Former army bunker

[Semillon]

Here are a couple of images taken in the darkness in a 100 year old abandonded army bunker, not exactly the place one would wish to spend the night. I beleive the chamber was once used to store ammunition. As the room was pitch black, I used my phone as a LED torch, panning it around to light the areas I wished, exposures were 15 and 20sec.

These are a complete departure from my usual landscape subjects, so constructive criticism is most welcome.

[stamper]

At best they could be regarded as recording the scene. No artistic merit,imo. Some photographers think that difficulty in photographing something somehow adds to the merits of the image. I am afraid these don't come into this category.

[Semillon]

At best they could be regarded as recording the scene. No artistic merit,imo. Some photographers think that difficulty in photographing something somehow adds to the merits of the image. I am afraid these don't come into this category.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Would you mind spending another minute or two to explain why you feel that way and how the photos might have been improved?

[Ed Vatza]

I am going to take a slightly different tact here since I (also a newbie here) come from a different (not better, not worse, just different) school that many of the folks here. And I have been known to go into old structures like this specifically to shoot graffiti.

In the first image, it looks to me like your intent was to focus on the "The Tunnels Are Cursed" moreso that to depict the inside of the bunker. In other words, it appears to me (and this is your image and your vision) to be a modern-day graffiti image more than a historic army bunker shot.

Using your phone as a torch is good improvisation but obviously not ideal. It has resulted (or was it the processing) in somewhat of a pinhole camera look to that first image. Again, if that was your objective, fine. But if it wasn't, I would have considered a much longer exposure. I don't know but say maybe 5 minutes or even longer using your bulb setting. That could have picked up more detail in the shadows. Then, if my objective was to highlight the graffiti, I would have vignetted the image at low opacity to darken the area surrounding the "The Tunnels Are Cursed" thereby drawing the eye straight in where I want to to go. But again, that's me. This is your image based on your vision. We must not lose sight of that.

Quite honestly the second image, while better lit, is more problematical to me. It seems to lack a focal point so my eye just drifts around the image looking for a place to rest and finds none. There is no single piece of graffiti to hold my attention. The stone work is not sharp enough, structured enough to do it. The "X" timbers could but they are placed in such a way as to appear an afterthought. Just my two cents on that one.

I'd like to hear your thought and opinions.

Regards,

Ed Vatza
Ed Vatza Photography
www.edvatza.com

[stamper]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Would you mind spending another minute or two to explain why you feel that way and how the photos might have been improved?

Personally I wouldn't have posted them for critique. This isn't to say I am an expert on photography but I don't think they merit a place. Images posted for critique should have - IMO - some artistic appeal and these don't. As I stated they are recording the scene and not expressing anything artistically. If you look at other images posted in this section then the "good" ones has the appeal. I don't think the images can actually be improved with processing, they are what they are.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I like what I see behind these images, and I think its worth exploring deeper.
And I object the statement there is nothing artistical in it.
This place has a creepy and desolate atmosphere, even somehow hostile and I find the provisorical illumination appropriate for that.
I also feel, these images might need context, like being a part of a documentation series.
I also like the subdued colors.
I'd suggest meditating over the images (no joke) and re-visit the place.

[mahleu]

A figure at the junction of the walls in the second image would transform it.

[stamper]

I like what I see behind these images, and I think its worth exploring deeper.
And I object the statement there is nothing artistical in it.
This place has a creepy and desolate atmosphere, even somehow hostile and I find the provisorical illumination appropriate for that.
I also feel, these images might need context, like being a part of a documentation series.
I also like the subdued colors.
I'd suggest meditating over the images (no joke) and re-visit the place.

You will need to educate me on the meaning of provisorical. My spell checker and a search of the internet didn't help.

 Quote

also feel, these images might need context, like being a part of a documentation series.

Unquote

This is as I see it ... recording the scene?

I don't think I need to meditate to change my mind and agree with your assessment. I gave my opinion and you gave yours. 

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

The idea of meditating on the images wasn't aimed towards you Stamper, but the OP.

I also by no means meant to convince you of anything Stamper.
I don't need to convince anyone of anything.

I just gave an answer on the OP and wanted to make clear to him,
that I do not agree with your statement about the artistical merits or not-merits.

And: Documentation can actually be art.

"Provisorical": Language error of mine,
I meant: http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=&search=provisorisch

[popnfresh]

These remind me of a scene from "The Blair Witch Project".

[ckimmerle]

Like Stamper, I don't fine these images all that compelling. Sorry. They are showing me what the bunker looked like inside, but not giving me any feeling. From your description, I want to feel creeped out...but do not. One of the problems is that by introducing artificial lighting, the mood has been changed. That is not to say that all artificial lighting is bad, but in this case it's not much different looking than direct flash, complete with the tell-tale hard edged shadows. In a case such as this, it's best to hide the lighting. Make it look natural or mystical; anything but looking like an on-camera flash.

Chuck

[Semillon]

I am going to take a slightly different tact here since I (also a newbie here) come from a different (not better, not worse, just different) school that many of the folks here. And I have been known to go into old structures like this specifically to shoot graffiti.

In the first image, it looks to me like your intent was to focus on the "The Tunnels Are Cursed" moreso that to depict the inside of the bunker. In other words, it appears to me (and this is your image and your vision) to be a modern-day graffiti image more than a historic army bunker shot.

Using your phone as a torch is good improvisation but obviously not ideal. It has resulted (or was it the processing) in somewhat of a pinhole camera look to that first image. Again, if that was your objective, fine. But if it wasn't, I would have considered a much longer exposure. I don't know but say maybe 5 minutes or even longer using your bulb setting. That could have picked up more detail in the shadows. Then, if my objective was to highlight the graffiti, I would have vignetted the image at low opacity to darken the area surrounding the "The Tunnels Are Cursed" thereby drawing the eye straight in where I want to to go. But again, that's me. This is your image based on your vision. We must not lose sight of that.

Quite honestly the second image, while better lit, is more problematical to me. It seems to lack a focal point so my eye just drifts around the image looking for a place to rest and finds none. There is no single piece of graffiti to hold my attention. The stone work is not sharp enough, structured enough to do it. The "X" timbers could but they are placed in such a way as to appear an afterthought. Just my two cents on that one.

I'd like to hear your thought and opinions.

Regards,

Ed Vatza
Ed Vatza Photography
www.edvatza.com

I appreciate the feedback, this is most helpful.

The first image was basically a test shot to see how effective using my phone as a torch would be, I found both the message about the tunnels and the contrast between the red paint and the almost black and white room to be pleasing.

Your point about the second image lacking a clear focal point is well made, in this case my thought process was more "how can I capture this at all" rather than "how can I compose a compelling image". I had not attempted to photograph anything beyond landscapes and portraits before.

I consider it a worthwhile learning experience, sorry if I offended anyone's artistic sensibilities.

[Semillon]

Like Stamper, I don't fine these images all that compelling. Sorry. They are showing me what the bunker looked like inside, but not giving me any feeling. From your description, I want to feel creeped out...but do not. One of the problems is that by introducing artificial lighting, the mood has been changed. That is not to say that all artificial lighting is bad, but in this case it's not much different looking than direct flash, complete with the tell-tale hard edged shadows. In a case such as this, it's best to hide the lighting. Make it look natural or mystical; anything but looking like an on-camera flash.

Chuck

I agree on your point about artificial lighting, I never use flash as I do not like what it does to my images, however in this case I had no choice, the room was completely pitch black.

Do you have any suggestions on how one could improve on the use of artificial light in such a context? How might one create a "natural or mystical" ambiance? I have always wanted to photograph limestone caves, so such suggestions could prove very helpful.

[ckimmerle]

Do you have any suggestions on how one could improve on the use of artificial light in such a context? How might one create a "natural or mystical" ambiance? I have always wanted to photograph limestone caves, so such suggestions could prove very helpful.

For these types of structures, I would take a page from the light painters. Instead of trying to light the room with a single, semi-stationary light, trying lighting small areas of significant detail, one at a time, within a single exposure. With a suitably long exposure, you should be able to move in close to the subject (making the lit area smaller) and light individual elements. Don't worry about getting into the photo, just be sure to move around a lot to minimize a ghost of yourself appearing in the shot. Although, that may actually add that creepy vibe.

Alternatively, you can use a flashlight with a tight beam, using black tape to both focus the light better and prevent spill towards the camera.

Chuck

[kenlip]

Personally I wouldn't have posted them for critique. This isn't to say I am an expert on photography but I don't think they merit a place. Images posted for critique should have - IMO - some artistic appeal and these don't.

Why should he not have posted them for critique?

Stamper, you are a senior member and I am just a 'newbie' so I am happy to be guided by you on this matter (to some extent   )

The description of this forum says, "A place for reasoned and civilized discussion about user submitted photographs. ".   If the OP, Semillon, wants people's opinion of the images and help on how to do better, then how else can he get them discussed other than by posting them?

I think there was a fair amount of "reasoned and civilized discussion" about the images and hopefully Semillon (and maybe some other readers of the thread) learnt a bit about what does and doesn't make a good image (in most viewers' eyes).  

Semillon said that he realised the lighting was far from ideal and asked for suggestions on how to improve his technique.   Isn't that the purpose of the forum?

Ken

[stamper]

I think that there has to be some merit in an image before it is posted otherwise the forum would be full of mediocre images? I felt that these images didn't merit a place for critique and said so. My opinion for what it is worth. Another other poster echoed my thoughts.  

>A place for reasoned and civilized discussion about user submitted photographs<

I thought my remark reasonable in the context of the discussion and there wasn't anything derogatory. I head read a lot worse critiques on here ... believe me.  

>Why should he not have posted them for critique?<

BTW I didn't say he shouldn't have posted them. I stated if they were mine I wouldn't have?

[kenlip]

I think that there has to be some merit in an image before it is posted otherwise the forum would be full of mediocre images?

I guess I misunderstood the purpose of the User Critiques Forum.   

I thought it was a place where people could post images for which they were seeking other people's opinions and advice.    In some cases it might be someone posting an image they think is excellent, and asking if other people think likewise.   In other cases, it might be someone posting an image they know is not great, asking people to help them identify why it doesn't work and to hopefully give them some advice on how to do better next time.

From what you say, this forum is only for the former and not the latter.

[Jeremy Roussak]

In some cases it might be someone posting an image they think is excellent, and asking if other people think likewise.   In other cases, it might be someone posting an image they know is not great, asking people to help them identify why it doesn't work and to hopefully give them some advice on how to do better next time.

From what you say, this forum is only for the former and not the latter.

I couldn't disagree more and I don't read Stamper's remark really as open to that interpretation. I post photos on this forum for both reasons, albeit probably more the former (often misguidedly) than the latter. Stamper obviously has a threshold for his own work and any shot falling below that threshold doesn't see the light of day. I think that's fair enough but it's only his view.

So, post away. I've learned a huge amount from critiques, positive and negative, of my own and other contributors' shots. Just be prepared for brickbats as well as bouquets: if you want uncritical adoration, this is the wrong place to come - and all the better for it.

Jeremy

[popnfresh]

I guess I misunderstood the purpose of the User Critiques Forum.   

I thought it was a place where people could post images for which they were seeking other people's opinions and advice.   

You didn't misunderstand. Its original intent is exactly what you thought it was. However, it isn't often used that way.

[stamper]

I guess I misunderstood the purpose of the User Critiques Forum.   

I thought it was a place where people could post images for which they were seeking other people's opinions and advice.    In some cases it might be someone posting an image they think is excellent, and asking if other people think likewise.   In other cases, it might be someone posting an image they know is not great, asking people to help them identify why it doesn't work and to hopefully give them some advice on how to do better next time.

From what you say, this forum is only for the former and not the latter.

It looks to me you are deliberately misunderstanding my opinion to try and score a point? I am not a censor of the forum, nor do I wish to be. If you go through previous threads you will find comments in the vein of " I don't see why the poster posted this image/images" It is a common type of retort. Why don't you post one or more of your images so we can see what you are capable of? Four posts and you are already stirring up opinions. I hope your abilities are up to the level of your rhetoric? You are of course entitled to your opinion.