Hut

[Jeremy Roussak]

I think I've avoided a dull sky on this one, anyway. C&C, please!

[attachment=15725:hut.jpg]

Jeremy

[DarkPenguin]

My eye has no idea where to go with this one.  I like the roof, tho.

[button]

My eye has no idea where to go with this one.

I have to agree- I think there's just too much going on here.  Maybe a reshoot with a different perspective?

John

[RSL]

Jeremy, I hate to have to say it, but I will anyway: Technically it's a very good picture. The high structure gives it an Ansel Adams slant and makes the sky dramatic. I can't find any technical problems to criticize -- no places where it's essential you crop it, or places where you need to do other extended Photoshop "fixes.". But I get the same feeling from this shot I got from Tony's guy with his wine and paper and my guy with his coffee and paper, namely: "So what?" It's what I'd call a barn. But, since the structure's isolated from its surroundings I don't know whether or not the barn's still in use or deserted. The only thing I know about this barn is that it's a barn. I think that if you're into paintings of Campbell soup cans the simple fact that this is a barn probably would be enough to make it portentous, but I'm not into Campbell soup cans unless they actually contain soup, and, more importantly, soup that I like. I don't know whether or not it would have been possible to back away a bit and include the barn's surroundings, and I certainly don't know whether or not its surroundings would help tell us what's significant about the barn, but I think a picture like this needs to tell us why this barn is special. On the other hand, I'd still call it better than the average flower or bird picture. (Sorry, Mike)

[wolfnowl]

My eye has no idea where to go with this one.  I like the roof, tho.

My thoughts exactly!

Mike.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Jeremy, I hate to have to say it, but I will anyway: Technically it's a very good picture. The high structure gives it an Ansel Adams slant and makes the sky dramatic. I can't find any technical problems to criticize -- no places where it's essential you crop it, or places where you need to do other extended Photoshop "fixes.". But I get the same feeling from this shot I got from Tony's guy with his wine and paper and my guy with his coffee and paper, namely: "So what?" It's what I'd call a barn. But, since the structure's isolated from its surroundings I don't know whether or not the barn's still in use or deserted. The only thing I know about this barn is that it's a barn. I think that if you're into paintings of Campbell soup cans the simple fact that this is a barn probably would be enough to make it portentous, but I'm not into Campbell soup cans unless they actually contain soup, and, more importantly, soup that I like. I don't know whether or not it would have been possible to back away a bit and include the barn's surroundings, and I certainly don't know whether or not its surroundings would help tell us what's significant about the barn, but I think a picture like this needs to tell us why this barn is special. On the other hand, I'd still call it better than the average flower or bird picture. (Sorry, Mike)

Fair enough.

It was the roof that caught my attention, but cropping off the building gives a rather odd appearance! I posted it because I wasn't sure whether it would hold attention: plainly I was correct to wonder.

It's a roadside barn in a tiny village in France called Sainte Thecle. I don't think there's anything particularly significant about it, and the only thing made visible by backing away would be a road and some rather ugly more modern buildings on either side.

Thanks, all. Live and learn.

Jeremy

PS: it was taken with a G10. Not a bad technical result from a small camera.

[cmi]

Fair enough.

It was the roof that caught my attention, but cropping off the building gives a rather odd appearance! I posted it because I wasn't sure whether it would hold attention: plainly I was correct to wonder.

It's a roadside barn in a tiny village in France called Sainte Thecle. I don't think there's anything particularly significant about it, and the only thing made visible by backing away would be a road and some rather ugly more modern buildings on either side.

Thanks, all. Live and learn.

Jeremy

PS: it was taken with a G10. Not a bad technical result from a small camera.

Jeremy,

I looked long at it trying to figure what has attracted you, and I believe I can see this now. For me its this barn, firmly attached to the other building, with this parted roof. But despite there is something interesting it looks somehow too normal, so for me its the question, how could I make it more interesting? I spent quite some time with it, it was real fun playing with it trying how many crops I could get from this one, trying to take away parts and see what it does with the image, how it changes it. Very enlightening, and fun for me! So now I can say, its hard to get an attracitve 3:2 out of it, but I think you can improve a bit. Squares on the other hand (and verticals to an extent) are easy. I also think showing the roof only works. How can I make something normal appear interesting? Thanks for the lesson, thats why I like this forum here.

Christian

[cmi]

Here some crops I liked. For me these are experiments to gather ideas what to focus on when shooting somewhere later, not actual suggestions on how to print.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Jeremy,

Christian's second crop actually works for me as an image. The forms, shapes, textures, and shadows seem to balance nicely.

The problem with your original shot is one I have become painfully aware of recently in my own work. I have been going through hundreds of old film transparencies trying to select a modest number to have scanned. Thus I have looked at zillions of failed images and found myself asking over and over, "Why on earth did I take that one?" For me the answer seems to be that often I encounter a scene with something interesting in it (like your hut's roof), and I grab a picture hoping that the whole image will make sense. I've started calling these my "wishful thinking" photos. I have a tendency to see what I want to in a scene, rather than seeing everything that is there. As a result, I take many pictures that have one interesting feature but which should have been shot at a different time of day or from a different viewpoint or cropped more tightly in camera.

Recently I've been getting better at saying "no" to images that just won't quite work the way I first see them. Christian's suggestion to try a variety of croppings on any "maybe" photo is an excellent learning tool.

Cheers,

Eric

[shutterpup]

Jeremy,


The problem with your original shot is one I have become painfully aware of recently in my own work. I have been going through hundreds of old film transparencies trying to select a modest number to have scanned. Thus I have looked at zillions of failed images and found myself asking over and over, "Why on earth did I take that one?" For me the answer seems to be that often I encounter a scene with something interesting in it (like your hut's roof), and I grab a picture hoping that the whole image will make sense. I've started calling these my "wishful thinking" photos. I have a tendency to see what I want to in a scene, rather than seeing everything that is there. As a result, I take many pictures that have one interesting feature but which should have been shot at a different time of day or from a different viewpoint or cropped more tightly in camera.

Cheers,

Eric

Eric,
My problem as well. Glad to see it's a problem for others as well.

[RSL]

Eric,
My problem as well. Glad to see it's a problem for others as well.

Pup,

I think it's a problem for everyone. It certainly is for me. Happily, with digital you can afford to go ahead and make the shot, as a record. Doesn't cost a thing. I think that after a while you get to where you pretty much know what you're going to throw away at the time you shoot, but I'd suggest that if you saw something in the scene that intrigued you and you got set up for the shot, you go ahead and shoot anyway. Sometimes, (rarely) when you look at the shoot later on you find yourself surprised by that one shot that holds up -- the one you knew you were going to dump. I keep saying it because I think it's worth saying: your subconscious almost always is a better judge of art than your conscious. An almost sure way to make a bad shot is to think about it at the moment you trip the shutter.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I keep saying it because I think it's worth saying: your subconscious almost always is a better judge of art than your conscious. An almost sure way to make a bad shot is to think about it at the moment you trip the shutter.

Amen! It took me many years to train my left brain to shut the $#@% up and let my right brain control the shutter. The price is occasional really stupid technical errors, but that's a small price to pay for getting good pictures that you don't really 'understand' at the moment of shooting. 


Eric

[shutterpup]

Pup,
 I keep saying it because I think it's worth saying: your subconscious almost always is a better judge of art than your conscious. An almost sure way to make a bad shot is to think about it at the moment you trip the shutter.

Kind of a Zen and the Art of Photography, heh? I can actually understand that concept.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Here some crops I liked. For me these are experiments to gather ideas what to focus on when shooting somewhere later, not actual suggestions on how to print.

Christian, I like the second one particularly: it keeps most of what I liked about the scene, while removing the unnecessary elements. I say "most of", because it loses the dramatic sky, which I think is a shame.

I'll play around with it when I get home this evening.

Thanks for your time!

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

The problem with your original shot is one I have become painfully aware of recently in my own work. I have been going through hundreds of old film transparencies trying to select a modest number to have scanned. Thus I have looked at zillions of failed images and found myself asking over and over, "Why on earth did I take that one?" For me the answer seems to be that often I encounter a scene with something interesting in it (like your hut's roof), and I grab a picture hoping that the whole image will make sense. I've started calling these my "wishful thinking" photos. I have a tendency to see what I want to in a scene, rather than seeing everything that is there. As a result, I take many pictures that have one interesting feature but which should have been shot at a different time of day or from a different viewpoint or cropped more tightly in camera.

Recently I've been getting better at saying "no" to images that just won't quite work the way I first see them. Christian's suggestion to try a variety of croppings on any "maybe" photo is an excellent learning tool.

Eric,

You're quite right, and I like the concept of "wishful thinking photos". It's very easy to be seduced by a particular fraction of what's visible and to plug away in the hope that somehow the context won't matter when the final image appears. Fortunately, as several people have observed, taking digital photos is free.

It works the other way, too: I can mess up shots which would otherwise be good and console myself (as long as I can go back) with the thought that I've wasted only my spare time, precious though that is. Russ was too kind to me when he commented (in the Rustic thread) that I'd not have put that empty sky in the shot if there'd been any alternative: it was a simple mistake, and I'll fix it next time I go back.

I hope my eye will improve. There's a great art in seeing what will come as opposed to what is there.

Jeremy

[cmi]

Christian, I like the second one particularly: it keeps most of what I liked about the scene, while removing the unnecessary elements. I say "most of", because it loses the dramatic sky, which I think is a shame.

I'll play around with it when I get home this evening.

Thanks for your time!

Jeremy

Jeremy, its total fun playing around with such "unfinished" images. I see myself at the same stage... Im just searching for ways to improve my composition. On a sidenote (thats just keeps going and going through my head): I recon, trying crops at the computer is one thing, and can lead me to a general conclusion on how to focus and on what. But doing an actual shoot is still a different thing.
I find I need to be very relaxed, not in a hurry and free myself from everything. And when I look through the viewfinder, to actually really look at it. That sounds silly, but Im starting to try to pretend as if I was seeing a finished image like in PS, and not just the look like through googles at the scene. So to remove the pressure wanting to "click" and just "make" this image, but instead exploring with the viewfinder. That might all be perfectly normal to you or to anyone, but for me it is new. Im almost considering getting an 35mm full frame because the 1.6 crop viewfinder is really not the best for this job and hurts my eyes...

Cheers,

Christian