marc_rochkind

Are we looking at a photo of a photo? It's blurry, and that frame appears to be an actual wood frame. It would be helpful to post the digital image. That said, I like the composition, with emphasis on the foreground. Not seeing the texture of the vegetation makes it hard to comment on the image.

Crop out the conduit and meter at the right, which crowd the right edge anyway. Then you have a strong, 3-element composition, with a completely conventional door and window, and something very odd: a clock on an outside wall. Maybe trim the bottom, too. Experiment with the cropping.

The graffiti, or whatever it is, is also interesting. Increase its contrast a bit to make it more visible.

This has the makings of a fine photograph!

Seems too dark and out of focus. Is there some effect you're trying for?

A couple of comments here are to the effect that the exposure is wrong, or at least could be improved, but the test of whether the exposure is right is whether the result achieves the photographer's artistic intent.

This works for me! A strange, unsettling image.

Very promising. The trees take the viewer's eye to the center lower background, where there is... nothing at all! Maybe at least lighten that area so the tone is consistent with the geometry? And maybe a bit more contrast in the trees.

mikemorrellNL,

Everything I shoot is post-processed, always with Lightroom (from raw), and often with Topaz Studio and/or Photoshop (which was used to delete the fourth shell), and/or Silver Efex. Your idea is a good one that I'll try.

Marc

Thanks for all these comments! I've taken a few of them as ideas for another version of the picture. More comments?

It would be better, I think, if we limited our critique to the photo itself, rather than going into other matters, such as why the photographer shot it.

Wayne, is it the title that throwing you off? If so, that was just something I typed in the field. None of my photos have titles. (If I could edit my post, I would change the title to "untitled".)

An abstract, dreamy quality. If the subject were sharper, I might complain about the grain. But, for this shot, it's not a problem. I think the water must have been pretty calm for you to even have gotten this much definition with that very long exposure.

On 9/4/2023 at 6:27 AM, jc1305us said:

Unfortunately when it comes out of Lightroom, it loses something. 🙁

From the posts here, it seems that this might be a scan of a negative. Lightroom is most effective when it's working on a raw file. There's not much that can be done with the limited dynamic range of a scan.

Really close to the original. I looked at the two, going back and forth, and I think I prefer the original. But maybe you could use a brush for the tire only and try to make the tread visible?

Agree with Dan JM: With that much exposure increase, the shot is now ordinary, without the mystery and drama that characterized the original.

Great shot! Any way to bring up some detail in the tire? Would add interest to that part of the image. (Or, maybe it's there but not visible with the online image.)

A much stronger image, very effectively framing the tree. I think you've taken it as far as it will go, as the framed tree is pretty boring.

An uninteresting shot. The flowers seems to be framing the tree at upper left, which itself is undistinguished. And, in the middle right there is a prominent dead flower. Perhaps something could come from a very close up (maybe macro) shot of just one or two flowers.

Better! Now the tree leaves at the top aren't as bad, but still you might select them and lighten them. I think the main problem now is the large tree trunk. That should be easy to select and maybe darken. Another thing to try is to select the object, take the inverse selection, and blur it a bit.

I'm with the previous critiques. In addition, there's too much that irrelevant on the right that could be cropped.

Here's a case where a color version might work better to highlight this strange object, provided its color is different from what I assume is the brown and green of the trees. Or, maybe some heavy Photoshopping to isolate the object.

13 hours ago, samstevens said:

Tom, can you try a high-definition, 3-D, IMAX version next and then maybe add surround sound. Thanks, bud! 🙄

Excellent suggestion! And with Photoshop's new Generative Fill, the OP can add some snakes and maybe a roller coaster.

Thanks for the new versions! To me, the color versions are better than the B&W, and I like the more saturated one. Gives it a surreal quality.

Notwithstanding what erocphelps said, I'd like to see a version where you do fool with the colors. In particular, let's see what saturating the green looks like. Also, as this photo is nearly monochromatic, let's see high-contrast B&W.

Real potential here! Please post a high-contrast B&W so we can consider that version. Another version I'd like to see is one (color and B&W) with 20% taken off the right and bottom.