opera house

You had a great eye, very well composed and appealing shapes and light.

Nope, i was wrong, THIS is your MASTERPIECE so far.

Absolute balance of light and darkness, shapes and lines. Usually completely dark areas bother me but here they just make me wonder about what they could be hidden in them.

(into my favorites at once!!!)

Dynamically composed punctuated with placement of the two human elements.  Brilliant work, Su dawen.

Mesmerizing curvature and graphics, a figure at the bottom adds a lot to your image!

Su, your work has been very strong and consistent.  So well done.  6/7

Beautiful shot!

I do like the flow of the composition here. As has already been said. You do have a good eye. I like this a lot.

Excellent!

EXCELLENT   3

Try some really airy fairy this week (can she be even worse??):

The picture feels to me like the view from inside the eye/mind: I'm on center, at that church-door black aperture which the curve of the skull/eye protects: that gridded surface is my left eye; the brightly lit figure — which seems so bright as if lit from below or within (though I know it's probably just a white floor) — is where the liquid darkness has pooled and germinated.

The little dark figure in the twilight, upper right, is ... memory? doubt? fear? The one in the light, lower left ignores her.

So, how do I interpret the fact that the lit figure seems to be looking at his smart phone?

Images of broken light, which

Dance before me like a million eyes,

They call me on and on across the universe.

Thoughts meander like a

Restless wind inside a letter box

They tumble blindly as they make their way across the universe.

the illuminated fella is operating the transporter.

Very elegant, all in circles and curves only contrasted with the square on the scene and vertical lines in the centre.
As so often with this type of graphic language, the person is only there to attract attention.

Anders, I tend to think of the lone person as adding both a human presence and interest to the otherwise stark appearance of the building. (Perhaps this is what you meant?)

The person comes off to me as more of a prop, which I don't say as a criticism but rather as an observation. That probably goes along with my theatrical take on this photo, which has such stage presence, dramatic effect, very good use of abstraction, and a sensual arch of architectural flourish which dominates the photo for me.

My own argument against seeing the guy below as just a prop would be the person in the upper right (in the bit of spotlight below the top of the arch) who seems to be leaning against the bannister. That presence, to me, sets up a human dynamic of some effect.

This is one where the shadows impel me to scour them for more riches, even the well exposed and captured curve of the large cylindrical structure atop which the second person stands.

MIchael my remark on the "person", was meant as a critic.
For my eye, this photo can fully stand alone without human presence and is even better without.
I have the impression, that the standard human element in photography, is a type of professional tic. We can't do without, even in cases where the figure doesn't add to the general "message of the image. Some viewers might probably only look at the image because of the person. A marketing trick !

Brilliant - The flow you have established is well noted. From the highlighted silhouette of the human at the bottom, the shadow from the window cascading on the floor, then we hook up with the windows. Not projecting its light on anything but the floor, it allows our eyes to follow to the top where another human stands. I like the random pics that appear staged, it is so effective.
This bitch goes into my favorites

I disagree with Anders on this. In my opinion, this photo goes deeper than mere study of architectural elements because of the person(s) and the pipeline (arch) of communication between them. The person at the bottom creates a focal point in the image without which the image would be completely different, and a bit mundane. Even if no greater message is evident, the mere presence of organic forms in an otherwise cold dark looking setup creates dynamism. One central aspect of any art is aesthetics, and effective aesthetics attract viewers' attention. Looking into Su's other works, he has a great talent of showing human interaction with architectural elements, and this image is in line with his greater body of work. I have seen canonical architectural photography, which deals with clean lines and curves without a spec of blemish or disorder. When I see Su's work, I clearly see a sense of originality and it works for me.

Also, I think it is one thing to say I don't get the message, and another thing to say since I don't get the message, it must be a marketing trick. I think, its a bit harsh on the artist (I am not against harsh critic, I am against unfair harshness). I hope Anders will agree with me.

Supriyo, my comment was a general comment to a question of Michael.

Concerning the person on the scene of the POW, I simple think the photo could be without, and still be an elegant shot.I don't think, like you that it would be a completely different photo without the person. In my eyes the square and the scene function as a focal point all by itself.

Anders,
Thanks for clarifying. I think the persons ease a bit of the tension evident in the version of the scene without them. It places us in comfortable territory, at least in my eyes. Without them, there is an isolated focal point, but nothing leads into to (there is an arch ending in a square, but no source). I like the fact that the two people create a sort of connection via the arch and reinforces the role of the arch in the photo. This is why I think it would be a different photo without the persons. Losing the realism the persons offer (and due to the strong contrast), it would be in the borderline of being an abstract. Whichever is preferable depends on personal choice.

I wanted to say do not be fooled by this silence because the construction of this image is very dynamic, beam running from top to bottom, ending the round-lit platform creates one big exclamation cathedral of art, which further emphasizes the perspective and depth of the image. I can see a reference to the ancient cathedral where the sun stained-glass windows and organ created this amazing atmosphere of solemn art. The author managed to capture a certain austerity of the place and awesome penetrating ringing silence after the concert ended. Scene calm and at the same time full of tension and expectation. It plays a key role, but the form in the lower part image without which in my opinion, this picture was not complete and that the author deliberately brought him here. A simple reference It suggests that a technician without whom today there will be no concert is not about him, but here it comes but the artist conductor thinking man may be distinguished without which this cathedral was like that at the same time alone among the crowd of the populace and cheap sycophants. This is one of the few pictures that is great completed the technical, artistic and carries a deeper message, not bored on the contrary may cause some discomfort forced to reflect.

Yay! I get to talk about architecture AND photography! One of the great challenges in photographing monumental structures is communicating a realistic and perceptual sense of scale. As with this image, any photograph of large structures, such as the Pantheon, sans people, will fail to express the immensity of the interior space. We see similar issues when photographing St. Peter's, any domed stadium, and other very large structures. Natural features, such as the Grand Canyon, natural arches/bridges, even some trees, demand some scale-able element if a photo is to succeed. Additional characteristics take on greater meaning and significance when tied to a useful sense of scale, such as texture, materiality, void versus solid, rhythm, etc. For me personally, inclusion of a human figure in images of large, man-made objects is a quintessential requirement for expressive communication.

In the case of Su's image, all of these issues come into play. A case can be made that railings and other, human-scale features provide the necessary reference. However, none is so impactful as inclusion of a human figure. The immense nature of the void, together with the span of the arched window become essential elements, beyond the basic, impressive play of light and shadow. The textures of the various features are made more real by reference to the sense of scale, so that one can almost hear the echoing of footsteps off the hard surfaces, with the apparent distance adding to the time delay of the echo. Even the play of light through the windows, such an essential part of this image, takes on a dynamic aspect as we realize how the angles and distances within the space will cause the light to change over time. While this image is a snapshot of a moment in time, the dynamic potential inferred from the scale makes it very nearly four-dimensional. There are many more detailed reasons to appreciate this image, as well as some unrealized opportunities. But, for me, it is the expression of scale, texture, void vs. solid, light vs. dark, and human engagement that makes this a success with me.

Beautifully written, David. Very instructive. Thanks.

David wrote: "... inclusion of a human figure in images of large, man-made objects is a quintessential requirement for expressive communication."

Same for me; in particular, for me, it's because architecture is supposed to be functional (yes?) and I like to see that it is so. Recently I was watching the series Architectures and one of the buildings they 'did,' not surprisingly, was the Guggenheim Museum at Bilbao. I think of Gehry's work as kind of self-indulgent, but nevertheless pretty cool to look at, and, why not? In the series, though, they mentioned and showed with a model, that more than half of the vertical structure is completely non-functional — it contains and does nothing beyond looking cool from the outside. They actually separated the upper 1/2 + of the model and lifted it off to show that it was superfluous to the functionality of the (inner) building. That bugs me.

Therefore, getting back to this POW, which I really enjoy (I love any picture that sparks my imagination, which this space does in spades), I read the picture's functionality by how it is peopled. That's included in your statement (David), but I wanted to get particular about what it means for this non-architect.