I love colour generally, Amos, but in this case the first one looks a bit bland. I think both could do with more contrast to emphasise your crosshairs. As it's so nearly a symmetrical shot but for the book, I'd opt for the simpler concept and stick with the monochrome.
One thing detracts - lack of focus; nothing is quite sharp. You have used a wide aperture, f/4.5 which give shallow depth of field. If you'd shot at f/16 or even f/22, and focussed properly on the right part of the image (I would use the plane of the vertical bar, or the book's pages), then it would all look sharp enough.
I append an edit where I've "sharpened" in software, and adjusted the tones as I've described to approximate what I think might work.
And I thought I was fussy! The shelves are not at right angles, Ms Carll, but I've made it all perpendicular for you now. I hope all is finally to Madam's satisfaction... ;-)
I'm sorry to be so finicky. This is a great image. I really like it. And you are right, it is picky. :) In this particular case, when the subject is such a strong linear, geometric, it has to be straight. But point taken. ;)
I'm in general agreement with all said. The only thing I'd add is that the cross is so dominant in the frame it anchors the eye, but in itself does not hold sufficient interest.
A change in crop as Chris suggests changes the balance but gets away from your crosshair theme.
No, Alan, I LIKE the basic symmetry in Amos' image, because the book immediately contradicts it, and then the lighting being different in every quadrant takes it further away so the static look of a simple cross is transcended, for me.
As it is such a simple image, the nuance is in the very departures from apparent symmetry, subtle as these departures are - the above, plus the marks in the timber. Amos' title suggests centring, too. And the cross is such a potent symbol in so many ways. Even the sinister KKK connotations - with the mysterious book - add to the layers in the image for me.
I'm glad you like the concept. I think you get what I was going for. The lighting is what I liked best about it. I thought I liked the softer look, and I think I still like the softer look on the book, but the shelves do need to be sharp.
So, selective focus, maybe f/5.6 on the timber, and push the book in further to get it OOF.
It's a rare photographic image. Amos - and there are some - which doesn't need SOMETHING in focus, even if it's then given a "soft-focus" look. This is usually a blend of the sharp image in a halo of its blurred version, whether this is done with a filter in front of the lens, with a double (in focus and OOF) exposure, or in "post".
Night lights with the lens wide open are an example of the former, with coloured orbs floating in a sea of darkness. Or some very "arty" blurred shots, which some like, but rarely appeal to prosaic me.
I love colour generally, Amos, but in this case the first one looks a bit bland. I think both could do with more contrast to emphasise your crosshairs. As it's so nearly a symmetrical shot but for the book, I'd opt for the simpler concept and stick with the monochrome.
One thing detracts - lack of focus; nothing is quite sharp. You have used a wide aperture, f/4.5 which give shallow depth of field. If you'd shot at f/16 or even f/22, and focussed properly on the right part of the image (I would use the plane of the vertical bar, or the book's pages), then it would all look sharp enough.
I append an edit where I've "sharpened" in software, and adjusted the tones as I've described to approximate what I think might work.
Holy cow that looks way better. Thanks for the advice!
Great feedback Chris. I agree with all of it. I would only add that I would level it as well. Nicely done Amos!
And I thought I was fussy! The shelves are not at right angles, Ms Carll, but I've made it all perpendicular for you now. I hope all is finally to Madam's satisfaction... ;-)
I'm sorry to be so finicky. This is a great image. I really like it. And you are right, it is picky. :) In this particular case, when the subject is such a strong linear, geometric, it has to be straight. But point taken. ;)
I feel better about being picky now. ;-)
I'm in general agreement with all said. The only thing I'd add is that the cross is so dominant in the frame it anchors the eye, but in itself does not hold sufficient interest.
A change in crop as Chris suggests changes the balance but gets away from your crosshair theme.
No, Alan, I LIKE the basic symmetry in Amos' image, because the book immediately contradicts it, and then the lighting being different in every quadrant takes it further away so the static look of a simple cross is transcended, for me.
As it is such a simple image, the nuance is in the very departures from apparent symmetry, subtle as these departures are - the above, plus the marks in the timber. Amos' title suggests centring, too. And the cross is such a potent symbol in so many ways. Even the sinister KKK connotations - with the mysterious book - add to the layers in the image for me.
Amos' basic concept here really appeals to me.
Sounds good Chris, now I re-read your comments I can see that I was mistaken.
I'm glad you like the concept. I think you get what I was going for. The lighting is what I liked best about it. I thought I liked the softer look, and I think I still like the softer look on the book, but the shelves do need to be sharp.
So, selective focus, maybe f/5.6 on the timber, and push the book in further to get it OOF.
It's a rare photographic image. Amos - and there are some - which doesn't need SOMETHING in focus, even if it's then given a "soft-focus" look. This is usually a blend of the sharp image in a halo of its blurred version, whether this is done with a filter in front of the lens, with a double (in focus and OOF) exposure, or in "post".
Night lights with the lens wide open are an example of the former, with coloured orbs floating in a sea of darkness. Or some very "arty" blurred shots, which some like, but rarely appeal to prosaic me.
I look forward to more of your posts.
I totally agree Chris!