing, and the butterfly
said g'bye.
Thanks for taking the time to comment Matt,
Still Cranky, but now comfortably numb and ramblin', Jim
I.Reject.Spam@my.isp - 21 Jul 2004 15:47 GMT
Archived from "Matt Clara" <critics@large.com> on Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:53:48
GMT:
>Vic Mason: again, not what I intended, though, if not for the telephone
>poles in the foreground this could have been a powerful shot.
What telephone poles... Thanks for your comments. ;) Vic
Brian C. Baird - 21 Jul 2004 23:57 GMT
> Brian Baird: Great shot, and exactly what I intended. Archive loses
> points, as it's easy to go to one's archive and pull a great shot that fits
> the mandate.
I could have re-shot that photo, have you know!. It rained last Friday
and the tree is still there, so I could have taken a new picture and
snuck it by. But I figured I'd be honest - rehashing an old photo is
still an old photo.
Thanks for you comments.
Al Denelsbeck - 22 Jul 2004 03:47 GMT
> Title:
> Hidden in Plain Sight
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> The Reviews:
<snip>
> Al Denelsebeck: meets the mandate, and I appreciate that you at least
> walked out the front door to get the shot. Could've worked more at
> lighting and composition.
Lighting is a little bit of a tricky thing when the camera has, at
best, a 9,5% "partial" meter and the light off the leaves is three stops
different, but hey ;-). I was more concerned, however, with the fact that
my friend was very much aware that I was there and not happy about it - it
was a matter of time before he bolted. I was lucky and got a better pose
out of him, but within a second or so he had left the plant itself.
And I'm not sure I'll even make it out the door for the next mandate
;-)
Thanks for the commentary! Time consuming, isn't it?
- Al.

Signature
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net