Whats wrong with this picture?

[Bill Burk]

Aha, I see it.

There is an unfortunate interference pattern on the left side of the building that makes the corrugated panels look like they fan out.

Changing the screen angle may help. Stochastic screening may help.

[Bill Burk]

But... wait, that can't be it because you said darkroom printers have the same problem, and darkroom printers wouldn't have interference patterns.

[rguinter]

Vaughn is on the right track - the focal point of the image is the gas pump, so why not feature it more prominently? The right-hand side of the image was uninteresting, so loose it.

Regarding the sky, I would have framed the image such that no sky was visible. What does it add to the image? In this case, nothing; it certainly doesn't have enough going on to really warrant having it in the image.

Just my humble $0.02 worth of opinion

OohmaGawddd!!!!!!... another misuse of the word "loose."

I can't believe it! After beating that horse so totally to death a few weeks ago in two separate threads, I thought for sure no-one here would ever make that mistake again.

And so on it goes...

Bob G.

[rguinter]

Personally, I don't find the image "boring" but personally I was disappointed that the white sign on the far right of the marquee was cut-off. I was expecting to see something there.

Here's a similar image - a scan of a print of an old building that's been shot to death (shame on you if you don't recognize it!) - shot on a similar angle from the left and with a truly boring sky. Yet I don't find it "boring." What say you?



Thomas

BTW, that does like like a finger print on the far left. If it is it's on the negative and should be easy to remove.

Now this one I really like. I especially like the drama of the dark sky against the brightness of the old house. Perhaps it's an infrared image which I tend to find especially appealing.

The original I also found boring (as many other posters pointed out) and I admit thinking, impulsively for a moment on first seeing it, that a good pack of matches could have livened up the image quite a bit.

But after a few laughs that moment passed quickly.

Anyway what do I know?... only what I like and what I don't.

Bob G.

[Nathan Smith]

Aha, I see it.

There is an unfortunate interference pattern on the left side of the building that makes the corrugated panels look like they fan out.

Changing the screen angle may help. Stochastic screening may help.

I thought it was a thumb print. What's an interference pattern?

[Bill Burk]

It's where a pattern is superimposed on another pattern, you can see "waves". Maybe better known as "Moire"

[Bill Burk]

But now I see another familiar pattern, Newton rings upper left a big amoeba and a small dot

[Tom J McDonald]

OohmaGawddd!!!!!!... another misuse of the word "loose."

I can't believe it! After beating that horse so totally to death a few weeks ago in two separate threads, I thought for sure no-one here would ever make that mistake again.

And so on it goes...

Bob G.

He could be right...

When you shoot an arrow you 'loose' an arrow. Maybe he meant he just needs to get rid of that part as quickly as possible!!

[SteveH]

Hi Folks
Just got back after a few days field work and another visit to the Bendigo Gallery to revisit the Eastman House visiting collection there.
I am gratified to see the responses this post has generated, I appreciate all the constructive comments.

My main issue with this image is a flaw which I missed through so many copies of the image. That is when I burned down the sky on the right-hand side I must have used a feathered selection that has left a halo above the roof that is not consistent with either the sky or the lighting of the building.
My point in originally posting this image was to suggest that there are some standards in print-making that are not just value judgements but rather are 'golden standards' applicable to all craft. Poor print spotting and sloppy or heavy handed dodging/burning being two of the most obvious.

Obviously aesthetic considerations are far more subjective as this and many other threads point out.
I do take on many of the suggestions with the composition and cropping. I also hope to get back for a reshoot sometime when the van is not parked infront of the shop.

As for the subject matter - I'm in the process of shooting a personal project on heritage buildings & towns in Tasmania and the Victorian Goldfields and a component of that is these lost and forgotten relics.

cheers
Steve

[SteveH]

Personally, I don't find the image "boring" but personally I was disappointed that the white sign on the far right of the marquee was cut-off. I was expecting to see something there.

Here's a similar image - a scan of a print of an old building that's been shot to death (shame on you if you don't recognize it!) - shot on a similar angle from the left and with a truly boring sky. Yet I don't find it "boring." What say you?



Thomas

BTW, that does like like a finger print on the far left. If it is it's on the negative and should be easy to remove.

Thomas
I like the shot but I'm afraid I don't recognise it. I assume its the subject in at least one famous photo?
The main reson it was cut off on the right on my shot was that the owner always insists on parking his van there (I may have to pluck up the nerve to ask him to move it. And then to let me look inside. And then pose for me in front of the old cash register...).
Looking at the image again I see I should have cropped out the RHS of the facade altogether, also removing much of the distracting table (as attached).
BTW there is no fingerprint (another definite no-no) but the jpeg compression has altered the image somewhat
cheers
Steve