Sunlight on Elbows

Saad, I will assume that you read the first part of the sentence which you quoted and understand that I was not making the assertion your quote seems to imply but was merely trying to avoid being presumptuous about something for which I have little knowledge. In other words I do not use the auto function so do not know how well it does or does not work.

I see a gnome too - hunched back, big nose, cute smile...

The photo had a nice rhythmic feeling as my eye scanned along the beam of light. I think Fred said it for me, the breakdown in order at the end is what brings me back for a second look and shows a lot of promise as an intentional design motif. The photo is nicely seen but I find the presentation a bit heavy - the image itself lacks sparkle and the wide black background doesn't do it any favours to my mind. The end result feels a bit like my Aunt's formal dinning room felt after she died - thick closed drapes, dark wooden furniture, the air heavy from lack of use; those kinds of associations probably influence my emotional response here.

Richard, I was being a bit reserved in not speaking of the nose, but you obviously see what I saw almost immediately. I am not sure that is a good thing (what I see) really, just something.

Gordon, I think the "your suggestion that the results would be " very comparable" I am not too sure about." must be taken into the context of a MOST CASES scenario rather than in the specific cases you mention where those factors are important. I was just making the point that in everyday shooting circumstances with the dslr, the manual choice and the program choice wouldn't be that different, if at all in most cases. Wanting a certain effect or shooting in difficult light, sure there could be a difference. So, I certainly don't argue the value of understanding all of the things you mention and certainly that would be part of any list of making quality images (as one element subservient to the others), but getting something worth exposing for in the first place is sort of the overriding concern as to quality. My guess is that if everyone just used automatic but could see with the camera and had something worth saying, we would be much better off than if everyone just knew how to properly expose, even in specific cases--but then, we always want what we don't have..........

Sometimes the thought or visualization of a particular exposure drives what I see rather than what I see driving the exposure I choose. The image isn't some thing that can always be extracted from its qualities and photographic aspects and contexts.

The thing worth exposing for isn't, in a lot of cases, separate from the exposing. If one is just capturing scenes, perhaps. But if one is creating images and resultant photographs, there's much less separation of technique or camerawork and visualization.

Great light; I remember this one from years ago, very strong light and pattern.
Nothing wrong with critiquing one from the archives, art is art.
Needs to have some eye movement, besides diagonal ping-pong. The 'eye' gets tired of it, thus most of us say we don't look long at this image.
No 'punch', needs some contrast, as many mentioned.
Suggested crop gets you some movement, using the board to take you eye around the scene.
Always shoot in manual, then check that histogram (that's why I can't wait to get a digi-back for my Hassey someday) it's God's gift to photographers. That is unless it's uncle Joe's b-day party, then auto is fine.

I have a tendency to shoot a lot randomly at first. I then refine my vision. Then inspiration strikes me and I then become very particular in

the way I shoot "it.". It's usually a vey quick process. I very seldom am thinking about post processing. For me, my quickly developed

vision decides how I use the camera and very seldomly does the auto feature do what I want. Photoshop refines my vision, whereas as

when I'm in the darkroom, I'm CRAFTING my vision. I think the photographer is one hundred percent responsible for the quality of a photo.

Otherwise, I suppose dolphins and chimpanzees would steal my job.

Michael, crops and post changes are always tough because they change the image to something different. Here, I think the images are so different that they can't be compared really. For me, the original has a bit more sole to it because of its softness and darkness. Your version is snappier and certainly has a different rhythm to it, but I don't know that it is a better image--certainly different but maybe in some ways more predictable. I think the issue is more that it isn't an overwhelmingly compelling subject and regardless of the post work, is just mundane on a certain level. There are things I like in both versions, but nothing to jump up and down about.

As to this whole exposure thing, it is certainly important and I wasn't saying in any way that it isn't. I have used the spot meter for over 30 years now and use it solely for my LF and Mechanical MF cameras. I rarely use it for the cameras that have internal meters, but do from time to time--especially non digital cameras. In most cases, I just don't think it matters if you are set in manual or one of the more automatic settings--at least on my cameras it doesn't--and you know what you are doing. (Certainly, there are better auto settings than others, like Tv and Av versus Program, and times when manual is the best choice--all just part of the arsenal at our disposal)

When I am using one of these cameras, even if in program mode-which I don't use very often, my index finger can quickly roll the dial there to any fstop or shutter speed that I am interested in while keeping the camera exposure balanced for the given light as the camera sees it. Then, with my thumb on the wheel on the back of the camera, I can quickly dial in the over or under exposure I decide is necessary(my cameras are programmed to not need any buttons pushed to do this). I mostly shoot set on Av mode and do sometimes find the manual mode preferable, but it is rare. When I am in the air, I have the camera set to Tv mode, as I am most interested in overcoming vibrations and want to set, and keep, the shutter speed as high as possible--aperture is of little importance. Unless you are using an external meter, all of your decisions are based on what exposure parameters the camera gives you to start with anyway, so why not let the camera give that base to you as you adjust to the fstop or shutter speed you desire (in some auto mode), and then override it to your preference as I describe? The end result will be the same as if you did it all manually, but probably it can actually be done faster in one of these auto modes. Of course, if we have the time, we can check the LCD or Histogram for fine tuning the exposure anyway on a digital camera.

The proposed crop and contrast adjustment rob the image of its one underlying grace and that is its subtlety. The gentle  understated treatment originally used by Steve works well to set up a visual tension between the industrial subject matter and the soft light on the forest floor feel it has been given.  In the altered version I feel like the perpetrator is trying to hit the audience over the head with those pipes which is an altogether different, and in my opinion, less successful approach.

Maybe I just don't get what art is or how to appreciate it, but this looks to me like a picture of some steel pipes in a typical factory arrangement.

I don't mean this facetiously - After all, 114,000+ views and 6.45/7 from 89+ ratings can't be wrong, can it?

I don't much care for the cropped and contrasted version. The symmetry of the pipes if fighting the format and the specialness of the light on the pipes is lost. The contrast moves the image from what I see as potential art to just kitsch.

John, could you clarify your context on your last comment about when you use Auto or Manual? I'm asking this because I seldom use auto, but when I find a need to do so, I'm almost always on assignment. When shooting a runway fashion show I get one chance to get any one image and auto is handy so as to make the most of every shot with the least risk of making a mistake. Though admittedly, many shows have test models that walk out and pose first so that photographers can set their program modes accordingly. When I photograph on my own time, I do everything manually. I tend to feel more satisfied with my art when I know that I made the decisions and controlled as many variables as the camera allows. I tend to get frustrated with digital cameras because even in full manual, there is still some part of the camera making decisions that I don't care for. When shooting with my Nikon F, I could care less that it has no auto-features, and with my Nikon F5, other than auto focus, I never use any auto-features.

Ultimately, I don't think it matters to use either or because it is the photographers brain that decides if it's appropriate. The camera is only as smart as the people who made it, and is only as capable as the person using it. I guess if we are talking about typical $300 USD point-and-shoot cameras from Best Buy we can say 70-80% of photographs are done in full auto. (Actually, when I think about all the narcissistic former girlfriends I've had, I think it might actually be 99% of the photographs taken, but then who doesn't take ten million photographs of their own kissie-faces in one five minute sitting? Ha ha.)

Well, my apologies to Steve, but I couldn't help myself and did a little play with this image. I like the "arena" look of the result. Not suggesting it as an alternative, but was bored I guess!

David, I pretty much keep my camera in Av mode. For what I use it for, it fits my way of working. Like I said, unless you use an external meter, you always start with what the camera tells you anyway-adjusting from that base-- and this has it always ready at that point. I have an aperture I like(always keep it set there) and when I go to take a shot, I look at the shutter speed first. Of course, I make my decisions about the appropriate aperture for the specific shot, what speed I need/want and then also adjust the iso to get a workable shutter speed for the aperture I want to use. This is all done in just a few seconds. However, since I am in this mode, I can just bring the camera up to my eye and shoot and always know I will be in the ballpark exposure-wise at least. By the way, with over 7000 exposures using Tv from the air, and never/rarely using any exposure compensation (hard to do while chasing something at up to 100+mph), I have maybe 20 frames where the exposure was not optimal. The world is actually rather normal in "most cases".

for some reason the image didn't upload, will try again:

Many seem to want a more glitzy, polished, higher-contrast image out of this.

Fred that "want" seems to apply to most everything, whether it be music or photography or literature or ......

John, I hope I never find myself that bored, but then I find the world anything but " actually rather normal" so I'm probably going to be okay.

Gordon, I get that bored when I have something not working and just need to think, distraction is always the best cure.

Fred, I don't want anything else from this image, mine was just pure play--although if it were my image, I might use it for navigation buttons on a website or something as I rendered it, maybe those "close" X's we see on some pages.

Ok, back to work, enough distraction.....

Oh, and there is normal, and then there is normal.......two different concepts...

To everyone that likes this photo Thank You.
To everyone that does not like or has doubts about this photo and has expressed why, Thank you also.
Five and a half years ago when this was posted I could not decide if I liked it or not. Since then I have realized that this is one of those photo's that grabs my attention but fails to hold my interest for more than a brief moment. As someone said it is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.
I did re-shoot this, a couple of times. Never came up with anything that could even grab my attention. This light was just no longer there. Then I changed jobs and now the building is long gone.
To maybe clear up a few questions from above the slight softness and somewhat low contrast were intentional, the cropping was not an accident and the gnome at the top right was left alone because that is just what was there.
If anyone has any specific questions feel free to ask, i will try to check back and answer them if I can. And please continue to say anything you like or don't like about this, I have learned more about this photo in the last day than I have in five years.

When i saw the thumbnail i thought it was a repeating pattern.But that was the first impression, it's quite clear that these pipelines are part of a bigger industrial plant or so.It's also similar to the much much smaller connections on a PC motherboard.The light purposely falls on the diagonal and makes it visible, waiting for the photographer.The accurate exposure preserved the mysterious sense.Very nice shot Steve.Regards

I feel like this photo would be more compelling if it were part of a set that explored some element of light or space or symmetry.

Walk around, get some fishy ideas and click. Surely some PS tricks will help you out, To me , thank whoever, it's something we pass by most of the time. once more, beauty!

Excellent photo! I love the "imperfect" symmetry' beyond the upper right corner. I can picture the original blueprint and how it looked the day the fitter finished the job. But years of existence and use, debris build up, rusting, and wood aging has provided the imperfect symmetry. Throw in the lighting effects and you have a wonderful image that really makes me pause and think. Thanks!

Quite interesting debate on the photograph. Discussions are educative too. Steve's effort to capture this fantastic snap before 5-1/2 years or so is really worth. He shall be proud for it is being viewed by 116000 plus photo enthusiasts .
I really like the lighting.
I also like his patience to box the light in his camera
I also like his right sense of cropping an image to its perfection.
I as well like his pattern of composition
Overall I call it as an art worth spending time on it.
Congratulations
Ajayan

Hello (from -still sunny- Greece) to every body;
Allow me as a new member of this remarkable community, to add my opinion and whatever knowledge, as an amateur photographer for almost 50 (!) years...
Well, Steve Pennington, this a marvellous composition, better from many others of your portfolio... This, for many reasons; I' ll try to be more specific:
[a] There is an 'abstract' meaning coming from this snapshot...
The diagonal light comes in a very 'relevant' way, overlapping positively (and 'toning') the synthesis...
[c] The dark 'environment' projects successfully the light 'line'...
[d] This line starts from (bottom) left to (up) right, in a correct 'move' for the eye perception... [i mean that if, this light-line was from right bottom to left up, this would be 'unfamiliar' to our eyes!]
Closing,
1. a question to Steve: is this 'beam' of light, a sun's ray or an artificial spot-one in studio...[?]
2. a suggestion, Steve -allow me...- : I think that if, the 'square' at the right up corner, was double in size, this would gave more points to your creation...
3. a conclusion; such photos add a lot of positives (+) to the argument: if, still "is it Photography an Art, or not...?"
Thanks!
Sotirios ATHANASIADIS
P.S. I hope soon to be able to post my own pictures, in order to have others' critical view...!

I was Drawn to this and wondered how it would of looked in HDR

Kudos to man behind the gun