Just an addition as part of this month's shadow theme. I don't take many images of architecture but like to try and capture the more abstract.
This is an image of a portion of the Oculus Center in NYC. I am wandering what others feel about this - is it too simplistic (minimal?) and lacking interest?
I'm torn as I do like the form and heavy graphical nature of this. All sincere feedback is encouraged and welcomed, whether from veterans or those simply with a set of eyes.
Update 11/11/23
I have added a second image that contains some of the suggested edits. How do others feel about this cleaned up image?
It's a wow shot for me: as it is a very minimal and reduced to graphics photograph. And what I further like are the different, smooth shades of grey.
Thanks so much Dg9 - that means a lot to me.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Big thanks Hank - I always appreciate your feedback.
I'd hang that on my wall.
Really? I'll send a copy if you want :-)
I appreciate this “abstract” view a lot. Interest to know why you are torn about the graphical nature of the shot.
Thanks Marius. I do like the shot but sometime second guess myself wondering what others may feel (don't we all?). It's great to get such positive feedback from a group I admire.
Funnily enough I don't really concern myself about what others think about my more experimental images, perhaps as these have a more personal attachment.
Like it a lot, Alan but would give it more love in post.
Thanks Robert. I'd be interested to know if you see specific areas for improvement.
Aging, wear, and imperfections are often charming for old buildings / architecture. For me though, this one is all about contemporary lines & shadows and less about texture, so I'd be more heavy handed with the touching-up (e.g., smoothing, cloning).
I know this starts moving away from what is really there, but one could argue that more aggressive processing would convey the essence of what you liked about the scene more effectively.
Thanks Robert, I had an inkling that the 'imperfections' were the cause as they had been bugging me.
I have actually worked on this a bit today - believe it or not but the PS generative fill does a surprisingly bad job on this so a lot of manual work was needed.
I'd like to do a bit more cleaning on this and will post when that is done.
Hi Robert, does the cleaned up/2nd image better suit your taste?
Hey Alan - yep I prefer the 2nd more with Jennifer Wise's crop. It's a banger & wall-hanger.
Thanks for your input Robert. I'll likely circle back to the image at some point and see how I feel with a fresh mind.
For me it's a good balanced composition. Minimalist and interesting .
Going little deeper, you may want to try out different versions with grey tonality or contrast variations. even gradient versions as well. if you understand what i mean. and check what appeals to you the most.
this is a good piece of art as it is.
cheers
Thanks Vijay, I may have to try that.
Excellent!
Thanks Charles, I appreciate your feedback
I really like this a lot, Alan. The only thing is that I think the shadow area at the very top is too distracting. The reason is this ... the rest of the composition has so many subtle light vs shadows that adds to the minimalism and is pleasing to see - sort of the theme of the photo actually, but that shadow at the top kind of "ruins the ride" for my eyes. I guess if you're not adverse to manipulation, you could use a clone of the area below or somehow dodge or crop lower. I really, really love the desaturated blue with the white/gray- even the white is reflecting some of that blue.
Thanks Jenny. The shadow you mention - is this where the image transitions from dark to light?
I appreciate your thoughtful response.
Kind of like this ...
See the updated image - does that sit better with you?
WOW! You nailed it just right! I really didn't want a crop because length definitely played a part in the whole. Good work!
Thanks Jenny. I agree with the decision on the crop as it affects the whole balance of the image.
I strongly agree with your last point, Jenny - and that survives the crop.
Hi Alan! Nice job, as ever. I agree with some of the others about the area at top, and, somewhat prefer your edited version. I say "somewhat" because the brightness of the edited area doesn't quite look right to me.
They're both beautiful in themselves.
For me, the drawback of the shaded part of the left plane is not so much its darkness, but the unevenness of the shadowed edges, which really disrupt the minimalism of the whole too much. And some of this irregularity remains in the edit.
To fastidiously edit THAT out starts to defeat the purpose of photography to me. Heavy editing to create a whole mood (e.g. Michael Kenna) is one thing for me, but heavy editing to create a pristine reality that never existed often kills an image. Perhaps I'd have gone with a crop like Jenny's, or left the original as is.
It's always a pleasure to hear your input Chris. I hear what you are saying, and as always appreciate your respect for preserving the sense of the original.
I'll likely stew on this one and walk the documentary vs creative see-saw for a while. It's been great to hear so many respected voices on this, and understand the diversity of opinion.
Out of curiosity - would you have been happy with the last version had you been unaware of the editing that was performed?
Yes, Alan, I WOULD probably have been happy with it, and perhaps not noticed, or dismissed as minor, those self-same irregularities! I don't pretend to be rational...
Thanks Chris. I feel you are relating to a desire for authenticity, which I do tend to appreciate myself (but obviously not always follow).
This may go way beyond this discussion (topic for a new one?) - at the moment I shot the image the building in my mind's eye was more in line with the edited version. I did not see any imperfections, or even understand the transition from shade to light at the top.
In my mind I saw the graphical form of the building and the interaction between light and shade. In that respect, and concerning photography in general, which is more authentic - capturing a scene as witnessed/perceived by the photographer's eye, or the one captured in camera (with global adjustments of course).
I'd love your thoughts on that.
Very good question, Alan, and one I'm sure most of us wrestle with frequently. The question of authenticity is a tricky one.
Probably like you, I lean towards showing things in the least manipulated way that still conveys what I saw, or wish viewers to see. The proverbial Coke can in the landscape is so distracting that these kinds of things I usually remove without question, although I still feel a pang of "faking it" as I do such things.
Recently, I've become interested in monochrome, which is such a departure from reality that more radical tonal manipulations will pass muster without drawing attention to themselves.
I guess that a key issue here is that if processing draws attention to itself, then the image fails, for me. This includes garish saturation, teal-and-orange, fake skies that don't match the perspective of the rest of the image, edge artifacts like haloes and selection artifacts (like around the trees in front of that fake sky).
On reflection, I don't completely agree with Robert about depicting modern buildings. I do mostly, but do like their "perfection" to be slighlty perturbed with reality - a rust streak, a perched bird, one window open on a glass wall.
The more I look, the more I prefer your original image with the shadowed area at top.
Thanks Chris. I think the question for me boils down to whether I am trying to be faithful to what I am representing, or trying to create an experience for the viewer.
In the second instance I feel OK doing whatever is needed (including B&W conversion) to create something of interest. This is the same artistic license afforded to painters, who I'm sure wouldn't paint in that 'coke can' unless they felt it added to the story.
Everyone prefers the second of these images where I "cleaned up" the top where the towers overlap. i think I prefer the one with the visual "defect". (There are some minor tonal differences between them too.)
I feel that my own personal preferences at that time pushed me to the latter as you suggest. Now I tend to lean a little the other way, looking for something beyond the 'clean cut' and more depth to images.
At this point I may prefer the former if it the top of the silo was shown a little more with that shape adding to the composition.
I think the first image is fine. IF you want to crop that "distracting" top I'd cut it more like this as I think the second one is a bit too plain. To each their own though.
Thaks Charles, it's great to get all this feedback from people I respect.
Sure!
Wow! Idk how I missed this when you posted it. I love this! I don’t really have anything to add that others haven’t already said. The only thing I’d even slightly suggest is I would just ever so slightly increase the contrast b/w light and dark. But that’s just because I like contrasty photos. Great job Alan!
Thanks Kyle. It has been wonderful to get all this feedback and the variety if opinions - talk about contrast!!!