Critiques Anyone? Mike Savad, Its Waiting!!

First thing I notice is you cut the top off the building. I think it would be better if it was there. Since it isn't, I'd recommend doing a tight crop on an interesting section somewhere...cause right now, all I can see is the top not being there!

Thanks Bittinger, will work on it.

I didn't think it would matter, but I wanted this effect, and it gave it a border; I didn't know how to take the border off so I just cropped it. If you have any idea, I'd love to know! It's on Corel Paint Shop Pro x7.

Hi Westley.
First, I like it!
Secundo, I can't tell what the subject is.
I have this problem with some of my photos but I think this is a good one.
Mike won't agree but I don't care. Art is art and someone will love your work. There is no rule!
I'm following you now. You have a great portfolio :)

Next time you put a border on, save as another file with another name. Then you'll have two versions -- one with a border and one without.

Yup, top of whatever that is should be there. That's all I notice, because I'm not really sure what this is a photo of.
I like the processing though, except it's pushed a bit too far and you ended up with halos around whatever that thing is.

Thanks Mr. Daneau! I'll return the kindness and take a look at yours.

Thanks Mr. Hinson, but the border came with the filter, and I don't know to to get thw filter without the border.

Ms. Applegate, thank you for your input. I understand what you are saying, but I did put a clear description of what it is on the picture, so there is only need for that statement once.

I like it.

I have no clue who would buy it and put it on their wall.

Thank You. Mr. Zimmeraman.

Neither do I, I don't really care about that though. I just like them so I put them on here.

Ok, just read your description - which would be a cool story. But now looking back at your image, most of the space is an empty lot and not the factory.
If you happen to have any shots of the top of it at all, you may be able to do some stitching to make a more complete picture.

Edit to add: while you may not care about selling, this is a store and the chief purpose of the website, so when people say things like "I don't know who this would be for and why they'd put it on the wall", its because most of us as sellers need to think of those things.

I agree about the top of the structure being cut off. It gives me the immediate opinion that the top of my view has been arbitrarily cut off, like when wearing a baseball cap. Also, the dark tones appear to have gone too far, resulting in a loss of shadow detail. This, combined with the contrasty, sort of garish look of the brighter tones in the foreground (lower half of the picture), result in an image that's difficult for me to dwell on.

Wesley, i think this location and structure has great potential to be a dynamic image and i fear from my point of view your missing some basics to turn it into one.
i agree with others that the cropping could be different, maybe consider a tighter crop. What is the focus/interest of this image?
While your photograph is rich in grey tones, it feels a bit forced and flat to me (sorry personal taste) ... i'm also having a hard time finding a point of interest to land on (it has a feeling of clutter)... my eye does not know where to look because there's a lack of of compositional directions or paths to help me not to just meander around...
Also try to be a little tighter on your post production work, i'm referring to the white ghosting around the smoke stack and building in the darkened sky.

Wesley you have a good start and the potential is there keep at it ... Ed

This photograph is a beauty compositionally, all the elements are working... however it does not translate into B & W very well.

Wesley,


It is a very dirty somewhat dark image. It is fine art photography. Is it problematic? Yes as is all art.
No one here makes art that is not problematic. No one has ever solved on problem in art without creating at least
one more problem, if not three more.

With that in mind how are you analyzing your photo?

As a statement or aesthetic? Or as a clean image trying to fix technical problems?

Dave

I like it because you did crop the top. It adds tension. And the dark tones and chaotic details gives a sense of disaster... I`d crop out some of the foreground and right side though.

If you like it, that's what really matters, and if anyone is looking for "An abandoned gunpowder factory in New Jersey. In the late 1970's,"
you've got the market covered.

Chuck Staley Art Deco Designs

Read "Murder on the Six O'Clock News"

Read "Southern Planter"

Very cluttered and chopped off. Lots of great compositions to be found at the location. Study Charles Sheeler and Paul Strand for inspiration. I do like the gritty processing.

just this one thing or everything?


this is kind of cluttered, the one tone makes it hard to know what to look at. the top is clipped off. due to the shade, my eyes land on the dumpster hopper on the left. this would be better as a portrait from the stairs side or straight on using the pipes as an abstract point.

up close its not that sharp, and there is noise in the sky in parts. i can't find anything sharp in there, looks enlarged a little and maybe a little motion blur.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

there is also too much glow around the buildings.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

With a location like that one, you could spend half a day shooting photographs. From all sorts of angles to closeups of objects to rust and grime to who-knows-what?

Can you return? Go shoot the hell out of it, then come back and show us what you've got.

Wesley,

Welcome!

As others here have mentioned, not a good crop. You could have included the entire building and sacrificed the foreground or move in and crop more of the top to just above the tree line,which would have made a better image. I visited your site and I see 2-3 other images which have cropping issues, the knife and the cats, at least. So you need to be aware of this.

You've got some great images, you just need to compose your images right in the camera and then later, crop if needed. Don't enlarge images either, after you crop them, if they look bad, the printer won't print them, if purchased,

Mr. Franco

p.s. Chuckster, right on! I know I'd be there a while! Lot's of little stories to be told there!

Really needs a nude woman somewhere in the composition. You have to offset all of those hard edges with something soft and curvy.

gloomy but it's supposed to be so i guess u nailed it. i like it.

Wesley,

Guaranteed if you take Ed's suggestion you will make far more money.

Except you will need a filter, so perhaps without Google picking it up......less money yet....

Dave

hi wesley because you are using corel i will assume it was topaz b/w effects open image then topaz program on the right hand side there are 4 options 1.conversion 2.creative effects 3.local adjustments 4.finishing touches go down to # 4 click on it then you will see borders uncheck will remove the border then you will not have to crop the image .can you re shoot this image getting the whole building possibly vertical...take care

A scary clown maybe, like this one

http://slodive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/scary-clown-pictures/devil-clown-pennywise.jpg

i would say less cliche. really any clown will do. a happy one with a horn, a happy one with an axe. anything works. you need a focal point. something that you would normally expect to see an old rusty abandoned place like that.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Wesley,

This experience is like eating fish in a fine restaurant and the waiter offers you red wine. Why?

Dave

Roger S.,

Why not heighten that sensation by taking a look at Picasso's ... Guernica. You will just love the "cacophony" of indecipherable objects there.

And just for more fun,



Sorry I forgot the naked babes and clowns.

The problem with Robert's "fix" is the white splotch of sky to the right, which I think is what Mike sees when he refers to "balance". One spot shouldn't overtake the viewer's direction and we naturally drift to the brightest area in an image. There should be two things-leading lines and balance of light and dark so that the eye doesn't wander from the focal point. By Robert cropping in, he caused wandering.

Wesley, do you not have the original file? When editing, NEVER lose the original by always renaming or creating new folders for the edits. And when cropping or editing, you have to take into consideration framing and matting a print. Generally, you will lose about 1/4 inch on each side with framing, so you have to have the mindset that room must be left. In your OP example, besides cutting off the top, you left too much nothingness on the bottom. That piece in the bottom center should have been the leading line but then it leads to "hey! where'd the rest go?"

Depending on the original's size, you could crop in starting above the pipe on the right and edge to edge to make it a longer print, say, 20x10.

Wesley, your photograph reminds me very much of my entire house after my granddaughter has had friends over for a slumber party.

In fact, your "abandoned gunpowder factory in New Jersey. In the late 1970's," is a bit less cluttered.

The only difference is that at my house there was a naked clown... Something NO ONE needs to ever see!!!!

I can see this area as a stage setting.......Just imagine the production possibilities.

yes a full cast, from the zoo


mm mm mm 🌛


🐃🐅🐇🐏🐓🐎🐑🐔🐥🐖🐕🐼🙉🙈🐞🐪🐐🐴🐯🐭🐀🐸.


🐾

By Robert cropping in, he caused wandering.

That's interesting, because the REASON that I cropped was to PREVENT ... MY eyes from "wandering". I personally liked the image better, BECAUSE I cropped it. Again, this is NOT my image - it is a complete stranger's image that I just happened to tune into as an exercise. I have no personal investment in it, other than it has provided some entertainment.

Saying that the personal effect of an image is a fact discounts the possibility that others might not experience such an effect.

In the original image that Wesley C. posted, the effect that I experienced was my eyes bouncing back and forth between the strip of bright sky without a building top and the overall darker foreground. Cropping it took out that bright sky strip mostly, and pulled the focus inward towards the overall more darker (and more balanced) area of the image. Plus I started seeing the relationships that I described.

People here keep alluding to the belief that Wesley has some original where the whole building (rooftop and all) is in it. MY impression is that there is NOT such an image. The ORIGINAL was the same as what he first posted - chopped off roof - THAT's how the shot was framed and snapped.

The bright spot in the upper right is definitely a point that could be improved with a little burning. I totally agree with THAT.

So far, one person thought the crop was "better". One person thought the crop was a cacophony. One person thought it made the eyes wander. And one person, moi, thought the crop improved the composition and removed some degree of a tonal imbalance.

Is it the best shot of that setting.?

I would say, "definitely NOT". The best shot would probably have the roof in it, and the foreground cropped up to near that first piece of rectangular trash near the bottom. Any excessively bright spots in the sky could then be toned down a bit to keep one spot from being so extreme.

If you look at the Mona Lisa, where the color has been de-saturated to just black/white/gray tones, you will notice the face is a very bright spot. A linear histogram shows a much steeper incline than Wesly's image, and a logarithmic histogram shows almost a plateau, until you get to the bright points, where it takes a nose dive, which means that one area of the face is perceived by the eye as a very bright area amongst the relatively darker whole image.

So, apparently, a bright area is NOT always bad, but sometimes it is. In the Mona Lisa, there is a REASON for the brightness of that area (the face). In Wesley's image, there is NOT a reason for that brightness, I would say.

To me, the" cacophotoistic" character of the site is what make the image interesting .

I certainly prefer Robert K's cropped version.

I would crop it even further...

The foreground,.....eliminating the square

And the right side.....eliminating a bit more of the trees.

Focusing in on "Zooted"

The original to me starts off with my eye looking at the lightest part of the board or wood in the foreground. From there my eyes flow up the stairs up to the building. From there I look right and left going back and forth, then look closer at whats in the image. Being partially blind I see more of a flow rather than detail when I first look at something. The roof top doesn't bother me in the least, nor does the sky. The upper part of the building also gives it a little more mystery to me. If the building was completely in the image, maybe their would have been to much sky for me.

I like what I see

im thinking.... flower pots.... lots

i'm thinking... go back and shoot it again.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Do your own thing.

If you need a suggestion or two that is one thing, but a free for all becomes
an opportunity for others to make a totally different picture.

And that is nonsense.

Dave

Robert: are you arguing, agreeing or trying to make a point? Really hard to tell.

/end threadjack

Wesley, i hope i wasnt demeaning this photograph, when the word 'stage setting' (edited) was mentioned, it suddenly evoked lots of different images, its an image that questions the viewer constantly about what it is, what it was built for, and the desolation and abandonment predominates; it seems to be in a state of flux into greater chaos and abandonment with grafiti and fragmentation. i guess on this basis, even a history of future shots might even be more interesting perhaps over a life time. There is a kind of unease and tension in the image, the cropping adds to this, some of that might be contrasted with organic life, as juxttopositions of contrast, or perhaps to emphasise the return to nature or desolation, by a mountain lion, ( ok the above suggestions were going the distance and sound nonsense ) or exagerated by angles and framing, but im no expert at all. hope you dont lose this image, it has iconic potential for many reasons. Overall i think if there are so many interpretations that can be placed on a piece of work, that if it is complicated or difficult to understand, then a description, creates an image with greater depth and vision. Definitely dont let us hijack your image. oops.

Jason,

I totally agree with your last, very well written comment.

That's why I've suggested that "ZOOTED" ( the word scrawled on the wall) be the title for this disturbing yet compelling image.



Wesley,,

Keep and PROUDLY display your find

Robert: are you arguing, agreeing or trying to make a point? Really hard to tell.

I am agreeing with your point about the bright spot in the sky on the top right - TOTALLY.

I am arguing with the way you state "wandering" seemingly as an effect that applies to everyone, when, clearly this effect does not apply to ME.

Whether we see the image as cluttered or as rich in parallel themes (which, apparently, I am the only one who does), I think the image could have a place somewhere, in some context that would make that place or context containing it more interesting.

Go back and reshoot it again ... might be an ideal way to resolve it, but probably NOT practical. What if something has changed ... more graffiti, another bigger piece of trash somewhere, one of the stacks rusted and broke, lots of bird poop, vegetative overgrowth, etc. ?

It is what it is, and, again, I think that there is enough there to use it somehow as it was framed in the original shot.

i don't know what your looking at - if your eye isn't wandering.

maybe because as a photographer i will look at the scene and try to figure out what it is and so on. and your just looking for a light balance which works for you in an abstract way. too much going on in the scene with odd lighting and shades, will make it hard to figure out what the story is.


doesn't matter if anything changed. or even if its not there. next time he runs into a place like that again, shoot differently. i never go back to rework something unless i really think it will help. but some things are not savable, and some things are just a learning experience for the next thing. sometimes its best to just toss it and start over then to trying to find meaning in an image. chances are, it will sit there in the folder for years ignored. and if he has better stuff, this one will look out of place.

it would actually be better if it looked even worse when he got there.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Why does there have to be a story? There is no story, except what the viewer creates in the mind sometimes.

It just proves that different eyes do different things with the same image. It DOES matter if something changed. This was a unique spot in time and space, and it was captured, ... perhaps not as well as it could have been, but still a salvageable subject. And I showed PRECISELY what I was looking at, ... in detail. I do not know how to be any more clear on that.

Yes, sometimes it IS best to just toss and start over, but this is NOT one of those times, in my judgment.

To predict how bad/good a scene might be on a return trip is sheer speculation. The scene was what it was then, and the shot of what it was then is what it is. I would say live with it, use it where you can, and move on.

I look at what IS, ... NOT what might have been or could be. I look at what stands before my eyes, ... now, ... here, ... in the reality of this moment of seeing what's on the screen in front of me. Somebody asked for a judgment on THIS, and I rendered it. I still stand by that judgment.

Robert,

The upper center right white spot leads the eye up and off the screen very fast.

The solution is easy, Wesley should darken the sky just slightly. End of story.

But in reality, Wesley should do exactly what Wesley wants to do without any of us
as input. Too many chefs in the kitchen.

Dave

Mike Savad, Its Waiting!!

Let him wait

I love how people tell me what my own eyes do, when I specify in detail what my own eyes do.

I did not notice that bright spot until much later.

And nobody needs to tell Wesley what he should do. He already knows. He just chose to enter a critique fest, and that's what we have given him, as requested. (^_^)

I think that I'll call this done for moi.

Everyone else, carry on and enjoy.

Mike S,

Re:.."Clutter"

Is this a pejorative term.?

That was your first comment you made 4 days ago about this image.


I see that 6 images on the first page of the "Clutter" Feature Art happens to be yours

So I guess it can't be all that bad

It's a spooky cool photo. This thread is like a roast. You invited mike to be the star roaster. He should feel honored lol.
First thing I see in this photo is my eyes are focused on the dumpster . Than I think it would make a great backround in a zombie movie it has that horror movie zombies popping out kinda feel to it. But zombie clowns chasing naked. Collage kids might work too.
If I needed a scary backdrop for a photo shoot I'd pick this one.
I never ever insult anyone's artwork just not who I am . Even when I go to a art gallery or see something online and think to myself who would buy this crap. What is one person's crap is another person's master piece

Clutter in a messy room isn't the same thing. Clutterv in a photo means that there are so many things to look at your eyes ddon't know what to look at.

A cigar smoking clown with his ball cap on backwards.