WATCH TOWER FROM SAN GIMINIANO.

When someone rates a pic of mine, I always feel obliged to return the favor in kind. Sometimes feeling guilty about this, not being able to find a decent photo in the bunch to rate. Then you run into something like this. Composure, lighting,color, subject. PERFECT. A 10/10. Only to have given someone else a high rating a few minutes ago for a pic you would not look at a 2nd. time.

I posted this shot 3 month ago and the number of viewers remained

low. I wonder whether the shot is not interesting or it was not

exposed enough on photo.net.

 

I'd like to get some feedback in the form of comments, not that I

hate ratings but I think they are irrelevant.

 

Thank you in advance for your time.

Still looks good too me. Try posting it on "photosig" and see what happens.

The light is poor, the sky is white and featureless, the subject is only moderately interesting, and the composition is fairly static. If you, and the others who thinks this is a seven, were to revisit the site numerous times when the light is better, I think you'll see that there's plenty of room for improvement.

 

Overcast conditions are good for macro work.

Thank you Carl for your comment. I think I was very clear that I was not interested in ratings, so assuming that I thought that this was a seven was completely unnecessary.

 

How can anyone resume the quality of a photograph with two overly simplistic numbers?

 

You were probably irritated that Harold rated the shot 7/7. I happen to agree with you that this is certainly not a 7/7. The only reason for the existence of these ratings, according to photo.net's statements is to allow members to find good photographs more easily. Unfortunately, even this modest target was not reached on photo.net.

 

I also tend to agree with you that I have to visit San Giminiano more often. Unfortunately San Giminiano is geographically situated in a foreign country for me and I can probably do that once a year.

 

I wish photo.net members would dedicate a little more time to the photo they rate or comment because beneath the comment, their name is clearly printed. Superficiality is not exactly the quality required for a photo critic.

 

I did not mean to imply that you, Anton, thought your own image was a 'seven', although that is a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote.

 

This image had three sixes and two sevens which surprises me. Bald skys tend to ruin otherwise OK shots and this, to me, is no exception.

 

Forget the ratings for the moment. My advice would be to find another similar subject that you can return to many times. Shoot the light. I think you'll find the one that looks like this will be one of your least favorites.

 

Just trying to be helpful. . . . meant no offense.

I'd like to get into details about the topics you raised, Carl. I hope you don't mind a heated dispute over a photograph.

 

First of all, you claim that the light was poor, and an overcast sky is good for macro shots only. I wonder where you got that strict rule, from?

 

Secondly, the subject of this shot is the watchtower, not the sky. This is not a Hollywood picture, with blue sky and happy end. The end is clearly visible in this shot, a tower worn-out by time, masterly built a few hundred years ago, which is still standing to show its beauty.

 

How dynamic would you expect to be an architectural shot of a half-ruined wall? Would you have preferred some faked soldiers, dressed in period costumes, to stand on top of the tower?

 

As about the tower being moderately interesting for you, it's a matter of personal interest. I personally found it extremely interesting.

 

I attach the same picture with a faked blue sky (software can be also used instead of film studio painted blue sky) as you would have liked. I wish it were that easy to change that rainy day I spent in San Giminiano into a clear day with blue skies.

 

 

Now tell me if the wall gained anything from the blue sky.

 

To tell you the truth, I am sick of the blue sky I am seeing 10 months out of 12, where I live and I miss a little bit of gray sky.

 

 

I didn't bother to open your image because a simulated blue sky, and simulated lighting, which is what this is really about, would look silly. I will only repeat my advice to you to pick one subject that you have easy access to and photograph it in a variety of lighting conditions.

 

The tendency for the eye to go to the lightest spot in the picture space is not something it can control.

 

I'm spending my time voluntarily to share what I've been taught and have come to understand about light. I can pass it along, but I can't force you to accept it.

 

Don't argue with me. Instead, please take my advice and go out and shoot the assignment that I gave you . . . or not as you see fit.