audidudi

The slight horizon tilt bothered me a bit at first until I realized the photographer had left it this way intentionally, as a subtle way of letting us know that it hasn't been Photoshopped to death, as is too often the case with other images we see these days. Clearly, the image he posted here is an image that was captured on the camera's CCD with a single, well-timed exposure and not one that he created, Frankenstein-like, from various bits-and-pieces.

Personally, I haven't felt this excited about photography in a long time and I can't wait to see more of this talented photographer's work over the coming weeks!

FYI, the Howard Schatz book Jörg referred to above is titled Seeing Red and unfortunately, it's long out of print. I've seen used copies of it for sale at Amazon.com for upwards of $300 (although the prices seem to have come down of late) so apparently quite a few people (including me!) have a high opinion of his work. The book Daniel referred to is titled Pool Light and alas, I believe it's likewise out of print...

Hmmm ... per Rhett's comments, perhaps in the future, I should post alternate versions as an attachment and not an in-line image. This way, the viewer wouldn't see it until/unless they chose to see it and clicked on the link.

As I explained in my response to comments made on one of the photos I've posted for critique, I'm very much an intuitive photographer. I often can't tell you why something works for me (or doesn't, as the case may be), only that it does (or doesn't).

Well, the same thing is also true of my skill as a critic. I know what I like but don't always know why I like it and Carl's image here is the perfect example of this.

As I explained in my comments on his other photo with the peeling paint, I very much like this type of subject. And in this case, the first place my eye goes to is the raised section in the middle, specifically the cracked paint in the center. From there, it goes up to the top of the raised section and then backtracks across the center and down to the bottom. Then it moves left, checks out what's up with all those cool horizontal lines, backtracks over to the right, where it does likewise with the even cooler horizontal lines, then backtracks again to the center, which is where it started.

On some level, this is fine but it's been my experience (especially with abstracts) that I much prefer images where the eye follows a circular path from area-of-interest to area-of-interest, with as little backtracking over previously explored areas as possible.

By cropping this image square and putting the raised section on the left side, I believe I have accomplished this. Now, instead of being drawn to the middle of the frame, my eye starts on the left side; from there, it goes down, over to the right, back up to the top and then back over to the left, from which it returns to the center where it started. Like the goldfish that forgets where it was 5 seconds earlier and happily swims 'round and 'round its little tank, I find that my eye will happily go 'round and 'round an image so long as it's not forced to backtrack over recently viewed areas as I find this tends to disrupt the flow.

That said, perhaps someone who understands this stuff better than I do will explain why I'm all wet and my thinking's for the birds -- Paula regularly assures me that this is a distinct possibility! -- but if you look at most of my images, I think you'll find they do indeed direct the eye around them in a circular pattern or barring that, they at least don't require it to backtrack over covered ground.

So, how's that for an explanation? Comments, anyone?

I also agree that, for me, the original image (and its unique perspective) works much better. As for printing this image large, a friend of mine had a D30 (and now has a D60) and he successfully printed some images taken with it as large as 20x30 using his Epson 7000 printer. Of course, there's more to pulling this off than just sending the file to the printer and if you contact me privately, I'll be happy to share the details with you...

I believe this image -- of the same building in "five ivy leaves"? -- has great potential as an abstract -- which I suspect is Carl's goal -- but as it stands, it's not quite abstract enough for my tastes.

Since Carl has been experimenting with crops, I did a bit of experimenting myself. While it's true I'm a big fan of square images, in this case, I think the square crop preserves enough of the fine details to make the image interesting but at the same time, it removes enough of their context to make identifying the subject difficult ... voila! It's now an abstract!

I also tweaked the color of the shadow area slightly to make it less blue. While its presence is critical to the success of this image, I have a personal distaste for blue shadows (a preference that's no doubt the result of all the Provia I shoot!) and use a filter to avoid them whenever possible.

(P.S. to Carl: I get the feeling I'm picking on you somewhat by recropping all of your images. The problem, I think, is that so much of what you shoot is so close to what I shoot (or would like to shoot ... that's a compliment, by the way) that it's difficult for me to not personalize these images and visualize them as I think I would have shot them had I been there instead of you. I realize this isn't the most sophisticated or useful method of critiquing an image and if this approach bothers you even slightly, then please let me know and I'll stop.

Although I tend not to like these sorts of images -- for example, the stuff that John Paul Caponigro puts together in Photoshop -- I must admit this one has a bit of appeal to me.

 

Unfortunately, that appeal vanishes once my eye has locked onto the seam between the two images. While I'm sure it would be a lot of work to blend them together better, I think the end result will be better for having done it.

Has this image been changed? I just came back to look at it again and it looks quite a bit brighter overall and the highlighted area looks ... well, less highlighted. Hmmm...

While playing around in Photoshop, I tried also tried this, which I think I like even better...

In addition to the crop, I also dodged the upper and lower left corners to lighten them slightly.

Nice! As others have pointed out, though, I think the right side should be cropped just inside dark band and the upper and lower left corners could use a bit of dodging to lighten them slightly.

I have looked at this image several times now and while I certainly don't dislike it, I'm afraid that it doesn't do much for me, either. I guess that, for reasons unknown to me, I'm sort of ambivalent about it as a stand-alone image. As part of a series -- for instance, combined with the photo you posted for critique earlier -- it would probably work much better.

 

That said, my only technical criticism is that what I assume to be the subject of the photo -- hands scribing the 2x4 -- are too much in shadow. My eyes are drawn to the bright spot next to them but there's nothing of interest for them to see once they land there.

Other than burning-in the corners slightly and adding a bit more space to the bottom, I wouldn't change a thing. Everything else, from the color of the sand to the shape and positioning of the plant, works well here. Nice one!

I like the idea here and for the most part, the execution as well. However, I find the fact that some parts of the same blade of grass are in and out of focus at different points disturbing -- it makes this look like a bad Photoshop job -- and I'd like to see more details rendered slightly more sharply to better set them off against the highly blurred background. I have no complaints about the cropping this time around but to my eyes, the green borders on lurid and a bit less saturation might be desirable.

All in all, though, it's nice to see someone trying a new approach to landscape photography!

I can certainly understand why this scene caught Jeffrey's eye -- had I been there, I'd like to think it would have caught mine, too! -- but as much as I like his choice of subject, the pastel colors and contrasting patterns of the walls and the subtle shadowing behind the balconies, I'm afraid that, for me, the converging lines and the partial windows along the left side of the frame and in the corners detract enough from the image that my reaction to it ends up being "nice try" instead of "nice."

 

While it may be possible to fix some of these flaws in Photoshop and/or with a judicious crop or two, I'd love to see it reshot with a view camera -- Yes, my bias is showing here -- and with the appropriate perspective corrections and cropping done in camera instead of post-exposure. That said, I might also consider a square crop encompassing just the middle three balconies but that's definitely a personal preference on my part...

The correct title of the Dire Straits album mentioned above is Love over Gold and the titles that Hrvoje mentioned are two songs on it. (And, Yes, I agree ... it's a good album.)

As for this photo, ehhh (accompanied by a nod of the head and shrug of the shoulders). I certainly can't fault it on technical grounds but to my eye, lightning alone does not an interesting image make. Perhaps if the trees weren't all in silhouette or there was something in the foreground of interest...

The difference in color saturation that you've noted is probably a color-space mismatch although the fact that photo.net usually further compresses the images you submit doesn't help, either. Before uploading your next image, convert it to sRGB first and see if this doesn't improve the color match between what you see in your browser and in your image editor. (Mind you, with some images, doing this will screw up the color royally but at least you'll know this before you upload it and perhaps you can even tweak the file to compensate for it somewhat.)

Since you're looking for cropping suggestions, here's my take on this image. I also added a gradient layer of black to even out the contrast and couldn't resist a bit of dodging/burning/blurring/sharpening to focus attention on her face.

I uploaded the image I tweaked to one of my folders and indicated clearly that it wasn't mine. I hoped that people who stumbled across it wouldn't rate or comment upon it outside of the intended forum but I found the following comment had been added when I checked it a few minutes ago...

 

* * * *

 

So, tell your friend, that I like it very much! Unconventional perspective (amongst so many boring pics of flowers and cactus in the world.., sharp and good color work, good color toning for background...interestingly & intelligent composed: Why doesn't he/she want to join? I wished I could do a foto as fine as this...

 

-- Heidrun Zywietz

 

* * * * *

 

BTW, Heidrun gave it a 10 for originality and 9 for aesthetics.

To my eye, this image has a tremendous amount of potential. First, though, I'd rotate it slightly clockwise (about five degrees) then crop it square, in order to focus attention on the blooms and not the desert around them. Then I would use a bit of dodging/burning/blurring/sharpening in Photoshop to encourage the viewer's eye to stay focused on the blooms and not wander off.

Assuming Christian's forebearance, I had a go at the image per the steps outlined above and came up with this version after maybe five minutes worth of tinkering in Photoshop. Personally, I rather like it ... what does everyone else think?

While Carl's title makes it clear the ivy leaves were his intended subject, this isn't so clear from the image itself. To my eye, the peeling paint makes an equally strong subject (mind you, I may be biased in this regard as I shoot a lot of "peeling paint"-type images myself) and in fact, it may even be the stronger of the two.

 

As such -- and assuming the original scene allowed it, of course -- I would have composed the image a bit differently, with less emphasis on the leaves and more on the paint and exposed wood. I particularly like the exposed wood on the right side of the frame and probably would have tried to include more of this, if possible.

 

I do like the almost pastel colors although I find myself wishing for more sharpness (I can't tell if the softness is intentional or simply an artifact of the scanning process) and perhaps just a bit more contrast. I might also have dodged the shadow cast by the second leaf up from the bottom as it creates a dark area in the middle of the image that traps my eye and possibly burned the light paint at the top of the frame as it tends to divert my attention, too.

 

All in, I can certainly understand why you chose to photograph this scene but this image, as it stands, misses the mark a bit for my particular set of tastes and preferences. (For what it's worth, I find the same to be true with a lot of my images as well and there are many subjects that I've had to shoot three or four or even five times in an effort to capture on film that which I find attractive to the eye.)

Wow ... I agree with Carl, word for word! The only other thing I might have done is burn the sky a bit to set the clouds apart slightly more and counterbalance the dark areas on the bottom of the frame.

I'm afraid this one does nothing for me ... "zip, slant, doodly-squat, nada," as a friend of mine used to say. While the lighting on the eggs is somewhat interesting, the lighting on the cups isn't and to my eyes, the composition is dull and lacking in interest. Sorry, Carl...

 

Actually, the aspect ratio is closer to a 6x8 than a 6x7. If you ever get serious about this format, Fuji makes a nice (but also very heavy and costly) 6x8 SLR as well as a Japanese market-only 6x8 version of their "Texas Leica" 6x7 and 6x9 fixed-lens rangefinders. If your budget's anything like mine, though, then cropping will probably have to do for now...

 

You know, the more I look at this image, the more I think it will benefit from being printed LARGE. I can easily see a 45x60 print of it hanging over my fireplace as a replacement for the 48x60 photo-realistic painting of a clown fish that's presently there. :^)

Well, here's my take on it. I trimmed a bit off the left and cloned a bit more onto the bottom. As much as I like square-format images -- the majority of my photos are composed and shot as squares -- I don't think it would work well for this image.

It appears the colors picked up a bit of saturation somewhere along the way (probably a color space mismatch) but to my eye, this composition looks a bit better balanced, top to bottom and side to side. What say the rest of you?