Ranch, Moab, Utah, 2009 by Phil Douglis

Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Two: Travel Incongruities > Ranch, Moab, Utah, 2009


14-NOV-2009

Ranch, Moab, Utah, 2009

One horse makes all the difference here. This is a large ranch, rich in natural beauty. But without the single horse as a visually incongruous reference, it would just be a literal rendering. There were many horses grazing in the pasture on the left, as well as a cowboy to manage things. All of my shots except for this one were diluted by their presence. For a very brief moment, all of the other horses moved down to the base of the pasture, allowing me to crop them out of my frame. Only this sole horse remained, giving us the incongruous idea that this glorious field is his and his alone, at least for a moment.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1
1/320s f/4.5 at 72.0mm iso100 full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto

previous | next

Phil Douglis		28-Apr-2010 18:59
Thanks for returning to this image, Brian. Glad you now see even more incongruity at work. I waited for a long time to find a horse "alone" in this field -- there were so many of them, and as you note, they tend to function as a herd while grazing.

Guest		28-Apr-2010 08:50
It is helpful Phil, and it's great to come back to your site again and again as I learn and practice my own photography. Looking again here, I see the incongruity of a lone horse in all that space... it does look very odd, considering the fact that horses are a herd animal - it introduces real tension. Thanks again for this amazing resource you've created Phil - I really appreciate it, and hope that one day we may meet in person. Kind Regards Brian

Phil Douglis		04-Dec-2009 21:03
Your comments are always welcome, rambling or not, Brian. There can be incongruity in contrasts -- for example in this image, contrasting the small size of the lone horse here to the vast ranch produces an incongruity in scale. Contrasts usually offer comparisons, and the more thought provoking that comparison is, the stronger the chance for incongruity. In this image, I contrast not only the small horse to the large space, but also a pale tree to a bright tree. I see both comparisons as contrasts, but for me, the real incongruity here is the small scale of the horse compared to all of that space it has to roam within. I find myself thinking more about the freedom the space grants to the horse here, than the contrast of colors in the trees. Both work as part of the image, but the incongruous scale comparison of horse and field, which is the subject of the image itself, is more compelling to me and thus takes precedence over the contextual comparison of the trees. Hope this is helpful.

Guest		04-Dec-2009 14:21
Hi Phil, I'm finding it interesting to view the images in this section without the description - looking for the inconguity you saw in taking the photograph. Would you say that incongruities work better / are more powerful, the more obvious they are? The Big Hogan image, for instance was very obvious and very striking. This image is interesting - but I found myself searching for the incongruity (it's not that unusual to see one or two horses in fields around here)... I wondered whether it was the striking split in colour between the top right - including the bright tree... with the pale green of the fields and the pale tree to the left. I can see now that I've read your description that I'm confusing contrasts with incongruity here, but I'm still left wondering whether more obvious incongruities are better? Hope that's not too rambling - I'm learning a lot here... Thank You! :) Brian

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment