Apparently you can’t teach an old photo-blogger new tricks, or maybe my taste in imagery hasn’t changed at all over the past two years. How else would you explain why yesterday I snapped a nearly identical photo of the same pile of rocks I’d blogged the last time I was in Bar Harbor two years ago?
Sep 26, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Funny you’d take the same shot twice. But what’s particularly interesting are the subtle changes that have taken place over the course of two years. 🙂
LikeLike
Sep 27, 2006 at 12:23 am
Snapping the same photo is quite understandable. I find it much more disturbing when I write the same post over again, though 🙂
LikeLike
Sep 27, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Yeah, I’m with Dale. Some posts I’ve written three times, now — roughly once a year. Fortunately, my readers all seem to have short memories.
LikeLike
Sep 27, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Think of it as consistency. You have a well-integrated personality. Or something like that. Yeah, that’s it. 🙂
LikeLike
Sep 27, 2006 at 10:15 pm
or.. the start of a long, long project – kind of the inverse of andy goldsworthy evanescence – an excuse to go back every year and document the change.
having vicariously so enjoyed this trip, I can hardly wait for you to go back next year!
LikeLike
Sep 27, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Ah, but look at how much clearer the picture is the second time around! 🙂
LikeLike
Sep 28, 2006 at 1:09 pm
The same, but very different. Your composer’s eye had registered the “best” shot for use later. But the photos have lighting conditions very dissimilar. The first has a lot more energy and verve, due to the high contrasting shadows. Even the greens are “newer” in the first. I am reminded of the Hudson school of landscape painters, who were absolutely fascinated with the inate qualities of light. Fun to see this post.
LikeLike
Sep 28, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Each one has its own qualities. The first one appears very moody :]
LikeLike
Sep 29, 2006 at 5:26 pm
seems kind of natural that your eye would be drawn to the same shadows and angles … you always have a knack for finding the view that pleases the eye.
the first, from 2004, seems (to me) more focused on what is directly in front of the lens, so the jutting angles of the rocks sort of squeeze everything else out of the picture,
whereas, the second, from 2006, seems to emcompass the entire landscape, including the horizon and sky, thereby presenting a more integrated view, while still allowing the angles and shadows of the rock to grab your attention.
which is my way of saying I like them both, because I’ve always been a devoted fan of the subtle angles and shadows you consistently present for our viewing pleasure. (*smile*)
LikeLike