Mr Kimmerle’s galleries contain an assortment of images that has fascinated me for quite some time. What interest me the most is why he took them. They contain a combination of subjects that seem to be at odds with one another and lack almost any human interest. They are so different that I couldn’t figure out how he decided that one thing was worth shooting over another. After following his work on Facebook I think I understand some of it. Here, in my opinion, is an image that Chuck would be attracted to. But, of course, I didn’t shoot it for Chuck’s sake. I found it interesting as well. What do you think?
Full disclosure, I had not seen any of Mr. Kimmerle’s work, but I did visit his website before offering my comments. Also, I very rarely include any “hand of man” in my images, so please keep that in mind when viewing my comments.
At first I thought this was all about the deteriorating one room house, but as I studied it more I am drawn more to the photogenic tree and it’s protective presence. It speaks to me about nature’s inevitable perseverance when we are gone. Also the little brick structure next to the house is an interesting contrast and makes me questions it’s purpose?
I have to agree that Chuck would have appreciated this scene.
Thank you Alan for commenting on this image. I’m actually not entirely clear about the ‘hand of man’ rules on NPN 2.0. NPN 1.0 had a category for hand of man and therefore the landscape forum did not allow any of it. now it allows it but the moderators may be predisposed against it. I see it now on this forum to various degrees. My suspicion is that cityscapes or indoor scenes are naturally out but when it exists within nature it is acceptable. I found this quote on Chuck’s website:
Blockquote
My landscape work centers primarily around the intersections of where man and nature meet. I find that these areas, which now seem to be the norm of our landscape, can offer an insight and significance which are often missing for me when working solely in nature.
No mystery as to why you, or any curious photographer, would be attracted to this scene. Abandonment is a passion of mine as well and I think that while there is a building in this scene, the tree is a testament to the fact that nature will pretty much always win. It can be interpreted as a victory for nature and a defeat for humans, or more particularly, a defeat for the humans who tried to make a go of something at this location and failed.
In terms of composition - I like that the tree trunk shows up in the window behind the door and that you’ve lined them up this way. The tight crop increases an anxious feeling when looking at it. Like you don’t want to give up on this little community, but have to. Maybe a slight step to the left and back to include more of the concrete apron, but I don’t know how that would affect the tree in the window which is more important.
Thank you for your comment. Yes, this appears to be a small abandoned community near the highway. I have passed this building many times and am always impressed by it. To me it’s a house with horns. That’s the impression you get when you see it. The dead tree seems to come right out of the house as though part of it. I have tried to convey that look but am not sure it’s there. I have shot it from many angles (my sprained knee can attest to that) and this seems closest to what I’m trying to get across. I have shot it with greater space around it, have included the fence in front of it. have shot from different sides, and even shot the interior. You can’t darken the sky for drama because you lose the impact of the tree.
Once the lighting was determined and the perspective I made small adjustments in the composition. The content of the window and doorway didn’t play a role but I did want separation between this building and the small one in back. So I moved more to the right than I really wanted to . I actually like the presence of those building and the water tower.
Hi Igor, The image is interesting to me. The house and the tree both in states of decay lead me to think about the differences and the similarities in each. Both trees and houses experience decay and renewal over time, and they also sometimes decay completely without renewal. In this photo the tree and the building seem to be connected and at the same stage. They both appear to be on the edge of potential renewal or full decay back into raw elemental materials. The contrasting highlights and shadows on each are interesting as well. Finally, I like the angle of the building with the corner being closest to the camera and the leading lines which add a three-dimensional perspective.
Yes, Igor, as I’ve been reflecting this image . . .It feels a bit sad and lonely, a neglected home and environment. The black/white processing works well, for me, as it emphasizes the somberness. While I do understand your need to included the water tower, if it were mine, I wouldn’t have as I feel just having the small house and tree would be enough for me. Having looked at Chuck Kimmerle’s work I can see and enjoy the similarities.
Similar to @Alan_Kreyger , I also rarely include hand of man in my landscapes. I only say that to suggest that you should take my comments with a grain of salt, I don’t have much experience with this genre of photography. I like the composition as presented. I like having the repetition of the second, similar looking abandoned building in the background. And to have that second building you need to include the water tower and the telephone pole. I also like having these other elements because they add a sense of depth too. I like that you stood right in front of the corner of the big house, it helps create some nice diagonal lines. And the processing looks good, I love the tonality gradient in the sky. Nice work Igor.
Definitely in the vein of Chuck K. And nicely done - great tones and composition. Personally, I like this kind of photo. The intersection of natural and man-made is fascinating, and its this kind of scene, where nature is winning, that I find especially interesting.
Thank you for your comments. After being with this one for a while now I’ve decided that I’m not happy with it. It just doesn’t have the impact that the subject has visually and I’m not sure why. I think it has to do with the tree itself. It needs more presence. A longer focal distance perhaps would have helped. But due to it’s tonality the house dominates the scene whereas the tree should have had at least equal weight, if not more. A cloudy sky won’t help either. Just a puzzle I guess.
