more peeling paint

full frame - I've experimented with various crops - putting the

vertical trim piece on center, blue line on center, etc. and finally

ended up with what I saw in the viewfinder. The blue line is a

shadow formed by late afternoon sun from the left.

I believe this image -- of the same building in "five ivy leaves"? -- has great potential as an abstract -- which I suspect is Carl's goal -- but as it stands, it's not quite abstract enough for my tastes.

Since Carl has been experimenting with crops, I did a bit of experimenting myself. While it's true I'm a big fan of square images, in this case, I think the square crop preserves enough of the fine details to make the image interesting but at the same time, it removes enough of their context to make identifying the subject difficult ... voila! It's now an abstract!

I also tweaked the color of the shadow area slightly to make it less blue. While its presence is critical to the success of this image, I have a personal distaste for blue shadows (a preference that's no doubt the result of all the Provia I shoot!) and use a filter to avoid them whenever possible.

(P.S. to Carl: I get the feeling I'm picking on you somewhat by recropping all of your images. The problem, I think, is that so much of what you shoot is so close to what I shoot (or would like to shoot ... that's a compliment, by the way) that it's difficult for me to not personalize these images and visualize them as I think I would have shot them had I been there instead of you. I realize this isn't the most sophisticated or useful method of critiquing an image and if this approach bothers you even slightly, then please let me know and I'll stop.

I like this shot. It simple but pleasant. Although I also don't like the blue shadow, I prefer the original to the above cropped version. This is just a question - Is it necessary for an abstract image to have its original subject unidentifiable? My understanding was that it it not, Jeffery's comment above seems to imply that it is?

 

Nice work.

Deepak: The definfition of an abstract that I've been taught and that makes sense to me is that there is an emphasis on line, color, texture, etc. rather than on elements, recognizable or not.

 

Jeffrey 'The Crop' Goggin: I like your crop; I also like mine. I agree with everything you've said. For critique puroses, it probably helps to try to understand and report to the rest why you think the original is the way it is. If you think it has failed, and a crop would solve the problem, then demonstrate. The alternative, which is also OK, is to show a crop and explain why this places emphasis on something different, and explain how this is achieved. Several of us in the group have done a fair amount of both.

 

My original emphasized multiple horizontal lines broken up by the vertical element and then continuing on slightly altered. So the eye moves slowly across the picture space, left to right. There are other ways to compose this paint 'fracture' as you've done that convey something else, but this is what I liked.

 

The blue is so subtle in my view that I thought it broke up what would otherwise be a yellowish / brown monchrome - not necessarily bad, as you've shown. My original title was 'a thin blue line' but that's not really what it's about and I've noticed people take titles seriously.

As I explained in my response to comments made on one of the photos I've posted for critique, I'm very much an intuitive photographer. I often can't tell you why something works for me (or doesn't, as the case may be), only that it does (or doesn't).

Well, the same thing is also true of my skill as a critic. I know what I like but don't always know why I like it and Carl's image here is the perfect example of this.

As I explained in my comments on his other photo with the peeling paint, I very much like this type of subject. And in this case, the first place my eye goes to is the raised section in the middle, specifically the cracked paint in the center. From there, it goes up to the top of the raised section and then backtracks across the center and down to the bottom. Then it moves left, checks out what's up with all those cool horizontal lines, backtracks over to the right, where it does likewise with the even cooler horizontal lines, then backtracks again to the center, which is where it started.

On some level, this is fine but it's been my experience (especially with abstracts) that I much prefer images where the eye follows a circular path from area-of-interest to area-of-interest, with as little backtracking over previously explored areas as possible.

By cropping this image square and putting the raised section on the left side, I believe I have accomplished this. Now, instead of being drawn to the middle of the frame, my eye starts on the left side; from there, it goes down, over to the right, back up to the top and then back over to the left, from which it returns to the center where it started. Like the goldfish that forgets where it was 5 seconds earlier and happily swims 'round and 'round its little tank, I find that my eye will happily go 'round and 'round an image so long as it's not forced to backtrack over recently viewed areas as I find this tends to disrupt the flow.

That said, perhaps someone who understands this stuff better than I do will explain why I'm all wet and my thinking's for the birds -- Paula regularly assures me that this is a distinct possibility! -- but if you look at most of my images, I think you'll find they do indeed direct the eye around them in a circular pattern or barring that, they at least don't require it to backtrack over covered ground.

So, how's that for an explanation? Comments, anyone?

I can't believe that I prefer the square format, but I do. Normally I find a recatangular composition to be much more pleasing to me than a square. In fact, the square format often has a very uncomfortable feel to it when I view it. Jeffrey's crop looks and feels better to my eye even with the square format. I think the image is well executed and lit....and really works fine the way Carl presented it. ....but,... now since Jeffrey gave us something to compare it to I must say that his cropped version is more appealing to me.

This is a late comment but I've looked at this image multiple times. It is a subtle composition that I've kind of grown to appreciate. The joint on the right is another optical illusion. My initial impression was "why did Carl shoot this?" but, after several visits I see why-- a well-composed detail shot. I think it works as an abstract but the detail, to me, is more interesting. Placing the raised area off-center works well.

 

 

My suggestions for improvement are really only two. First, the scan looks a little soft to me, which is a drawback for a detail shot. Second, I don't really like the blue shadow and, in fact, I think the whole thing would be better served by B&W with slightly higher contrast.

 

 

I've tried to critique this without reference to Jeffrey's cropped version. I think posting alternate versions can be very enlightening but has the drawback of biasing subsequent viewers. I'm trying to make an effort to first consider the original work on its own merits.

 

 

Having said this, I'll now admit I like Jeffrey's version a little better. I think it is because it is simpler, sharper, and appears to have a little more contrast. And the blue shadow is gone. I desaturated the original shot myself and made some curves adjustment and I like it the best.

 

 

To sum up-- subtle but effective photo that might benefit from some increase in sharpness and does not seem to benefit from the blue shadow.

Hmmm ... per Rhett's comments, perhaps in the future, I should post alternate versions as an attachment and not an in-line image. This way, the viewer wouldn't see it until/unless they chose to see it and clicked on the link.

Jeff, while I really do appreciate your alternatives, maybe Rhett has a point. A click-on line to view your version would be most welcome.

 

Rhett, I have considered a monochrome - maybe as a duotone, and yes it does require more contrast. Using USM or high pass filter is something I have only done when I interpolate for final print size, but maybe I should also use it on this site.

 

 

This one doesn't catch me the same way that five ivy leaves did. And to be honest I too pefer the square crop, but I struggle to explain why. What the square crop does remind me of is Jeffrey's aspen trees, it's the kind of detail in the bark I felt was missing from that shot.

 

I started out being perplexed by a lot of your photos but the more recent colour shots have been working really well for me, lots of lines and all.

Well, I guess I'm the odd man out, or rather the odd woman out. I much prefer Carl's version. This really stood out for me as the thumbnail on your top photos page. To my eye it is much better balanced, more graceful and artistic. The square version is is boxy and cramped. Maybe it's the circular viewing that I don't like. Is this a left brain - right brain issue?

Very subtle, reminds me of the bark of the paper birch. Would make an excellent skin for those fortunate enough to browse with Opera. Cheers Carl.

Thanks Seven for all your constructive ideas. The comments on this image are an excellent example of what critique circles can do, but alas, they seem to be destined to the dustbin of photo.net history. :-(

Sometimes a photograph is just that...a photograph. Simplicity in its most wonderful state. The photographs in this folder are perfect. Reminders of how we really need to look at our world, every detail a thing of beauty. Its refreshing to see images this clear - not everything needs to be analyzed to death. Thanks for inspiring me to take another look.

Exceptional , so simple yet so beautiful :)

There are many peeling paint shots but you've managed to capture this in such a minimally simple and elegant way that it caught my eye. Bringing the viewer into the depths of each crack and undulation. Wonderful work Carl.

Great shot