Topic: shack (Read 1856 times)

Jeremy Roussak · « **on:** April 11, 2015, 01:56:48 pm »

Colour? B&W? Neither?

Jeremy

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #1 on:** April 11, 2015, 02:50:21 pm »

They are two different pictures.
The B&W is mostly about textures and mood, while the color is mostly about the vivid green moss.
Which is more important to you?

Jeremy Roussak · « **Reply #2 on:** April 12, 2015, 04:05:08 am »

Quote from: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 11, 2015, 02:50:21 pm

They are two different pictures.
The B&W is mostly about textures and mood, while the color is mostly about the vivid green moss.
Which is more important to you?

Good question, Eric. On reflection, I don't think I know. I seem to have accomplished AA's bête noire: a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.

Jeremy

Diego Pigozzo · « **Reply #3 on:** April 12, 2015, 05:19:03 am »

I personally like the b&w more: the texture is more interesting than the color to me.

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #4 on:** April 12, 2015, 09:19:34 am »

Quote from: Diego Pigozzo on April 12, 2015, 05:19:03 am

I personally like the b&w more: the texture is more interesting than the color to me.

That's also my own inclination.
But I wanted to make Jeremy sweat a little before saying that.

RSL · « **Reply #5 on:** April 12, 2015, 09:52:43 am »

Been studying it for a while, Jeremy. I love stuff like this (wabi sabi), so it took me a while.

I'm certainly taken by the detail in the B&W, but I have to favor the color version. I think the contrast between the green moss and the rusted red vent pipe popping out of the roof, plus the contrast with the red vegetation on the hills behind make the color version the winner. The colors in this scene would make a painter salivate uncontrollably.

stamper · « **Reply #6 on:** April 12, 2015, 10:10:56 am »

Jeremy I don't wish to nitpick but may I ask where were they taken? If it was Scotland then they would be called a But and Ben

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_and_ben

A shack is a wooden structure type building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shack.

That aside then I think both are worthy and choosing is difficult but if I twist my arm then it is the B&W.

luxborealis · « **Reply #7 on:** April 12, 2015, 05:24:13 pm »

For me, it's the B&W. There is huge potential for bringing out even more of the "edge" in the texture, by using more Clarity, for example. The colour image is beautiful and has potential too, but the glare from the wet roof I find distracting in the colour version as well as the road in the bottom right, which doesn't seem as "road-like" in the B&W version.

In either case, it would be nice to see just a little more room around the "shack" (croft house? cottage?), particularly on the left.

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #8 on:** April 12, 2015, 11:51:07 pm »

Quote from: stamper on April 12, 2015, 10:10:56 am

Jeremy I don't wish to nitpick but may I ask where were they taken? If it was Scotland then they would be called a But and Ben

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_and_ben

A shack is a wooden structure type building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shack.

That aside then I think both are worthy and choosing is difficult but if I twist my arm then it is the B&W.

Stamper, I do wish to nitpick!

I appreciate learning about But and Ben, which was previously unknown to me.

However, the Wikipedia article on "shack" does not mention "wood" anywhere. In fact, one of the illustrations shows shacks clearly made of corrugated metal. So I think Jeremy is quite justified in calling the structure in his photo a "shack."

If it were made of much less substantial material, and in a greater state of collapse, my grandfather would have called it a "modest West Virginia residence."

stamper · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2015, 03:28:48 am »

Eric. Jeremy's building is mostly made of a brick hence the reason for questioning the term shack. Is the type of brick building a common feature in Canada or America? If Jeremy tells us where the building is situated then that would help clear up the difference of opinion. If it is in Scotland or England then it would not commonly be referred to as a shack. Another example. Please ignore the last reference.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/shack

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #10 on:** April 13, 2015, 09:45:01 am »

Stamper, I will (graciously

) concede that YourDictionary's suggested etymology, "from Nahuatl xacalli, wooden hut," supports your view.

What I find most interesting about that reference is one of the alternate meanings of "shack:" "to live (with one's mistress or paramour)."

Perhaps we should ask Jeremy to tell us more about the inhabitants of the But and Ben/Shack, and their relationship.

P.S. I still prefer the B&W.

churly · « **Reply #11 on:** April 13, 2015, 12:41:41 pm »

Quote from: stamper on April 13, 2015, 03:28:48 am

Eric. Jeremy's building is mostly made of a brick ....

Looks like natural stone to me. Not a brick in sight. How about stone hut for shacking. That would satisfies Eric's interests as well.
Chuck

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #12 on:** April 13, 2015, 01:46:53 pm »

Quote from: churly on April 13, 2015, 12:41:41 pm

Looks like natural stone to me. Not a brick in sight. How about stone hut for shacking. That would satisfies Eric's interests as well.
Chuck

Thanks, Chuck.
I was thinking about raising the stone vs. brick argument, but I felt I had already used up my nitpicking quota for this thread.

Jeremy Roussak · « **Reply #13 on:** April 13, 2015, 05:20:47 pm »

Thanks, all. It was taken in the Lake District, above the Langdale Estate. I think for once I'll avoid the etymological discussion, informative though it certainly is.

Terry, I'd have loved more space, as I generally dislike very tight cropping. However, there's a telegraph pole on the right and a rather ugly bin on the left, as you can see from this uncropped version.

Jeremy

Rajan Parrikar · « **Reply #14 on:** April 13, 2015, 09:26:37 pm »

The colour version with more breathing room is my pick. The intruding pole is an easy fix.

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #15 on:** April 13, 2015, 09:41:06 pm »

I like the new version better, too. It should be easy to remove the offending objects with Content-aware Fill.

stamper · « **Reply #16 on:** April 14, 2015, 03:00:47 am »

Quote from: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 13, 2015, 09:41:06 pm

I like the new version better, too. It should be easy to remove the offending objects with Content-aware Fill.

He managed it more easily with cropping.

Jeremy Roussak · « **Reply #17 on:** April 19, 2015, 08:02:55 am »

Quote from: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 13, 2015, 09:41:06 pm

I like the new version better, too. It should be easy to remove the offending objects with Content-aware Fill.

And it was, fairly. CAF did some of the work but I had to do some tidying up, which I'm not very good at.

stamper's right, though: cropping was easier.

I wish SFX Pro was parametric: I find it awfully difficult to reproduce the conversion I had before.

Jeremy

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2015, 09:40:16 am »

Yes, cropping is easier, but I recommended CA-Fill for two reasons:
1. I felt the image wants the pace so it doesn't feel cramped, and
2. I personally find messing with CA-Fill to be so much fun!

luxborealis · « **Reply #19 on:** April 19, 2015, 10:35:33 am »

Quote from: kikashi on April 19, 2015, 08:02:55 am

And it was, fairly. CAF did some of the work but I had to do some tidying up, which I'm not very good at.

stamper's right, though: cropping was easier.

I wish SFX Pro was parametric: I find it awfully difficult to reproduce the conversion I had before.

Jeremy

There are times when the easy route is the better route, but not always. In this case the breathing space is much appreciated and the black and white really brings out the textures.

I'm just sorry to have missed this stone cottage when I was last up that way (2007). It must be a recent build!

Author Topic: shack (Read 1856 times)