NO APPARENT VACANCIES

I never thought about how handy a motel could be for storage.

Hi David...I like the composition with the placement of the sign, and the two red contributors...I think the light was not evident which to me, and at least partly, explain the deceptive reaction to this image...I once read a book from a famous photographer (I don't remember the name actually), he was stating that light alone might explain in most of cases why a photo has no successful impact...

I'd love for you to expand on what you said, because I'm not quite sure I know what you are saying. I think I kind of intuit what you are saying. In my own inexact way, I might understand. I'm just not sure. Are we talking about the actual light quality, which in this image is harsh and uninviting? Or are we talking about something totally different? Something much more related to the position of every pixel in the image. If you have the time and the willingness, I would very much like to explore your thoughts on that famous photographer's words.

Thanks for you answer...first I found where I read that statment, it was in a guide about BW photography made by Richard Oselnius for National Geographic Edition.

 

Regarding your question, I don't feel particularly qualified to really give a detailed explanation, but I will try to explain my thoughts. Seeing the shadows here, I think this image was taken between 11 am and 3 pm in a very sunny day (correct me if I am wrong)...under these heavy light condition, you have highlights and deep shadow and in both areas you loose a lot of details and subtility in the image... look at the clouds where it is the most apparant because being white they reflect a lot of light...but the same effect occur in the trees (at a lower level), and everywhere in fact...with too much light the color richness (different tones) and contrast subtility suffer a lot, especially for complex scene. For example, professional flower/garden photographer practically never shoot flowers/gardens in full sun or if so very early in the morning, but they prefer cloudy days.

 

Yes I think the light was a bit hard for this type of image, you can correct a bit using highlights/lowlights correction in PS (you might already have done something) but it will never reach the quality as if the light was smooth from the start. OK so much I think I have nothing to teach you, quite the contrary maybe. I often find myself shooting in hard light simply because my agenda rarely allows me to shoot in "good hours", but I am very often deceived by the results...that's also why I like shooting in cloudy, even raining days where you don't have that kind of problems.

Thanks for your most interesting observations. You pretty much answered my question. I quite often use "Highlights/Shadows" as one of my first steps in processing. I have often wondered if this is a destructive process such as using the contrast boost. But it is quite useful where there are strong highlights and heavy shadow. I find it is easier to bring them under control, and then work backward on the contrast via curves. That is self taught, and may be totally inappropriate to the knowledgeable Pser.

 

So I find myself wondering what to do as the poor traveler who is driving along on a bright sunny day between ten a.m. and 4 p.m. One cannot simply pass up the shot when one will not likely be back. Is there anything to be done?

 

Well, at any rate, I thank you for the discussion. Your knowledge is extensive and your counsel appreciated. Cheers

Well I think there is nothing to be done...If you are there in hard light and have no choice, just shoot and do your best to correct, I would always prefer a photo with this light than no image at all...but you know PN'ers are so hard to please, and so inconsequent sometimes...:-)...

I like the subject and the oversharpening that adds spectral/focus noise to it. It gives it a feel like a 70's movie or a 60s picture in a used book store. Framed exact with great proportions. Well done.

Thank you. Very kind of you.