Whats wrong with this picture?

[SteveH]

Not wanting to be too inflammatory but following on from various discusions on the value of critisism and the need to compare ones work to that of others I wanted to post this image.
I should mention that I'm of the opinion that, generally speaking, critics and critisism are a good thing that can help us push beyond boundaries of complacency and limited self-appraisal.

I've been using this image as a standard to test out various printing papers from various sample packs over the last couple of weeks.
I must have made 20 prints on 20 different papers and have really enjoyed digging deep into the digital printing process.
Tonight though, it finally struck me that there is a serious and inexcusable flaw with this print that is going to mean that I go back and work on it again from scratch.
Maybe I got lulled by the generally warm praise this print has recieved by family and friends but I suspect mainly it just shows my lack of familiarity with high-quality digitally-corrected images (although I've seen the same fault in the work of some "reputable" darkroom printers).

I'll post the corrected image in a few days but was interested in the range of critical comments anyone cares to offer. (Apart from the shadow detail that seems to be lost in the upload). :rolleyes:
cheers
Steve

[msk2193]

Steve,

Looks like the image is well saturated throughout. The wall / corner is straight.

The only thing I would have considered on site is making the old lettering on the facade stand out more by making it darker through the use of a color correcting filter.

FWIW, my two pence!

[Bill_1856]

Nothing wrong with it except that it's boring.

[SteveH]

Nothing wrong with it except that it's boring.

Bill
Happy for all criticism but if it's unqualified then its pretty meaningless.
Why is it boring?
cheers
Steve

[SteveH]

Steve,

Looks like the image is well saturated throughout. The wall / corner is straight.

The only thing I would have considered on site is making the old lettering on the facade stand out more by making it darker through the use of a color correcting filter.

FWIW, my two pence!

Thanks
I should re-state that it has become a lot heavier from uploading. The original jpeg is a lot clearer on the same screen.
But there's a technical issue with it, that now I've seen it, bugs the hell out of me.
Just wanted to see how many other people here notice it.
cheers
Steve

[David R Munson]

Steve - the reflection of the truck in the front window? Is that what you're waiting for someone to pick out?

As for being boring, I have to say I basically agree, though I'll go into why. What made you want to photograph this scene and do so in the way that you did? When I'm looking at this, where do you hope my eye moves? What is it that you hope to stand out as the focal point (no pun!) of the composition? I see a photograph that is technically decent, but that doesn't draw me in. Why was it interesting to you? Whatever it was, it doesn't come across to me in the photograph. I want something to look at. I want interesting composition. I want a concept. I want beautiful light. I want *something* to make me want to look at it. So far I don't see such a thing.

[SteveH]

Steve - the reflection of the truck in the front window? Is that what you're waiting for someone to pick out?

As for being boring, I have to say I basically agree, though I'll go into why. What made you want to photograph this scene and do so in the way that you did? When I'm looking at this, where do you hope my eye moves? What is it that you hope to stand out as the focal point (no pun!) of the composition? I see a photograph that is technically decent, but that doesn't draw me in. Why was it interesting to you? Whatever it was, it doesn't come across to me in the photograph. I want something to look at. I want interesting composition. I want a concept. I want beautiful light. I want *something* to make me want to look at it. So far I don't see such a thing.

Hi David
thanks for your comments.
I guess I should have stressed that that this image was used as a test because of its range of tonal values more than for asthetics. Personally I like it but I'm actually kind of chuffed to have my opinion of it thoroughly demolished. I get so little informed critical feedback and I'm sure your criticism will help me re-evaluate it.
No, the reflection of the van is not the problem, its a technical problem from a purely print-makers perspective. One that I see too often in darkroom printing so am kicking myself that I didn't pick it up before hand with my (new) digital printing process.
Though maybe its not as obvious as I thought.
Thanks for all comments
Steve

[Mike Anderson]

That white spot close to the lower right corner, on the edge of the sidewalk?

Or the little white dots around the perimeter?

....Mike

[SteveH]

This proving a better discussion than I had hoped. Thanks for all comments.
Unfortunately its now 1 hour and 1 cleansing ale the worse side of midnight here. And so to bed I go must..
Look forward to picking it up again tomorrow though.
And Mike, no its not the white dots - they're in the scene.
cheers
Steve

[Brian Ellis]

Bill
Happy for all criticism but if it's unqualified then its pretty meaningless.
Why is it boring?
cheers
Steve

I would have been more polite than Bill but since you ask why he said it's boring and he hasn't responded I'll hazard a guess that he thinks it's boring (and I do too) because it's such a typical subject, especially among LF photographers, with nothing particularly unusual or interesting about either the subject or how it's been treated that creates any real visual interest. You've made a very good documentary photograph of one part of an old building. If that's what you wanted to do, for example to have something to give to the local historical society, then you've accomplished that.

Having made many photographs of old buildings over the years similar to this one, and having generally found them unsatisfactory, I've come to think that as an extreme generalization old buildings like this are best treated in one of two ways. Either make a closeup of some very small part of the building - a window, a door, a corner, a sign, whatever - that's of particular visual interest for some reason or photograph the entire building and its surroundings. And if there's no small part of particular interest and if there's nothing of particular interest about the entire building as well as its surroundings then don't make the photograph unless you just want a record of what part of the building looked like.

I don't see any significant technical problems other than the shadow areas that you've mentioned. Of course we're looking at a small image on a low-resolution computer monitor, which isn't a very good way to judge the technical aspects of a photograph. If I was making the print I probably would have increased the contrast in the sky but that's more a matter of interpretation than a technical problem.

P.S. After typing all this I saw David's comment, which expresses my thoughts about why it's boring better than I did.

[Tony Evans]

Steve,
I do not find your photo boring. My eye is attracted to the Gas Pump as a first focal point. However, it offends the whole photo by appearing (on my screen) to be not sharply in focus. To my thinking, the eye expects the "key" to be in focus. If this is only a result of the on-line presentation, please excuse.

[cps]

OK - I'll hazard a guess that it's about the sky. To me it looks like maybe the white cloud on the lower right section of sky didn't get the same post-filtering the rest of the sky did. To me it seems like the rest of the sky is lower contrast than it could be, by the way.

Chris

[Richard K.]

I don't fint the picture boring (mainly because I've taken a few like this myself :) ). I like the glow of the pump, the textures in the building and the pattern in the sky. To the right of the center pole may need a bit of dodging but other than that and possibly enhancing the lettering on the board, it looks fine to me.

I am, however, genuinely interested in pursuing the idea of boring...

In all sincerity, could those of you who find this photo boring, banal or pedestrian PLEASE show us one of yours (best idea!) or a link to an old building in a similar setting that you consider NOT boring? I am being sincere. I think we can all learn something from this. I do concede that it is hard to be original or more than just documentarian in many of these canonical photographs of rot ruin rust rubbish ...

Please show us :)

[BrianShaw]

I generally like the picture, but would like it more if the dark void under the porch had more visible detail in it. If I had taken that shot I would have seriously considered adding some fill flash to accentuate that part of the image.

[Vaughn]

I find my eye travels left to right, and right off the image -- with no good reason to return to it. If not boring, it is as least not interesting -- which for me has nothing to do with the subject matter, but instead, all to do with the image.

With effort, I can come back to the petrol pump, but it is not sufficient to hold my eye on its own.

The quality of light is lacking, but that just may be the digital reproduction I am seeing.

[cowanw]

To give a responce to Richard K, is the subject the pump, the table, the door, the sign, or the sky.
Whichever, I would be inclined to simplify and eliminate unbalanced items.
The heavy dark sky and the light pump and table reverse the stablitiy of the image.
The table leads the eye right out of the image.
I think there are 3 or 4 pictures in this picture, but which is the purpose of the op remains to be known.
As a test neg, it has white,black and tones in between. I dont know what the technical deficiency is. It is not really amenable to test strips.

[Patrik Roseen]

Hmmm, I think the picture makes me think about how this building has had many different purposes over the years. It's all about the letters on the wall.

If this photograph was to be part of a portfolio of similar buildings with letters on the wall I think people would start to reflect much more about how we move with time.
We would not think of each photograph as boring...the context would make all photographs meaningful

[Vaughn]

Forgive me for I have sinned -- but I had a good time doing it!

[KenM]

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 :)

[Vaughn]

Well, messing around with the composition of others must be a sin, so we all know where I'll be on May 21st -- squarely on the ground with my feet of clay.

I will disagree with Patrik -- a good documentary image should hold up both as a document (the "context") and as an image...and that holds for all images of a series. If one image is not as strong as the others, then one has a weak image in the series...and that image should be re-worked, re-made, or tossed out.

[Drew Wiley]

Poohbah! What do YOU like about your own photograph? There's one main focal point,
which is the bright white gas pump. It's off to the left, which keeps the eye unbalanced and toward the leaning side of the bldg, which makes the composition visually interesting. It's an old bldg, and jillions of photographs have been taken of such things, but so what... it's how you handle the subject that counts. There's lots of textural information and tonality variance. That's nice. It was probably fun to take
and a good technical exercise. What's wrong with that?

[Eric Woodbury]

I think Vaughn did as much as any could to save this. That is such a nice sky, that it is a crime to cut it off, but I don't see this pic as a vertical and I don't think there is enough 'meat' to the right to support a horizontal. Time to move on. Better to use your time taking more pix rather than trying to save this one. They can't all be winners.

[Patrik Roseen]

Well, messing around with the composition of others must be a sin, so we all know where I'll be on May 21st -- squarely on the ground with my feet of clay.

I will disagree with Patrik -- a good documentary image should hold up both as a document (the "context") and as an image...and that holds for all images of a series. If one image is not as strong as the others, then one has a weak image in the series...and that image should be re-worked, re-made, or tossed out.

Vaughn, I never said that one image would be stronger or weaker than any other in the series. Look at the Becher series of gas tanks, steel mills etc Would you say that any of these in isolation made your heart beat faster?

[paulr]

Bill
Happy for all criticism but if it's unqualified then its pretty meaningless.
Why is it boring?
cheers
Steve

We've all done it. Sheds, sides of barns, old doors. They're clichés for a reason: they're fun and nostalgic and have tones and textures that look great on a big piece of film. But after something's been done to death, it's generally ... dead.

It's of course possible to show something beyond the expected with this style and subject matter. But it's very difficult, and I don't think you've done that here.

It's such an old trope that the onion even went after it ...

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/10287/magazine_033006_jpg_445x1000_upscale_q85.jpg

[Brian C. Miller]

My eye goes vertical with the image. I kind of start with the pump, but mostly I try to figure out what was originally on the sign. "Wheaties" could be there, but I'm not sure.

As for the printing error, I don't know. None of this addresses the OP's original question.

Paul: You'd better watch out, or The Onion is going to come after you! ;)

[Drew Wiley]

Paul, you've undoubtedly plagiarized that shed picture from one of our local Calif real estate adds. It was formerly up for grabs for $750,000, but now with the collapse of
the economy can be had for just $525,000.

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - I personally like the horizontal pull toward the left, with the sky cropped down a
bit. That it's common subject matter doesn't bother me. Exercises like this one can be
helpful. When something exceptional does come along, the practice allows one to instinctively respond. If all the wall lettering was brought out, it would compete with
the gas pump for attention. I like what Alfred Hitchcock said about suspense ... there
should be only one real climax point, with everything else building toward that, or
arranged around it. Pulling attention off toward the side instead of the center makes
the composition a bit different than most, sorta like EW's Quaker State gas station
picture of days of yore.

[Vaughn]

Vaughn, I never said that one image would be stronger or weaker than any other in the series. Look at the Becher series of gas tanks, steel mills etc Would you say that any of these in isolation made your heart beat faster?

That is not how I read your post...your meaning must have been lost in my translation, sorry about that.

In the Becher example, each image stands alone, but together they become greater than the sum of their parts. IMWO (in my worthless opinion), the image in question is not as strong as it could be and could keep a series from becoming greater than the sum of its parts.

I would like to be able to see it as Drew does, and I can almost do so, but I keep failing at it.

Vaughn

PS -- in my crop I do like the series of vertical rectangles.

[Eric James]

I hope I haven't offended you by taking liberties with your image. I like Vaughn's crop but as Eric points out, that's a nice sky.

[Vaughn]

I hope I haven't offended you by taking liberties with your image. I like Vaughn's crop but as Eric points out, that's a nice sky.

Yum!

[Drew Wiley]

There's some bright sky just above the right roofline, plus a partial view of a white table on right, which balances the gas pump on the left, but not too much to undermine its visual dominance. So the timing of the sky is nice. I sorta like the attempt at visual complexity rather than just homing in on a simple part of it. A nice
bouncing around between sky and items in foreground, with at least enought depth in
the shadows to give a little mystery. Not much of a metaphysical subject, but lighting
can at a certain point transfigure even the commonplace. Go back and study that EW
shot I mentioned in that regard.

[jb7]

Oh good, a parlour game-

My reading of this question is that it's a technical issue-
even if the picture is posted a little too small to make out detail-

Am I seeing some blotciness in the sky, like some overenthusiastic spotting or cloning?

Particularly top centre, and top right...

[Nathan Smith]

Is there a thumb print on the left side? I just zoomed in and, though blurry at that size, it seems as though there are some odd concentric lines there. No? Then I'll have to go with the aforementioned reflection of the truck in the window I guess.

[Vaughn]

... Go back and study that EW
shot I mentioned in that regard.

This one?

http://phomul.canalblog.com/archives/2005/12/02/1064374.html

[Drew Wiley]

No. I'm thinking of a roadside shot (literally roadside) that EW made in New Mexico beside a gas station, with the Quaker State sign showing prominently at one side. In this case, there's a similar left to right back and forth flow between the highlights, like
a beach wave bouncing off a rock and creating a rebounding wave. Technically, I don't
know what the alleged issue is - perhaps some Newton rings in the sky??? My office monitor can't really bring out that kind of thing, so I just can't decipher that half of the
question.

[Vaughn]

Should be the bottom image of the four in the link I posted. Very different in composition than the OP..works in a very different way.

[Drew Wiley]

OK - yeah, that's the one ... once I scrolled down past the other three images. A totally banal subject made into something profound, simply by a judicious use of subtleties and some sensitivity in printing.

[Vaughn]

Some very powerful triangles, including the one created by the three white posts. Everything leading the eye to the sign and keeping it there. I wonder if the OP's image would "work" easier for those in cultures that read right-to-left.

Vaughn

[Drew Wiley]

Vaughn - there's obviously a lot of drama in the EW shot, rather than the deadpan of
the former; but that kind of thing can be improved with printing skills. I'm reminded of how BW took a shot of the Mittens in Monument Valley from exactly the same turnout
as thousands of other shots, and even with the same perspective lens, and in less
than rare light, but turned out a print which virtually breathes his unique DNA as a photographer. Only two month after I had purchased my first view camera I was returning from the high country and swung by Bodie just to kill a day on the way back.
I took a shot of the gas pumps - aguably a cliche shot if ever there was one. In fact,
a Natl Geographic dude was there with a workshop, and he told his students to follow
me around just so he could wander around and do his own thing. So every shot I took
they tried to replicate. But I'm perfectly comfortable in stating that my own shot has
never been duplicated. What none of them detected is that there was a little sparrow
periodically landing atop one of the pumps and forming a perfect diagonal with a roofline. Besides the geometry and general interest with the little bird, I did some fancy
masking tricks for the Cibachrome to control the advancing and receding plane of the respective hues. Perhaps one of my earliest and less advanced color prints, but even
BW complimented me on that one. All anyone else saw out there were some cute old
relics. They would have had to be literally seeing it as the groundglass did at that
exact instant (plus the darkroom tweaks) or it would have itself simply been another
Bodie cliche.

[Drew Wiley]

Just noted your last post, Vaugn. L to R, or R to L cultural issues? Don't tell anyone,
but I have on occasion flipped a negative. Wouldn't work with the image in question
because of the signage at top of bldg. One time Aaron Dygert flipped an image of a
Korean headstone upside down, like BW sometimes did, and offended someone. Heck,
my camera flips everything upside down automatically.

[Drew Wiley]

(Still rambling)... Vaughn, hard to tell, when the web is such a crude form of visual
communication, but if I had the negative of a relatively flat deadpan subject like this, I'd enhance the sense of depth with very judicious dev and toning - something very subtle like a little glycin glow in the highlights, and probably almost imperceptible multiple toning to create the illusion of layers of advancing and receding planes, with the shadow being a pinch cooler (but not different enough to give away my hand). If it were me I'd also use the 8x10 to create an overabundance of detail. But the whole point of my drift in gab is to state that there seems to be some sort of germinal way of looking things that is more than just surface documentary, something worthy pointing out in terms of maybe subconscious compositional skills, which he might or might not continue to build on in the future. Maybe I tend to evaluate such things for
potential as much as for the immediate image itself. Speaking of planes, have you ever
tried layering the gelatin on your carbon prints for a split-toned effect between highlts
and shadows, maybe with slightly different melting points in the gelatins? (Getting off
topic I realize)...

[Vaughn]

Just noted your last post, Vaugn. L to R, or R to L cultural issues? Don't tell anyone, but I have on occasion flipped a negative.

Don't tell anyone, but all my carbon printed images are flipped...;)

And, no, I have to yet tried multiple layers yet with carbon printing, tempting as it is! KISSing it for now. But for me, putting something significant on film is only half the battle (or fun). The other half is is print-making.

[tgtaylor]

I don't fint the picture boring (mainly because I've taken a few like this myself :) ). I like the glow of the pump, the textures in the building and the pattern in the sky. To the right of the center pole may need a bit of dodging but other than that and possibly enhancing the lettering on the board, it looks fine to me.

I am, however, genuinely interested in pursuing the idea of boring...

In all sincerity, could those of you who find this photo boring, banal or pedestrian PLEASE show us one of yours (best idea!) or a link to an old building in a similar setting that you consider NOT boring? I am being sincere. I think we can all learn something from this. I do concede that it is hard to be original or more than just documentarian in many of these canonical photographs of rot ruin rust rubbish ...

Please show us :)

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?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/5738670610_117dbb1470_z.jpg

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.

[Richard K.]

||||||||||||
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!)|||||||||||||| -

I live in Etobicoke, how am I supposed to recognize it?!?!? :) :D Bodie, no? (did a WS there back in the 80s)
I have an interesting shot of it...somewhere...:rolleyes:

[Drew Wiley]

Some scratches seem to be showing, but maybe it's not boring because it's unconventional and the shack just seems to impose itself like some kind of entity.
Not the usual cutesy scenic shot of the bldg. I did a nite shot of the old Bridgeport
courthouse down the road from there when it was being painted. Did some serious
toning experiments with it, and boy does it look surreal. The sky is black, black,black, and the bldg itself is downright sinister, being lit mainly from floodlights
on the porch below, with all the shadows running a reverse direction from normal,
namely upwards. At times, I've made an interpositive of certain subject and printed
a final negative image on the print. I've even done that on color with some excellent
but obviously unreal results, but very very different from typical Photoshoppy stuff.
Remember how Minor White could take a fairly ordinary farm scene and almost
make your hair stand on end?

[tgtaylor]

Yes, it's Bodie. Specifically the J.S. Cain residence and now the Park's office on the corner of Green and Park Streets. The structure immediately behind on the left is the Miller Hoouse, and behind that is the Methodists Church. It was shot on Rollie Infrared film with a 120mm Nikkor SW. The distracting lines in the immediate foreground are not scratches but shadows cast from the electrical lines passing overhead. Its a scan of a silver print on Ilford MGIV RC glossy.

To me it's not boring because the subject is not diminished (it's kind of "in your face") and is shown with its surroundings and the black sky complements the subject and mood.

Thanks for viewing :)

Thomas

[msk2193]

So is Steve going to let us in on his secret?

[FlashThat]

You could make the color brighter or make some colorful effects on it to bring life to the photo.

[austin granger]

Try as I might, I can't find the "serious and inexcusable flaw." I'm very curious though.

As for the critiques, I've come to the conclusion that oftentimes, they're just not very helpful. I mean to say, it's often the case that if you ask ten different photographers for their opinion, you'll get ten different opinions. We bring so much of ourselves to each and every thing that we look at. Some people love Walker Evans, others William Wegman (shutter), some are moved by Ansel Adams, others by Robert Adams, Eliot Porter or Richard Misrach, Beethoven or Woody Guthrie... Who can say? I think that in the end the best a person can do is study the work of the photographers they admire, be brutally honest with themselves, and keep on going.

That said (:) )... I did take your picture and play with it a little. I hope you don't mind. It was an interesting exercise. I certainly don't think that my version is better than yours, just different. It's how I would have done it.

Looking forward to your revealing the 'problem.'

[Drew Wiley]

Bingo Austin! You've managed to pull more dimensionality out of the shot, along with a
more unified and compelling overall composition, without destroying the linear flow I responded to. Amazing what a little cropping and contrast tweaking can do.

[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?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/5738670610_117dbb1470_z.jpg

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!!:p

[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?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/5738670610_117dbb1470_z.jpg

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

[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.:rolleyes:
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?:confused: