Critique Thread No. 1

The entire section is intended for use in this way, so I wouldn't want to give anyone the idea that we were restricted to one image per week.

If anyone doesn't want comments and suggestions, they need to say so, otherwise every image posted may well get opinions posted in reply.

I think it's a great idea. The only problem I can think of is how it changes each week. Perhaps the person who sets the thread each week should choose the comment and/or edit he finds most helpful, and that person sets the next weeks critique? That would perhaps avoid multiple threads, otherwise it will have to work on the first critique thread and picture that is posted each week. If someone does not want to enter then it could be passed on to the next most helpful?

The other option would be for the person setting the thread to invite the next weeks entrant from the main photo forum? This might be a more interesting way of doing it.

I find it an over complicated photograph but I know that's me as I can only cope with simple structures and composition. The further window is clear enough for me to take it on board as a window within a window. This is certainly not a photograph I would take but I have had a small tinker with it - mostly crop, level, saturation and cloning to give this




But I think it's only different rather than better

I think overall this has to be a study of greys and tones which means what I have done still retains too much colour in all probability. There are an awful lot of potential greys in there. Personally I don't think the split toning works all that well in this case.

Mike

Mike

What Mike did ^^^^^^ up there ^^^^^^^^ but bit wider on the crop. (I can live with the trunk and the post is hidden by the "Kris Lockyear 2010" tag )

I just came back to delete the post actually but it had better stay now. Square crop has a certain something and the original seemed to have a lot of redundant edge.

Mike

I think the diversity of opinions on this is fascinating.

My own view is very similar to JR's, so I won't repeat what he said, though I would add that, leaving aside the compositional arguments for leaving the original uncropped, I do much prefer pictures to have dimensions close to the golden mean. Whenever I crop, that is an important consideration. So, in this case, I find the dimensions of the final image unsatisfying.

Coming to the concept of the Critique section, I would prefer the originator of the image NOT to say what he was trying to achieve until after the initial discussion had run its course. In my view, a photograph should ideally not need explaining, and should be viewed for the first time without any explanations or interpretations from the photographer or anybody else.

After an interval of, say, 48 hours or so, it would certainly be most interesting and an important part of the process to read what the photographer has to say about his image. But initially, let's see it with fresh eyes and an empty mind. Empty? Well, not entirely, but you know what I mean.

G

In view of that George (and I do not disagree) - what's your view on image titles? I know some people are against them, as they can give the very explanation or interpretation to which you refer here.

I agree here. It could be a good idea to let others know what was intended after comments and critique. That would also leave time for some people to think what they actually intended to achieve... I'm one to who it often is hard to explain that. I guess I often do somewhat 'unplanned' photography.

Regards,
Tobio

Titling images is a generally harmless vice. It shouldn't be necessary, but can occasionally add something if the title is especially apt. An image that NEEDS a title has probably failed.

Of course, if you are a great artist, giving titles to your pictures allows the public to identify them. This is not something I have been asked to do with any of my pictures.

G

I like the different layers in the shot, Kris, and think I can see what you were trying to achieve but it doesn't really work for me. I can't really find anywhere in the image for the eye to naturally rest. I also agree with others about the sepia tone not making the most of the image. As to suggestions about how it might have been shot - it's tricky analysing a shot you wouldn't necessarily have taken yourself. Of the other versions I probably prefer the greater simplicity of Mikew's, but my eye still roams for a resting place.

Good idea this. And I agree with George about the originator posting their rationale after others have commented.

Incidentally, I also mostly agree with George about titles - though not always as a well chosen title (usually ironic) can occasionally make a picture.

I've been reading this with interest, although I haven't had time to really think about the picture. My first impressions weren't good, but I didn't know why so refrained from commenting.

I'm still not sure why but I think Dr M has put his finger on it. The image simply doesn't do anything for me. It's all a bit confusing and doesn't grab my attention. It's interesting for a short while but once I've identified it as a ruined structure with trees growing in it there isn't much more to look at. The trees aren't impressive enough to grab my attention, and the structure is a bit bland.

Apologies, but I can see why this didn't get picked for the PPG. From memory one of the PPG criteria is something along the lines of "it should make you stop and have a second look". Unfortunately this doesn't do that for me.

I can follow your reasoning for taking this Kris when you say it represents the stage between abandonment and the point where it becomes buried and thus of interest to an archeologist. It has value as a scientific record but as an artistic picture I'm with those who say they find it a cluttered image. Of the variations depicted in this thread I prefer your original image to your toned final image and I quite like Stefan's attempt on it.
As JR said all images in this Forum are open for critical comment but your presentation of this picture in this manner will hopefully encourage a more analytical approach to picture appreciation.
Well done for that, David

To me the picture was just a bit too busy, especially on the R/H side with all the twigs poking in That combined with a tight square crop which removed the twigs but constrained the image too much (for me anyway)I also felt that a tight crop took away from a lot of the decay in the wall which I liked and felt added to the mood of the image. One thing that did stand out for me was the brown /red /orange colours in the picture.

So working on the above bits that I liked I downloaded the RAW file and increased the exposure in LR3 beta to bring out a bit more detail in the wall and the beam on the top of the window.

Next I exported that as a TIFF in to photoshop so I could clone out all of the twigs on the R/H side so I had a balanced wall on both sides (I Liked the texture and decay in the wall)

Then darkened (burned) the tree trunks and far window amd a few of the large cracks on the wall.

Then finally increase the saturation a little to bring out the warm colours

The result is below.

[IMG]http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb113/pnjmcc/Tree-through-window.jpg[/IMG]

I also tried a B&W conversion here but as I mentioned above it didnt work for me.

Regards
PaulM

PaulM the link doesn't seem to work. I think you did good work here, though I don't much like the twigs in the front. I might be too critical again though.

Regards,
Tobio

I agree. The foreground twigs in PaulM's version have darker bits from the processing which look rather odd and make the processing too obvious. I prefer MikeW's version, although I do like the added colour in the trunk in PaulM's version.