Critique Thread No. 1

The idea of this thread is for someone (in this case me) to post an image for discussion. The poster should explain what they thought they were trying to achieve and why, along with any pertinent technical details. Anyone who wishes can then comment on the image saying what they like and why, what they don't like and why, and what they would do differently. When the thread dies, it is up to someone else to pick up the banner and post the next image, preferably copying and pasting this paragraph into the new thread and incrementing the number in the title.

In the case of my example image, I am going to post the final image, and the original image. I will also try and make the RAW file available via Microsoft's "skydrive" if anyone wants to have a go at processing the file themselves and posting the results.

Image Number 1: Overlook Mountain Lodge.
I have an interest in, and liking for images of, decaying buildings. This is because as an archaeologist they represent the stage between currently used and occupied buildings and the remains I excavate. Also, I find the power of nature reclaiming the works of man evocative, reminding me that everything is impermanent, transitory, in decay.

With this particular image, the trees growing through the window seemed to work with my general aim, and the symmetry of seeing one window through the other appealed compositionally. Generally, I like monochrome, and it seemed to suit the mood of the image, but in this case I felt I needed a little more and so went for a split toned image. I tried to set the aperture so that the main elements in the foreground were in focus, and the depth would be emphasised by the out-of-focus background. A SMC-M 100mm f/2.8 lens was used.

I, personally, really liked the final image. My only query to myself is whether the split toning worked. Unfortunately, the PPG didn't like it and rejected it confirming my opinion that the PPG almost exclusively goes for "nice" images.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

The final image:




The original image:




Hopefully, you can download the RAW file from here. If using this link doesn't work I am open to suggestions as to how to make the RAW file available.

Best wishes, Kris.

Personally I prefer the original. This is because the colour looks less artificial and the extra space around the window gives the subject room to "breathe" in the composition. The crop is too tight and claustrophobic for my taste.

OK, I like the crop. There is too much wall in the raw. You could have left the original colour. I don't like the single tone as it reduced the distinction of the layers, flattening it. Its pretty monotone anyway, pink/sepia just seems affected.

I guess its about the saplings overcoming the walls and reclaiming the abandoned environment.

Perhaps a tad to the left would show all the trunks separately but you look like your trying to avoid a post on your left and a tree on your right. Maybe a wider lens closer?

I would have just bumped the contrast slightly.

I'm with John the sepia colour is too thick I believe but besides that I like the crop that you used and I love the steps of distance in your photo.
I also believe that monochrome would work very well with this photo, this a quick "run" from me. First time I used the offset filter

It's a 50% photo.



didn't decide to crop it because I believe the wall in the foreground provides more emphasis in depth.

I might have another go tomorrow, my eyes are tired

Hi!

I find the twigs that are close to the front window, somewhat distracting, though they might be right thematically. Also the part of a trunk that shows on the right should be cloned out. Otherwise the image is good in my opinion. In BW it looks better.

Regards,
Tobio

I liked the colour of the (birch?) in the window and although I
think the rest of the picture looks quite
mono anyway I wanted to see if I could bring out both the colour and monotone elements of the picture.
I had a go at the RAW image, masked off the orangish tree trunk
and the view through the window then
converted the rest of the picture to black and white.
Then I used the sponge tool to desaturate the view through the
back window a bit, saturate the tree a bit more, and used a bit
of dodging of highlights on the walls to increase the contrast a bit.

I can see that some would see the 'split toning' in the first as too strong.
It seems close to what Nik software call their 'Ambrotype' preset.

But this goes to show two things - firstly, just how subjective this is (beauty in the eye etc).
Once any technical matters have been dealt with as 'threshold issues'
(as they certainly had by Kris), the discussion is one primarily, if not solely, of aesthetics.

Secondly, that each of these images, with their various processing applied, could do equally well -
depending on the context in which it was displayed. I say that because I try to put these
in contexts other than being displayed on a monitor. So, which frame and which wall?
All of them would look just fine, in the right context.

I'm a bit on the fence as to the crops - either works for me.
So does the processing, and also the mono original (although I agree that the contrast, & clarity,
might benefit from a bump in LR3 Kris).

The other observation I would have made has already been raised by Doug,
and that was pertaining to the choice of lens. I wondered if this choice,
more so than the crop, was what was giving the image a slightly 'compressed' look?
Perhaps that's what Doug was intending too.

I think Kris is right to be pleased with the image.

Edits for manual carriage returns.

I forgot to mention in my previous post exactly why I had a go at processing the RAW file:
I really like the original version, I'm not so keen on the crop, and I also thought the sepia/doutone effect a bit strong.
However, I thought the original version could do with a bit more "bite", but perhaps I have put a bit too much colour into the tree?

I wonder if that would have worked because all the perspective would change, I think you might get in trouble that the window in the window would be less obvious.

I've submitted a few photos for consideration there recently. Reading through the guidelines they seem to want in-camera effects only. Maybe that was a factor. I prefer the original colors - they seem to lend much greater depth to the view through the window. In fact I don't much like the colour of the first.

Kris, I think your crop definitely improved the shot, the original shot had too much empty space for me (especially the left hand side). In fact, a crop keeping the right hand side of the original shot (therefore making the window off-centre) might have been interesting.

In terms of colour, I actually prefer the original if I'm honest. The processed picture looks a little flat as a result of the work done on it.

All in all I like the shot, as I too like pictures showing decay, wear and tear, etc. though I think different lighting on the day (or even shot at a different time of day) to provide some shadows might have added a little more interest.

This is a super idea, Kris. Couldn't get the RAW file for some reason so made do with your JPEG.

I too love old, ruined buildings which have been partially reclaimed by nature...

Crop, levels, curves, duo-tone, sharpen. Doesn't it feel different working on someone else's picture?

I like that very much Andrew.

I was not too keen on the cropped version, but your version does look
good, Andrew. It is fun working on other peoples pictures!

I, personally, am finding this thread really interesting but will refrain from commenting for a little while yet. I hope everyone agrees it is a useful/interesting thing to do and someone will volunteer another image sometime next week.

Perhaps we could have the general guidelines as a sticky?

Best wishes, Kris.