When I walked the kids to school this morning, we passed this pair of shoes on the sidewalk.
"Those were there yesterday," Aidan commented.
I dropped the kids at the front door, encouraged them to bless their teachers, then started back home. I glanced down at the shoes as I came upon them again but walked past.
Then I stopped and turned around.
I had my camera (my Olympus E-M5 with the 45mm lens) and had intended to photograph something. I'd seen a patch of yellow daffodils along our school route and was going to make a picture of them. But here I was and here was a subject.
Why not the shoes?
I took a couple minutes and made 9 frames altogether.
I started from one knee and took a few pictures. No.
Then I flipped out the monitor on the back of the camera to get a lower angle (I didn't feel like laying on the ground although I've done it before). A couple more frames including the one at the top of the post.
I stood up, looked around for another composition. Made this one.
What's interesting (to me, anyway) is how the two photographs tell two completely different stories--even though the subject matter is the same.
The first image is interesting for technical reasons. It is simple--minimal, really--in that it includes nothing but the essentials. A leading line to draw your eye to the subject.
The second image, however, provides more context for the subject. A street, some houses, a couple cars. These shoes have been lost, abandoned. You wonder, "How did these shoes get here? Who lost them? Does that person have any shoes now?"
Both images work and I like them both for different reasons. Which do I prefer? Maybe the first because I like its simplicity. It's hard to say.
It's interesting, though, how a slightly different composition creates a different mood and a different story.
Which one do you like best?