who i was vs. who i am.

the longer i stay at this whole photography thing, the more interesting i’m finding it is to view photos over time.

when i revisit locations, i find that i often gravitate to things i have shot before for obvious reasons- if they interested me the first time to come over and work with them, theyre probably going to catch my eye again. but i find it interesting the different way i may approach something the second time around. some of these things i was fully aware i had shot during my last trip, i was curious if i could make it look different this time.

this past saturday i visited a new england hospital i first visited about 10 months ago. ive noticed looking between the two sets of photos that i also process my photos differently on the computer. im keeping them less saturated.

this post is slightly self indulgent and naval gazing, but when i think about it, just about every post in this blog is. but based on the subject matter i am filling this blog with, my thoughts on photography, my photography, my explorations, etc- i guess it’s kind of hard not to be.

self-indulgence is something i continually wrestle with, to the point where i am so concerned with coming off as full of myself that i end up have zero self confidence altogether. but more on that in another post.

anyway.

the only equipment difference in these photos is that the ones from may of 2007 were shot with an 18-55 f3.5-5.6 or something to that effect nikkor lens- the kit lens that comes with a Nikon D50. now i am shooting with i believe an 18-50 f2.8 nikkor lens, far superior in quality and barrel distortion to its predecessor. the difference is like driving a 1979 honda civic and a 2008 mercedes benz, in my opinion.

may 2007

march 2008

set up nearly the same except i clipped out that light doorway on the left. colors are completely different. completely. much less saturated in my newer shot.

may 2007

march 2008

first time i came up real close on that sink, and the barrel distortion of the cheap lens is very obvious in the top of the doorframes. this time i pulled back more to show more of the room but still cropped and centered it so there was still somewhat of a sense of symmetry. and once again, much less saturated color. i think i used to pump up the saturate meter in photoshop’s raw software. i can’t remember. even now i sometimes give it a small bump if a photo seems like it needs it, but only 5 or ten points.

this isn’t an identical shot, but it is a shot in the same room. and it’s of the same chair, which has migrated to the other end of the room. that always creeps me out very slightly when i revisit a place and things have moved. i am well aware its from other explorers posing and setting up their shots….but its still very strange to leave a place and return a year later to find all of the furniture and objects have seemingly grown legs and moved about the room, when this place is supposedly abandoned and dead, for all intents and purposes.

may 2007

march 2008

completely different colors again. less green. first shot is too empty in the foreground also. i’m not saying the second one is a completely success by any means, but i like it better than the first one.

of course, the famous theater.

may 2007

march 2008

i’m not sure how i feel about this one. i think the warmer pumped up colors actually work to the photos advantage in the first one as opposed to the second one. im not completely sold in either direction.

and finally, the violent ward.

may 2007

march 2008

i think i might actually like the composure of the first shot better. i do like the second one. but when placed side by side….the second one is much busier in the center hallway section than that first one. and i think the quieter composure of the first one may work a little better. the symmetry of the doors in that first one definitely does work better.