Cherished by the Sea

[Chris Calohan]

Rule of Thirds in a somewhat abstract way of seeing. I had seen this shot the night before but was too late to capture the light in a manner that recorded almost three values of light. I did take the liberty of only including three floors but more because the top floor was more a rooftop observatory than an apartment row. Using a Pentax Spot Meter, I set a simple middle value scale and waited until I had a +1/3 at the top and a -1/3 at the bottom before taking the shot. I have never used a spot meter for digital so while I may have done it all wrong, I still got the shot I wanted.

[wolfnowl]

Nicely done, but I must admit that with all of the tones and textures and shapes I still want to remove the sign from the bottom stair. 

Mike.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Nicely done, but I must admit that with all of the tones and textures and shapes I still want to remove the sign from the bottom stair. 

Mike.

My immediate first thoughts as well!

Jeremy

[amolitor]

The sign, as in a recent photo from Dave, completely changes the image. I think in this case it transforms it from a formal exercise, albeit quite an attractive and appealing one, into something that's a step up from that. It anchors the image in reality, reminding us that this isn't just a graphical slice of beauty and form, it's a real thing, just as the sign in Dave's photo anchored the image in time.

Taking it out certainly makes this a different image, and if you like that one more, I'm not going to argue with it. Both the image here and the hypothetical signless one are fine work.

[Chris Calohan]

The sign, as in a recent photo from Dave, completely changes the image. I think in this case it transforms it from a formal exercise, albeit quite an attractive and appealing one, into something that's a step up from that. It anchors the image in reality, reminding us that this isn't just a graphical slice of beauty and form, it's a real thing, just as the sign in Dave's photo anchored the image in time.

Taking it out certainly makes this a different image, and if you like that one more, I'm not going to argue with it. Both the image here and the hypothetical signless one are fine work.

I have to be honest and tell you I never gave removing the sign a thought. This is partly because what attracted me to the building in the first place was that sign given the "name" of the building: Cherished by the Sea - with the other sign, "Don't Park Here." I thought there was a bit of irony in the two messages. However, once the clone seed was planted, I had to give it a shot and see if indeed would make a difference and ... well, what do you think?

[Chris Calohan]

After perusing it for a minute more, I am going to have to go with the first image and not because of the slight irony involved, but because the sign continues the "square" formality of the railing seen in the other two floors. In its own way, it anchors the bottom floor or seen another way, allows the continuity of "squares" to continue; without it, the bottom flat is rather non-descript.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

I like it  

You know what - and I might get accused of saying do as I say and not as I do here   - but this shot is all about the compositional interaction and abstraction of shapes, light and tone, so I think the sign might not be needed to also anchor it to a place in time, as I feel that time is not a fundamental aspect of this composition.

But as I didn't want to clone out the sign from my shot, far be it for me to suggest that you do so now, I am just saying that I think you could if you wanted to and I don't think it would hurt the shot in any way if you did.

And as you posted a cloned out version of the shot as I was writing my reply and now having seen both versions, I think I could go either way on this one, although the cloned version does allow me to look around the picture more freely and the signage version less so

Dave

[Chris Calohan]

And as you posted a cloned out version of the shot as I was writing my reply and now having seen both versions, I think I could go either way on this one, although the cloned version does allow me to look around the picture more freely and the signage version less so

Dave

After reading your explanation, I am now (oh, wishy-washy me) beginning to lean more toward the cloned version because I realize that without the sign, I am far more easily enticed to enter the stairs and move upward without the impedment of the sign. It's nice to get a better understanding of your own work through other's eyes.

[Justan]

I like the image but the sign amounts to something that draws the eye while giving back only distraction, as it did on Dave’s recent image.

Also from the dept. of fwiw, the side by side display is good. Maybe try it again with a little white space between the two images, but without the sign.

The colors of the image are wonderful!

[popnfresh]

I think it's an interesting image. I prefer it without the sign, which is distracting because it breaks the line of the staircase.

Also, because this is essentially a monochrome image, I wonder if converting it to B&W wouldn't be an improvement over shades of yellow.

[John R Smith]

Also, because this is essentially a monochrome image, I wonder if converting it to B&W wouldn't be an improvement over shades of yellow.

Despite being a B/W man to the core, I think the yellow tones make this shot. Great colour, don't change it. As for the sign -

If, before taking the shot, you had walked across and taken the sign down, that would be valid intervention and a demonstration of clear intent. To do so afterwards in software is faking it  

John

[Rob C]

The sign makes it.

Rob C

[RobbieV]

This was really tough to decide. The yellow tones remind me of popular colour palates in the mid-late 1990's (not a bad thing). I enjoy both versions, but sway towards the more inviting cloned version.

[Jeremy Roussak]

The sign makes it.

Rob C

But they absence of the sign makes it better, as do the yellows.

IMHO

Jeremy

[RSL]

I've been struggling with this one for four days, Chris, and I've come to the conclusion that graphical strength is what makes the picture -- not colors. That being the case, here's what I'd do. The sign, of course, has got to go.

[amolitor]

Interesting. What jumps out at me instantly is that the relative brightnesses of the levels is irrelevant, what matters is that the shadows cast create lines that exactly echo the lines made by the stairs.

[Rob C]

Some of you cats must be colour blind!

Remove the colour as well as the sign and what do you got (as they so eloquently declare on tv)? Nuttin'. Just a boring building that could be anywhere; a flight of stairs that's a flight of stairs and nada mas: you need the visceral punch of colour and the eye-watering power of the notice, so tiny yet so powerful, in order to make the difference between a photograph and a photo. This is a photograph.

Be honest: had this  been posted as per the suggestions of the second-guessers, nobody would currently be commenting at all - it might as well have been posted on Without Prejudice.

An author's own, first instincts are usually the best. Or so I've found.

Rob C

[popnfresh]

I was unsure at first about B&W vs. yellow, but now I lean towards B&W. And I agree--loose the sign.

[francois]

Drop the sign but I like the color version although the almost all yellow hues of the image is quite monochrome!

[ivan muller]

NO, bring the sign back! Without the sign it looks very much like an advertising image for a brochure or something....with the sign it looks less glitsy and glamorous...nice lighting....