Shells on a table

[marc_rochkind]

[michael_kucinich]

I like the strong diagonal lines created by the wooden table and your angle of view. I'm not sure about the number of shells on the table. Perhaps a different arrangement or less, perhaps just one would simplify the image and make it stronger.

[John Seaman]

I think the light green background spoils this image. Think about converting it to Monochrome -  I've taken the liberty of doing the conversion, with a red filter which darkens the green quite a lot. I also lowered the highlights on the shells which were burning out.

A judge would say that compositions with odd numbers of subjects work best.

[mikemorrellNL]

Hi @marc_rochkind, first off many thanks for posting this photo for 'critique'!

I  really like your composition. Especially the textured diagonal planks and the the 'organic' shells. I also note that the 'yellow/beige' of the shells against the blue table is a perfect color contrast!

My main suggestion for improvement is to tone down the intensity (saturation) of the blue color on the table. To my eye the table is much too highly saturated. As a consequence, the main thing that viewer's attention is drawn to is the vivid blue of the textured table. The shells then unfortunately pale against the vivid blue table.

As a rule of thumb, the main 'subject' of a photo (I'm assuming the shells) should stand out from the 'background' (I'm assuming the table).

How can subjects stand out from backgrounds? A couple of ways I know are:

- Focus: subjects in focus stand out from less sharp backgrounds

- Lighting: Lighter subjects stand out from darker backgrounds

- Color: subjects with a more vivid color stand out from backgrounds with more muted (or darker) colors

The texture of the table is wonderful so I wouldn't suggest making the table less sharp. To make the Shells stand out more against the blue table, I suggest 'muting' the blue table (saturation and  perhaps very slightly darkening) so that the Shells really shine in the photo! And that the wonderful texture of the table (as a background) is also visible.

 

[John Seaman]

3 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

against the blue table

It looked green to me but actually the colour has roughly equal blue and green intensities.

[samstevens]

20 minutes ago, John Seaman said:

It looked green to me but actually the colour has roughly equal blue and green intensities.

I’d go with aqua.

[mikemorrellNL]

@John Seaman, @samstevens,

Yep, the table more green than blue 👍

Edited September 24, 2023 by mikemorrellNL

[dcstep]

I'm sorry, but it looks to me that the shell's highlights were over exposed and you pulled the levels in RAW conversion, but still got no detail. Since I see this as a study in textures, no seeing details in some of the highlight areas ruins the shot for me.

The detail may actually be in the file, since I see more in the B&W alternative. Maybe you did an global EV reduction and you need to focus only on highlights instead.

[david_henderson]

The shells don't look overexposed to me, at least not by much.  The shells are covered in a chalky deposit that settles into the textures, gives a smooth impression.  and reduces detail.  

I do agree with those who say a) that an odd number of shells (& possibly a less formal layout) would improve the composition  

and 

b)  the blue green ( or whatever) paintwork is bright to the point that it dominates the picture to it's detriment.  I think I'd prefer a colour version with the blue green  much subdued to a b&w conversion.

[Robin Smith]

I much prefer the color version. The teal color is beautiful. It's a bit boring in black and white. The sand in the background reduces its impact a little. Going in closer and rearranging the shells, or removing one, may allow you to exclude the sand, and yet still maintain the diagonals.

[dcstep]

On 9/27/2023 at 3:53 AM, david_henderson said:

The shells don't look overexposed to me, at least not by much.  The shells are covered in a chalky deposit that settles into the textures, gives a smooth impression.  and reduces detail.  

...

I see more details in the B&W version, so the color version does have blown out highlights.

[hjoseph7]

There is good detail on the bench, good detail on the shells, it makes you think. Good job !

[marc_rochkind]

Thanks for all these comments! I've taken a few of them as ideas for another version of the picture. More comments?

[dcstep]

22 hours ago, marc_rochkind said:

Thanks for all these comments! I've taken a few of them as ideas for another version of the picture. More comments?

I much prefer this crop and EV. It's excellent documentation, but I can't see framing it and putting it up in the gallery.

[John Seaman]

The composition works better, the area of sand in the original version did not help. Also you have held more detail in the shells. I still don't like the background colour, though.

[dave_thomas8]

For the 1.3 (after tax) cents it's worth, I think I would:

a) rotate/reposition the triangular pattern marked out by the shells about 25 or 30 degrees CCW

b) go with monochrome (I see the composition as mostly about shapes and textures, color is a distraction)

But then I do a lot of B&W film shooting! 😅

Edited October 7, 2023 by dave_thomas8

[Robin Smith]

new version=much better.

[mikemorrellNL]

This composition is a whole lot better than the original one! Congrats! The 3 shells are now front and center as the 'subject' and look closer, more detailed and sharper. With the table top as 'background', the photo is great as it is.

I have no idea how far you still want to go with this photo. Or what your post-processing skills/tools are. But if there's one suggestion I could make, then it would be to experiment with the shade/light contrast between the table top and the shells. That is, slightly boosting the exposure (or brightness) of the shells and slightly reducing the exposure (or brightness) of the table top. 
My argument (photographically) for this post-processing is that most viewers (except you) won't know what the shade of the table top is (lighter or darker) or what the lighting conditions were. Again, the photo is fine as it is. But with a (subtly) darker table top and (subtly) brighter shells, the shells might stand out even more in a photo that still looks 'natural'.

Best wishes,

Mike

PS. I (lightly) post-process most of my 'selected photos' but I respect those photographers who don't!

[marc_rochkind]

mikemorrellNL,

Everything I shoot is post-processed, always with Lightroom (from raw), and often with Topaz Studio and/or Photoshop (which was used to delete the fourth shell), and/or Silver Efex. Your idea is a good one that I'll try.

Marc

Edited October 17, 2023 by marc_rochkind