760 – Wild Things Run Fast

Bicycles are nice, but let’s see more riders, did Ted demand. Well, here we go 🙂

I saw this guy coming at high speed and barely had time to focus on the place where I wanted to capture him. It is not tack sharp, but it turned out quite OK.

The other two images of today are bicycles only. All three have been converted with DxO Optics Pro used as import filter for Photoshop. That’s another thing that irritates me: DxO seems to strip EXIF data, at least it is not carried over to Photoshop. On the other hand, maybe I should take some time and RTFM 🙂

The other image has something mysterious to me. I guess it must come from the fire hydrant in the foreground and from this suggestion of hiding and peeping.

The Song of the Day is “Wild Things Run Fast” from Joni Mitchell’s 1982 album of the same name. Hear it on YouTube.

8 thoughts on “760 – Wild Things Run Fast”

  1. Andreas this is spectacularly cinematic.

    I’ve been involved in discussions re. what makes an image cinematic versus theatrical. Hmmmm… I think it’s like an elephant… difficult to describe but you knows it when you sees it?

    regardless… this POPS! A terrific compliment to your inspired bicycle series. Haven’t used this word in a while…. “WOW!”

  2. Are you outta your effen mind? DxO Optics Pro costs $269 bucks! For a noise filter? Huh? I hope it also takes you out on a date and pays for the wine! Wuttiz going on? I’ve got to look reeeeeeely closely at your image here to consider the noise level. Yipes… Since you’ve made the investment, of course by now you’ve got to love it. But what made you try it in the first place? Especially since it has so little utility beyond noise reduction… Or least that’s the impression I got from their website.

    ZOWIE!…. No, let me use that word again… “WOW!”

  3. Thanks 🙂

    What I have is the “Standard” version, not “Elite”. “Elite” is only needed for full frame cameras and middle format. Should I really buy the D700 anytime (does not look like it at the moment), then I’d need to upgrade. This way it was only €150 including taxes. Still, that would be much for a noise filter.

    It is no noise filter though. It’s a RAW converter, and it is a better RAW converter than Adobe Camera RAW. And that by a margin. Especially in high ISO color images I like the way it presents noise. It simply looks good to me.

  4. Hmmmm… (suspicious look on my face)… well perhaps DXO does a good jog at overcoming noise. As for the argument that it’s more than a noise filter… Perhaps I need to try the demo. However That 10 euros still translates into a healthy dollar number.

    But… but… my more cosmic questions remain… (1) What is the distinction between a cinematic image and a theatrical image. (2) How distinguishes them as a class from other forms of fine art photography? Do each of them imply that a story is presented? Or that a story arc is mounted?

    Do all “Decisive Moment” images fall into one or the other of those categories? May any “scenic” image fall into one of those categories? Are abstracts automatically excluded? I’m guessing that Andrew Wyeth paintings fall into the cinematic-theatrical school, but Jackson Pollack wouldn’t be allowed in the door?

    Hmmmmm…… ?

  5. Ted,

    I just tried to locate the discussion about theatrical vs. cinematic that you mentioned, but obviously it did not happen on your blog. Thus I have neither an idea of the original question nor the state of the discussion. In fact I can’t remember having seen this distinction in connection with photography any time before.

    I guess it is pretty clear what cinematic could mean. It’s something that visualizes a moment (decsive? not necessarily) in a story. Aaron Hobson’s work is a fine example, see also his portfolio site, and of course someone like Gregory Crewdson.

    Theatrical? No idea what a theatrical image would be. Certainly no abstrat either, huh?

    Do we need a story? Well, I guess we do. Not much of it, a hint is enough, and I think that the most successful cinematic images start different stories in different viewer’s heads, a certain vagueness and openness being part of the quality. Thus it would not be a real story but a strong trigger to make one up.

    Regarding Andrew Wyeth and Jackson Pollock, yes, I think that’s mostly correct. Of course abstracts can trigger the invention of a story, but if they do so, they certainly won’t do it in a majority of viewers. Yes, if anything of that makes any sense, then Wyeth is mostly cinematic (or maybe theatrical, whatever the distinction would mean) and Pollock or Kandinsky are mostly not.

Comments are closed.