Gallows Road - the original

So is this the beginning of the "dishonest deception" Carl Root folder!

 

Actually, I find that the fact that the only editing that has been done is in curves, without manipulation of the shapes or sizes, is one thing that makes this interesting. There are effects of the glass that were quite muted before that are really brought out by that bright reddish orange. While I prefer this over the original, I enjoy having the ability to compare and contrast the two.

 

The heavily saturated color also adds a lot of perspective and dynamism for me. The colors seem to alternately recede and pop as I look at it.

 

Carl, always interesting to see what you're up to!

I would like to put an end to the Elves' question about cropping by saying that I don't like a square crop and I'll tell you why: Because it sucks, that's why. It saps all of the energy of the rectangle so you end up with a lot of energetic colors with no where to go.

Let's tackle the ethics of manipulation first. The issue is transparency. . . both in the image itself where the viewer is confident that he or she is able to distinguish between what was seen versus altered, and and in the photographer's presentation and explanation of the capture and creation process. In this case, only the colors have been altered, yet I assume that unless you know about my interest in distorted window reflections, you wouldn't recognize the subject of the image, altered colors or not, but maybe that's a reflection of my recent interest in this kind of abstract, and photographers who've looked at the world this way for decades all have less gaudy versions of this kind of shot in their memory banks. I've posted quite a few found abstracts that have features that I've never seen before, yet people who rate these things low in originality have never been able to show me other similars that would categorize this as 'old hat'. On this one, high rates for originality seem to be piggybacks on the aesthetics of vivid colors (if you like that sort of thing) but as many of you know, I find the lines more aesthetically pleasing than the colors.

It's still hard to figure out that this is actually a crop of a building. Aesthetically very pleasing. Congratulations on making POW, Carl. You deserve it.

Carl, a well deserved honour for a fine image.

 

There has been extensive talk about colour and little talk of rhythm or timing.

Rather surprising considering the strength of both in this image. Yes the

colour is saturated...so what. And yes the colour fields are such that to crop

would alter the feel and meaning of the subject. I'd argue any good abstract

has the potential to be reduced to a singular subject. This is not to suggest

that the cropped version has the same strength as the original. In this case it

clearly doesn't. I would suggest that cropping is subjective and doesn't need

to follow prescribed guidelines.

 

As a landscape the format allows for movement. By squaring it off the flow is

restricked and becomes almost circular because of the strong central orange

box that acts like an axis. Even the strong lines can't displace this effect. For

me definitely a weaker version.

 

As is the image has a wonder flow. The musical references are abundant. The

diagonals are the staff, the triangles are both the eighth and sixteenth notes

and the colour is the meter that controls the tempo. Cropping the image would

be like cutting off a piece of music half way through. Pointless. I'd prefer to

wait for the encore.

 

:) Sally

With photos like this, I question whether the architect is the one who deserves the

accolades rather than the photographer. Wasn't it the architect who composed those

repetitive lines and colors? Did the photographer really do much, if anything, more than

crop the original vision? Where do we draw the line when it comes to photographing

someone else's art?

 

Regarding this piece, I don't know the answers to those questions but I think it's important

to ask them. And I genuinely mean no disrespect to the photographer. It is an aesthetically

pleasing work and certainly deserves high marks on PhotoNet.

Very pretty. Reminds me of the work of Ernst Haas.

 

Some of the colored shapes look almost like textile panels or scrims.

 

Leave the cropping as is.

Whose art is this? Well let's take a look at a simpler capture of the same building, desaturated and skewed square to eliminate periferal issues. What did the architect intend should be part of viewing experience of his creation? Is this just a photographer's record shot? What part is? What part isn't?

Looking at the straight-on shot, I'd say that yes, the architect does deserve a lot, though

not all, of the credit for the picture's aeshethic. They do, typically, consider what their

buildings will look like from different angles and I would image those who employ

mirrored glass imagine puffy white clouds reflected in their work. Questions regarding the

photographing of other people's art have been discussed throughout the history of

photography and won't be answered here.

 

I honestly don't mean to denegrate your work. Your portfolio demonstrates that you have

a wonderful eye for geometric patterns and this shot is no exception. And I very much like

your PhotoShop work on this example. It's a very nice shot.

Carl, I think you have definitely surpassed the artistic creativity of the architect(s). Most modern buildings can hardly be considered artistic to begin with since they are basically built on a flat girder and panel system designed to enclose the most space for the least amount of money. In the end, the architect probably had better intentions and ideals than he was allowed to use in the final product. You are fortunate not to be constrained by owners, budgets and building codes when creating a photograph. I am confident that many architects would be quite jealous of your creative freedom. I once brought a young and very idealistic architect nearly to tears because our clients realistic needs conflicted with his fantasy of creating the perfect work environment.

 

The photograph makes good use of receding and advancing colors which gives it the impact or pop that everyone enjoys about it. The strong diagonals and vertical lines give the photograph structure and unity that cause the viewer to pause and observe the composition and details more closely (thats good). I always enjoy building abstracts (and yours in particular) because I think these views often surpass the quality or intent of the original design of the structures which often tend to be very static or utilitarian.

 

In addition to the vibrant colors, I really enjoy the apparent movement of the reflected buildings in this photo. We know that buildings are solid but here they look more like they are printed on a reflected flag moving in a breeze. I think this visually implied wave adds an additional and more subtle element of movement and is a nice contrast to the stronger advancing and receding colors you have created. I also like the fact that you left some (relatively) neutral color in parts of the reflected buildings. This gives the eyes a place to rest and steps the viewer through the different elements of the photograph.

 

Im not sure how I feel about the reddish cast on the upper left corner of the photograph. It almost looks out of place and may be why a few people prefer a square crop (Note: in my recollection there has never been an interesting discussion about cropping). The left side of the image seems generally brighter than the right side making me wonder if that was intentional or not. This is a very compelling and synergistic image that exceeds the sum of the individual elements.

Actually, it is my intention to answer it here, or at least try to discuss the variables.

 

We can all agree that the arrangement of rectangles is the architect's and that the choice of symmetrical frame is still part of the architect's concept. I'm sure he imagined that clouds would be reflected in the glass, but I suspect that was more an acknowledgement rather than a planned feature.

 

What I hope you also noticed was that the portions of clouds that appear in each reflected surface are not what you would get if you put a grid over a mirror. The slightly convex surfaces cause repetitions with variations in each frame that, I hope, are the most interesting feature of the image.

 

The other element is timing. The photographer decides which clouds to capture, at which angle, and at which moment. Those are aesthetic decisions that have nothing to do with the architect.

Carl's opus is a contemporary playing of an old song: the blend of Classic and Romantic elements in the same work.

 

The Classic side--rational, logical, well-proportioned, given to feeling yet generally not overwhelmed by feeling--is expressed in the marvelous lines of Carl's composition.

 

The Romantic side--wide-ranging, emotive, sometimes soaked in the evoking of feeling--is expressed in the colors of Carl's composition and the deformation of straight lines in the reflections.

 

In music, Beethoven, for example, is a great example of the fusing of both tendencies: a Classic Romanticist.

 

Is this work primarily, or importantly, Carl's? I'd say yes. In music (I'm a professional musician/avocational photographer), I think that people often look at a printed musical score as a kind of fixed, finished object. Many people, I think, don't absorb a musical score with much realization of the kinds of options that the composer had--and rejected--on the way to achieving, hopefully, that sense of inevitability, that sense of "this is just right now". Actually, I suspect that many people on photo.net DO have the sense of the creative process that typically goes into the type of composition that Carl has created here. I like the reference to "discovered" photographs, in this regard. Carl has "discovered" a telling photograph, but he, the creative artist, had to go after it and reject possible captures that were not as telling.

 

The architect(s) deserve much credit for creating the context, but the capture from a particular angle, in particular light, and the ensuing work with PS curves, is a distinctive artistic mark from the artist-photographer.

 

Shouldn't creative photography be like music of Mozart: as someone once said, too easy for children and too difficult for adults?

(My post was in response to Michael . . . )

First, congratulations Carl on your 2nd POW!

 

Let me address for a moment the issue of who should take credit for this artwork, the photographer or architect? When a photographer chooses a subject , be it natural or created by man, the photographer still needs to do his (or her) job. True, the architect designed the building, but Carl chose the composition, the lighting (the reflected objects need to be lit), and made all of the aesthetic decisions in post. I'm willing to bet that the architect would be pleasantly shocked by this image. However, to give the architect the credit for this image would mean a photograph of the Grand Canyon should be attributed to God, or erosion, but not the photographer. I hope you get my drift.

 

I like this full frame Carl, but I feel that a slight lowering of saturation would be an improvement. As is it seems to be more about color than shapes. Also, my compliments for using curves! That's what real photographers use. :-))

This is an absolutely stunning photo. The geometry is superb in my view. Cropping to a square format omits some really interesting aspects of the photo (note that this is coming from someone who shoots 6x6).

Just out of curiousity, have you tried rotating the picture 90 degrees clockwise? I did this and was very pleasantly surprised. Not sure if I like it better or not, but I think it's a point worth discussing in the forum.

Keep manipulating your 2 brown eggs and once you get 2 chickens instead probably that picture will again overpass this one in rating... just jokin' Carl! :-))

Congrat on your 2nd POW.... I dont get a clear image of the picture itself, design is interesting... but I still prefer your rusty/paint ones... I would have probably use another color in Ps instead of the orange one...

cropping? I usually like square but here I am not convinced ...mainly because of the strong diagonals at almost 45deg a square would be quite annoying I am afraid..

I have no doubt that Carl achieved exactly what he wanted with this image. Still, I find it

lacking. What is the image about? Color and form - in fact, I find what was photographed

is hardly important. We know its a building because of the straight lines and wavy panes

but other than that nothing says "building". I'm surprised the gratuitous use of photoshop

curves isn't questioned more - its digital manipulation on the level of compositing objects.

(that doesn't mean i'm anti-digital) I don't find the use of a camera to make purely abstract

images particularly interesting - I'd rather hear what the photographer has to say about

the world besides "its pretty."

'It's pretty' is pretty far removed from what I'm trying to show others about how I see the world. You might find the answer to your questions in the pre- and post-POW discussion above. . . . . and, of course, in my portfolio.

After reading the entire above discussion, I felt I came across one sentence which seemed to address the topic of "what the photo says". You said...

The issue is transparency. . . both in the image itself where the viewer is confident that he or she is able to distinguish between what was seen versus altered, and and in the photographer's presentation and explanation of the capture and creation process.

Is this what the image is about according to the photographer? (I want to make sure I get it right!) Otherwise, please state as best you can...

Thanks for taking the time to read all comments.

 

The issue of transparency is a little tricky as it applies to this image because it is not clear that restoring the original colors would make the subject immediately recognizable. Those who say it is may or may not have had the benefit of seeing dozens of other similars that I have uploaded recently. Reflection shots like the one Dennis has included in this discussion (Thanks, Dennis, I like it.) are more often of a recognizable subject. The distortions in each panel are more like a filter and don't place the image into the abstract category. Most of mine are abstracts, and altering the colors doesn't change the relationships between the lines and shapes, although your interpretation of how they relate to each other will be different.

 

That's what prompted me to take this unusal step (for me ). I simply didn't like the dark dominant shapes surrounded by muted colors. In an attempt to make the lines and shapes more attractive, the color that was produced using a fairly simply change in 'curves' in PS ended up overpowering it, and for that reason, I wish I had gone in a direction similar to Robert's version on the 'straight' upload.

Sorry, it doesn't do anything for me. There's 25 photos a dozen of 'architecture reflections' and this one doens't have anything that makes it stand out for me.

hi Carl,

 

Congrats - this is just a smashing blend of colours, contrast, lines and patterns! It is extremely eyecatching and pleasing (or rather intriguing) to look at!

 

Oistein

London

A very punchy picture. Dramatic diagonal graphics with outstanding color combinations.

"See what I can do with Photoshop"? No, it's "see what you can find if you take the time to look!" An artist sees beyond what is apparent, and is not afraid to explore it.

I enjoyed your comment that imagined the architect being 'pleasantly shocked' by abstract renditions of his creation. The same logic as applied to God's handywork as interpreted by nature photographers makes the same point. Even street shooters get nothing if somebody doesn't walk down the street at an oppportune moment.

 

I think the comment above is a kneejerk reaction to the image without benefit of reading the discussion. I'm willing to bet he thinks the lines and shapes were created in photoshop.