1. I think Koudelka focused on the places to show the emptiness of the location. You can tell he is trying to create a feeling isolation due to the contamination of the area, and you can’t achieve that with people in the picture (plus they probably didn’t want to come anywhere near it).
2. The captions definitely make the picture more ominous. At first glance you might just see dirty objects in the middle of nowhere but then you read the captions and find out that landscape is not dirty, it’s contaminated.
3. I don’t think these pictures would be as effective if they weren’t panorama. I think it really captures the landscape and the emptiness.
4. I think Koudelka presents these photos in black and white to portray the desolation and destruction by the explosion. Plus I don’t think these pictures would be too colorful anyway.
5. These pictures make me feel as if I am right there looking at the destruction. I think I would feel differently about these photos if they were taken from a different angle, like a birds-eye view. I think it would less effective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
yes - the "angle" is everything, although it can be overdone a bit, particularly recently; we really mean the "perspective" - I often like to get down low
Post a Comment