52-week photoproject – Week 47


Inner self
Canon EOS 500D, 55-250 mm, 1/8 at f/8, -0,67 EV, 250 mm, ISO 100


    1. Linda, I’m pleased you also find the sculpture interesting, it spoke to me.
      The caption surely is self-descriptive, but just partly. I’m quite different inside as opposed to what people can see from the outside but I don’t put that mask on deliberately… 😉

  1. I may sound a bit unfair, but is this more than a fine reproduction of another artist's work (bearing the title of your blog in mind)? Their is a continuous discussion going about the value of depicting other people's art without adding something to it; that is, to do something that makes it you own.

    1. Well, Rune, it sounds a bit unfair to me. The object of this project is to use my camera regularly and learn along that way in many respects so if you find this to be a fine reproduction, that’s good enough to me. Nevertheless, unlike you, I can see the added value. I found something which had a thought and tried to capture it and then process it in such a way to make the thought even more prominent than it actually was. I chose the best detail I found and suppressed the colours which were rather weakening the message. I tried hard to get the capture technically right with the proper lighting and appropriate settings. I believe that the interpretation makes it my own though the art work itself is someone else’s.

      Anyway, thanks for that point of view, it’s good to see all the angles… bearing the title of my blog in mind. 😉

    1. OK, Rune, you’re forgiven. 🙂
      I agree that it’s good to pay attention to what’s going on in photography quarters, a bit of philosophy won’t hurt anyone. Discussion is good for arriving at one’s own opinions and I welcome that. If you had started with the words that it is a fine reproduction, it would have sounded much different.

  2. I like the fact that the sculptor has used both a fan and a mask for the girl to hide behind. Then again it's all about dropping your guard and revealing the wry smile behind it. In itself the comments and the smile kind of go together in my mind … "this is my picture and I'm not going to reveal much of myself in it, I'll let everyone else guess what's going on". In my own mind I thought that what you have done by "mono chroming" the image is to create a picture set in stone. I presume that the background was a variety of garden colours in which case it wouldn't have worked very well

    1. J, thank you for sharing your point of view. The original statue stands in a small park, is made of sandy coloured material – it might be clay, and is partly covered by orange specks, grey dirt and green moss so transforming the capture into a monochrome has made it much more prominent and expressive. In the background there were bushes with dark green leaves and brown branches, again the monochrome hid the disturbing elements. In the foreground there were flowers which I eventually cropped out as they were too light and disturbing as well. As I’ve mentioned in one of the comments above, I find it to be a fine reproduction enhancing the original.

Leave a Reply to Gail Dixon Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *