Whats wrong with this picture?

[engl]

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

Keep in mind that you are the only one who knows what the sky originally looked like. To me, the brighter area over the roof looks like it could be just clouds. I would certainly not assume it to be the result of sloppiness or heavy handed post processing.

[Louie Powell]

I would not want to apply a pejorative like 'boring' - there's no point in antagonizing the maker of the image. But the image doesn't do much for me, and I have to wonder why it was made at all.

What is the subject? The faded sign is too indistinct to be legible. The old gas pump is too small in the overall image. The clouds in the sky aren't very exciting. The only texture I can see is in the galvanized roofing. So why was the image made?

I have a lot of negatives that, long after I process the film, I finally admit to myself were made mainly because they would demonstrate what the photographic process is capable of doing. In other words, they are purely technical exercises. I have a suspicion that this image falls into that category.

Tonally, the left side of the image is ok, but the shadows on the right need more contrast. And the white table on the right is really distracting.

[sun of sand]

I knew it was the halo



after about 1 freakin hour that's all I could see as a problem that would also be common for
"all printers".. be they digital or film

I actually thought it may have just been the way the sky was
just happening to line up with the roof
moire or whatever I don't know anything about but I don't believe it happens with film

[SteveH]

I knew it was the halo



after about 1 freakin hour that's all I could see as a problem that would also be common for
"all printers".. be they digital or film

I actually thought it may have just been the way the sky was
just happening to line up with the roof
moire or whatever I don't know anything about but I don't believe it happens with film

SOS: You're right, except that this was film. 5x4" TMY. The jpeg compression required to upload this created the thin white line at the roof edge. Definately not on the print.
engl - thats a good point. I guess even a fundamental flaw isn't fundamentally fundamental.
cheers
Steve

[sun of sand]

I meant moire patterns don't happen with film as in wet printed

but I thought
"...a feathered selection has left a halo above the roof.."
not
"jpeg compression created the thin white line at the roof"

If it was the upload that created it then it's not a printing process error

I thought you said you'd have to redo it all from scratch
cause that edited file is "trash"
that it was on perhaps all 20 paper prints
because you hadn't caught it before you digitally printed them out

now it's not even on the print?

it doesn't look like it could be natural, though. it appears sort of solid

bad day already
what was i missing

[SteveH]

I meant moire patterns don't happen with film as in wet printed

but I thought
"...a feathered selection has left a halo above the roof.."
not
"jpeg compression created the thin white line at the roof"

If it was the upload that created it then it's not a printing process error

I thought you said you'd have to redo it all from scratch
cause that edited file is "trash"
that it was on perhaps all 20 paper prints
because you hadn't caught it before you digitally printed them out

now it's not even on the print?

it doesn't look like it could be natural, though. it appears sort of solid

bad day already
what was i missing

Sorry, I'm creating a bit of confusion.
There is a halo on the RHS of the original image above the roof that is a burning error. It shows up in the print and attached image.
There's also a very fine white edge along the roof/sky interface that is a product of jpeg compression that isn't on the prints from the original file. Thats what I thought you were refering to as moire patterns. And you're right - you'd never see that on a wet print.
cheers
Steve

[sun of sand]

I don't like you, SteveH

[SteveH]

I don't like you, SteveH

HUH?