Perhaps I should get things in proportion

Rhiannon Nov 22, 2005 15:22:40

This is only a teaspoon-sized stir, I hope.

Looking at the lovely photos by Jimit* and others on the Coldrum page, it occurred to me that I have no idea how big those stones are. I mean they could be quite big (I have an inkling they are quite big) but at the same time they could be knee high. Am I right in thinking that (since issues raised about people taking photos of themselves rather than of stones), people are conspicuous by their absence in most photos submitted? I don't want to get all prescriptive but the odd scale-revealing thing in a picture would be quite useful sometimes, wouldn't it? Not in an arty shot obviously. Just sometimes. Or am I missing subtle clues.

(*obviously not directed at Jimit specifically)

PeterH Nov 22, 2005 15:30:31

Replying to Rhiannon

Totally agree and it can be done effectively without always plonking an unwilling partner or child in front. One pic with something like a rucksac, trekking pole or metre rule if you are a poseur - then another pic without.

Littlestone Nov 22, 2005 15:51:00

Replying to Rhiannon

>...the odd scale-revealing thing in a picture would be quite useful sometimes...<

A horse is quite nice if you've got one with you :-)

Funnily enough I've just posted a 1923 aerial photo of Stonehenge on http://megalithicpoems.blogspot.com/ and the horse and people do give scale to the place.

Vybik Jon Nov 22, 2005 15:52:13

Replying to Rhiannon

Quite right.

This is about 10-12 feet tall:

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/41258

moss Nov 22, 2005 16:17:43

Replying to Rhiannon

Obviously everyone needs a dog for scale rather than a horse, as those long painted rulers are difficult to stuff into a rucksack. Moss needs a ball to keep him happy and is brilliant at tackling wild farm dogs. Hes also fascinated by the inside of longbarrows, which presumably means that a lot of local wildlife (animals) visit these sites....

Rhiannon Nov 22, 2005 16:19:00

Replying to Rhiannon

An example that pops to mind is Hob's photo here
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/36817
You'd think, without the addition of Mrs H, that the stone was person-sized (is that an inbuilt tendency, to assume they're person sized? Maybe there's something in this human turned to stone thing). Unless that's not Mrs H but a pixie of course.

Spaceship mark Nov 22, 2005 18:01:25

Replying to Rhiannon

When photographing big menhirs in Brittany I often find that, if I put myself in the picture, I'm totally shocked by how big the stones are, even though I'm stood right by them...

CianMcLiam Nov 22, 2005 23:55:39

Replying to Rhiannon

Hmmm a very useful observation. I have been guilty of using perspective and depth of field tricks to play tricks with scale (Although it looks like you could trip over this before seeing it , its over seven feet tall: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/34310) so a few more goofy, awkward, trying-to-look-as-casual-as-possible-without-looking-like-an-Eminem-poster self timer shots, and less eye-chafing colour explosions are in order.

I wonder is using that many hyphens illegal?

Jane Nov 23, 2005 11:03:47

Replying to Rhiannon

I've always been a big fan of having people/dogs/horses/things in shots for scale purposes. I was under the impression it was a little bit frowned upon round these parts for not being 'pure' or 'arty' or descriptive or sumfink. Despite the fact I believe its a *tiny* bit frowned upon, I do it anyway, because I think it IS helpful to understand the scale of a place.

PeterH Nov 24, 2005 07:56:49

Replying to Rhiannon

Six people and a horse in today's latest photos. How about that for quick response.

elderford Nov 25, 2005 11:38:02

Replying to Rhiannon

...as a uniform standard of measurement to placed in all photos.

£2 coin for those of you who have more money than sense.