Boat Brace and Sculpted Steel Hull

Colors abound in Gravelle's Moss Landing Boat Yard. Fishermen who

used motorized equipment to scour their corroded boat bottom had

little idea of the beauty they had created until they saw this photo

then said "WOW!". Do you agree? Your ratings and critiques are

very much invited and most welcome. (If you rate harsly or very

negatively, please submit a helpful and constructive comment/Please

share your superior knowledge to help improve my photography).

Thanks! Enjoy! John.

First, in color - the blue diamond against a monochrome textured surface.

Second, the incredibly strong diagonal of the seam (?) on the boat bottom intersecting with the jack screw - all counterpointed by the hatching and the textures made me take the image into Photoshop and play play play in monochrome. I tried RGB channels and blending, LAB luminance and various CMYK variations but nothing was working. Whipped up PhotoKit and did a Sepia #3 and that I think reduced the image to forms and textures while providing separation of the various elements.

So, the fundamental shapes and composition is crisp and tense. (Part of that tentsion is that the support looks pretty spindly compared to what seems a metal mass - without knowing it's a boat hull). But boy - I do believe the blue adds significant visual interest - against the deep black in the scoured hull.

Fun image. I like it.

After all that work this image stimulated, it seems that this image was still strong visually and the colors 'so' intense, right? That is just what I saw,and this is an unPhotoshopped image (other than routine 'auto contrast' enhancement -- no auto color on any of my images or sharpening). I took three images. I haven't looked at your rating if you left one, but I'm very satisfied with this image; I've never left one before labeled 'fine art'. (Note how the screw marks of the boat brace mirror the striations of the hull's scoured texture).

Thanks for sharing the intensity with which you scrutinized this image.

In all my various genres, I'm specially satisfied when someone goes to the trouble to 'think about' the image, for that generally means it was 'scuccessful' to me.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

John

I would certainly never claim that this is a beautiful photo, as the subject isnt that aesthetically pleasing. But some how you have mmanaged to create a very nice photo. Well Done. 5/5

Please take some time to critique my portfolio found at: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=937226.

Basic Information .

Thank you Ryan

Ok, here's a left fielder for you - made me think of a HUGE BLUE WHALE with an artificial fin! lol Truely, the whale part came to me straight away, but the "proppong up" concept was too ordinary for the whale idea - and before u know it, u have a fin!

Seriously tho, this is a wonderful abstract - finding beauty and interest in the most unusual, out of context places. Congrats!

All the best for the New Year!

Ellen

I have high regard for certain critics, and you're one of them -- others I have to know them or their work before I take them at more than just a random number.

You've posted wonderful images, so I know you have exquisite taste --- never a bad image, and your ratings have been spot on, and your critiques are taken seriously by me.

Whale ideas or not (and I just don't see it, but then I don't smoke . . . ;-)) ), I really like this image . . . and increasingly I'm finding my tastes in what I like diverge from the Photo.net raters more and more, or I'm getting more independent.

Tant pis or tant mieux depending on how you look at it, I'm confident enough of what I'm doing to post out of focus images (and somehow get pretty high ratings despite photos that are 1/3 out of focus,, but to me this image is very beautiful, but aesthetically everybody so far rates it pretty mediocre to poor, and that I don't see because of the strong composition and vibrant colors.

I don't think one has to choose a 'beautiful subject' if one can make it beautiful. The commentator before you made that point -- he didn't think the subject was that beautiful, but nevertheless, he, 'grudgingly I think', had to give this photo a high enough rating even for aesthetics though he just wasn't sure about the subject matter.

Well, I think that beauty is everywhere -- you just have to focus on something and uncover its beauty.

I think ? Beepy's rating would have been more directive if he had left one -- he certainly spent enough time with the image, much as I do when I'm critiquing an image of others.

I'm filing this as one of my favorite images and in my book 'very strong' and one I'd be glad to show as representative of my best work, regardless of the ratings so far. I have very strong feelings about composition, and for me this also fills the bill in that regard, and I like the colors and refer you to ? Beepy's discussion.

Ellen, I always love it when you stop to take note of a photo of mine, and you are ALWAYS welcome in my portfolio; your critiques are always a breath of fresh air, and an established yardstick (whale images aside . . . ) by which I can truly measure my progress.

Thanks and Happy New Year.

Thank you for stopping by and making a rating and a comment. Interestingly, as I noted in my comment to Ellen Hinterberger above, I don't think a subject has to 'be' beautiful if the photographer can render it beautifully -- I have a photo of sea lion rear ends (two of them together, blubbery tail to tail) that are quite stunning if taken as an abstract, and one would never reckon that sea lion rear ends are 'aesthetically pleasing' yet somehow these 'are' just that.

Who would have thought.

I have a very open mind when I have a camera in my hands, and thoroughly enjoy the work of others -- even from dramtically different genres (even from my many genres).

Picasso was almost universally reviled at one time -- that stupid Paul, who scoured junkyards looking for this or that, and who later rendered his models with squarish shapes, then put ears out of place, etc.

Look at how history has treated him.

(I don't pretend to be a great artist like Picasso, or worthy of the comparison, but I think I'll follow my nose and create and post images that suit me, and take low ratings when they come, and not make my images 'disappear' if they don't get highest ratings -- that's one reason I have so many sub-folders -- full of images that will never do well for 'ratings' but nevertheless get a very high viewership because somehow they're interesting.

I've looked at your images and will look again in a week or so; please come back some more and then I'll have some better-formed ideas about your portfolio (and some ways to help make it better, I think).

Respectfully,

John

You flatter me so! I'm embarassed!

For the most part, the shots I take are of those relative "incidentals" in life - and from a perspective that is not usually the one taken by the majority.

I often find that shots I love, are poorly received, simply because people don't look past the obvious to find the beauty of detail, texture, colour and contrast - the REASON I took the photo in the first place.

Whale comments aside, u know what my favourite part of this shot is? The delicate "lacework" on the right of the blue square - detail, texture, colour and contrast.

Looking forward to what 2005 brings us!

Cheers, Ellen

I don't do 'flattery'; life's too short. I simply tell the truth, and if it happens to flatter, so be it.

As to this image, one of the reasons I like it is the same reasons maybe I like the photos in your portfolio -- the fine attention to detail -- I don't read your ratings, so I was unaware of their being 'poorly received' in part because so many of them have received over 10 ratings.

I'll be sure to visit more often, as I really do like your work -- as I've said repeatedly, I would love to 'borrow' some of your castoffs. ;~))

In fact, your work helped 'inspire' this one.

John

Hallo John

You already have many and quite intensive comments on that one. You know I like abstract photos having a good graphic impact.

This one certainly has a good graphic presentation from composition, structures and colors.

What makes it really interesting is the possibility to see it in a third dimension too. It is also opening a real space, when you recognize the support. That makes it psychological difficult. If you see a flat photo, you have to decide about foreground and background in it to start the process of understanding what it is. Your photo implys some kind of tension, making it difficult to decide between flat graphical attributes and real motive depth. Tension is an unpleasant feature in the head of most people. They do not like it. Most look for harmony.

I think thats why ratings are deverging.

Alexander

Your comment may be the seminal word of a Hercule Poirot. People can't stand the tension. Maybe they should take a Xanax (an alprazolam or other anxiety-reducing tranquilizer) -- I think that's what Woody Allen would suggest. Your comment is a 'big hit' with me and fills a large gap in my understanding. I think you're right.

(There's a future for you somewhere as a photo or art critic -- you have a true understanding of the minutiae of criticism -- many photographers haven't the skill to critique no matter how wonderful they are behind the viewfinder, with their leneses (objectifs) or in the digital (numerique) darkroom.

Highest respect, as always.

John (Crosley)

This photo,seen in person, is stunning in color, texture, and even simple but dynamic composition. Regardless of ratings, I like it veery much.

John