What does it mean when you don't like any of the photos?

That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a
former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and
he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he
actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole
giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of
hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I
don't know. This is them:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062

I know that no one is going to look at all of them, but if you're
bored, and want to critique some photos, here's your chance. Every one
of these photos just leaves me cold, and I can't figure out why. I
admittedly forgot the lens I wanted, and had only the slowest, most
useless lens for this purpose, but still. It's not just the subject,
it's the IQ, it's everything. I got sick or processing them, and
sorted by ISO, flash on/off, indoor/outdoor, and batch processed most
of them that way, and just touched up some of them at the end.

What I'm wondering is if these photos just have a subject that doesn't
lead to appealing photos, or if there is something I missed in
processing. The photos were all meant only as a documentary record of
a very cluttered house - cluttered with faded, dusty things, but like
I said, not even one of them holds any interest for me.

Where did I go wrong? Is there anything that could help these photos?

Bill W:
That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a
former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and
he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he
actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole
giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of
hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I
don't know. This is them:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062...

The quality of the photos looks OK to me, but the subject is a junk
heap. A garish, kitschy collection that looks like one of the squalid
dwellings Dickens so famously described‹perhaps that of Krook, the rag
and bottle merchant in "Bleak House." Or the front yard of a mobile
home deep in Appalachia (but without the "Trump" sign). And is somewhat
reminiscent of the Hearst "Castle," the consummate proof that money
can't buy good taste.

...Where did I go wrong?

Picked a subject that even Ansel Adams couldn't have made anything of.
AFAIK he didn't photograph Hearst "Castle," either.

Is there anything that could help these photos?

I doubt it, but you could keep a couple of reminders of the sort of
things that aren't worth the high cost of film and developing.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 8/11/2016 2:21 @wiz, Bill W wrote:


Where did I go wrong? Is there anything that could help these photos?



You tried to do photos of "the lot".
For example: on the cars I'd have gone for little details like
reflections, nice figures, badges, light reflections, that sort of thing.
Rather than "whole body" photos.

Museums, galleries, etc.
In places like this I've found it's the details that give spark to photos.
Instead of trying to show a whole room, concentrate on a small detail
that really grabs the attention.
Can be anything.
Like: some nice colours in a painting, or some interesting texture in a
statue. That sort of thing.
Just my $05, anyway.

On 2016-11-08 03:21:06 +0000, Bill W said:

That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a
former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and
he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he
actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole
giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of
hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I
don't know. This is them:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062

I know that no one is going to look at all of them, but if you're
bored, and want to critique some photos, here's your chance. Every one
of these photos just leaves me cold, and I can't figure out why. I
admittedly forgot the lens I wanted, and had only the slowest, most
useless lens for this purpose, but still. It's not just the subject,
it's the IQ, it's everything. I got sick or processing them, and
sorted by ISO, flash on/off, indoor/outdoor, and batch processed most
of them that way, and just touched up some of them at the end.

What I'm wondering is if these photos just have a subject that doesn't
lead to appealing photos, or if there is something I missed in
processing. The photos were all meant only as a documentary record of
a very cluttered house - cluttered with faded, dusty things, but like
I said, not even one of them holds any interest for me.

Where did I go wrong? Is there anything that could help these photos?

I don't think that you went too wrong. The problem is the location in
its entirety. What you have is a picker's/hoader's cluttered junk pile.
There is no organization to the collection so there is little hope of
isolating much of interest. The cars could have been worthwhile, but
they are just parked too tight, and as a display they are difficult, if
not impossible to capture their individual character. In the end, there
is just no way to do anything other than document how not to assemble
and display a coherent collection. This is a non-museum of tasteless
clutter, and there is little hope for 99% of these shots.
Out of all your shots I only saw one which had some promise after a
little tweaking on my part.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/30713824242_E.jpg
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 22:53:27 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Bill W:
That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a
former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and
he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he
actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole
giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of
hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I
don't know. This is them:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062...

The quality of the photos looks OK to me, but the subject is a junk
heap. A garish, kitschy collection that looks like one of the squalid
dwellings Dickens so famously described‹perhaps that of Krook, the rag
and bottle merchant in "Bleak House." Or the front yard of a mobile
home deep in Appalachia (but without the "Trump" sign). And is somewhat
reminiscent of the Hearst "Castle," the consummate proof that money
can't buy good taste.

Yeah, the guy is a character, and a bit eccentric. One sad thing is
that none of the collection appears to be taken care of. It's like he
just dumped things here and there, and there they are, collecting dust
forever. Thanks for taking the time to look.

...Where did I go wrong?

Picked a subject that even Ansel Adams couldn't have made anything of.
AFAIK he didn't photograph Hearst "Castle," either.

Is there anything that could help these photos?

I doubt it, but you could keep a couple of reminders of the sort of
things that aren't worth the high cost of film and developing.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:01:54 +1100, Noons
wrote:

On 8/11/2016 2:21 @wiz, Bill W wrote:


Where did I go wrong? Is there anything that could help these photos?



You tried to do photos of "the lot".
For example: on the cars I'd have gone for little details like
reflections, nice figures, badges, light reflections, that sort of thing.
Rather than "whole body" photos.

The purpose of the photos was "the lot". That was a bad choice on my
part.

Museums, galleries, etc.
In places like this I've found it's the details that give spark to photos.
Instead of trying to show a whole room, concentrate on a small detail
that really grabs the attention.
Can be anything.
Like: some nice colours in a painting, or some interesting texture in a
statue. That sort of thing.
Just my $05, anyway.

Agreed, but the place is huge (actually 3 homes on adjacent lots
connected together), I wanted to see everything, and I got there late.
There was no time for detail, and I finished right when they closed.

Just a series of bad moves on my part.

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:33:32 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

The venue was an non-composible dump. Not your fault.

That seems to be the consensus.

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:27:22 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-11-08 03:21:06 +0000, Bill W said:

That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a
former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and
he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he
actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole
giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of
hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I
don't know. This is them:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062

I know that no one is going to look at all of them, but if you're
bored, and want to critique some photos, here's your chance. Every one
of these photos just leaves me cold, and I can't figure out why. I
admittedly forgot the lens I wanted, and had only the slowest, most
useless lens for this purpose, but still. It's not just the subject,
it's the IQ, it's everything. I got sick or processing them, and
sorted by ISO, flash on/off, indoor/outdoor, and batch processed most
of them that way, and just touched up some of them at the end.

What I'm wondering is if these photos just have a subject that doesn't
lead to appealing photos, or if there is something I missed in
processing. The photos were all meant only as a documentary record of
a very cluttered house - cluttered with faded, dusty things, but like
I said, not even one of them holds any interest for me.

Where did I go wrong? Is there anything that could help these photos?

I don't think that you went too wrong. The problem is the location in
its entirety. What you have is a picker's/hoader's cluttered junk pile.
There is no organization to the collection so there is little hope of
isolating much of interest. The cars could have been worthwhile, but
they are just parked too tight, and as a display they are difficult, if
not impossible to capture their individual character. In the end, there
is just no way to do anything other than document how not to assemble
and display a coherent collection. This is a non-museum of tasteless
clutter, and there is little hope for 99% of these shots.
Out of all your shots I only saw one which had some promise after a
little tweaking on my part.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/30713824242_E.jpg

That's an improvement, but I'm trying to wean myself off
micro-contrast and too much sharpening. I'm not sure why, though.

Anyway, there actually is some organization - the junk is arranged by
certain broad themes. He's a movie nut, a space nut, music nut, etc.,
and collects memorabilia for his interests. He's also a bike stunt
nut, and I believe was Evel Knievel's surgeon for some things. One odd
little story: He was at a jump over a Caesar's Palace fountain, and
the jumper didn't quite make it. The EMT's got to him right away, and
this doctor also raced over to help. He is a highly respected
neurosurgeon, but the EMT's didn't recognize him, and wouldn't let him
near the victim. He went public, claiming that the guy would have
lived if he would have been allowed to do a tracheotomy on the spot.
Going public with that didn't go over well with the medical
establishment, of course. He was widely disliked as a politician, and
by hospital staff in his other profession. But definitely a character.
Not all of our Vegas characters are gamblers.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 19:21:06 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a
former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and
he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he
actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole
giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of
hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I
don't know. This is them:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062

I know that no one is going to look at all of them, but if you're
bored, and want to critique some photos, here's your chance. Every one
of these photos just leaves me cold, and I can't figure out why. I
admittedly forgot the lens I wanted, and had only the slowest, most
useless lens for this purpose, but still. It's not just the subject,
it's the IQ, it's everything. I got sick or processing them, and
sorted by ISO, flash on/off, indoor/outdoor, and batch processed most
of them that way, and just touched up some of them at the end.

What I'm wondering is if these photos just have a subject that doesn't
lead to appealing photos, or if there is something I missed in
processing. The photos were all meant only as a documentary record of
a very cluttered house - cluttered with faded, dusty things, but like
I said, not even one of them holds any interest for me.

Where did I go wrong? Is there anything that could help these photos?

Yep.

Throw away three quarters of the subjects. The place is insufferably
cluttered. All the tarting up of colors, contrast and dynamic range
will not be enough to otherwise save them.

Apart from that, it's a fascinating collection. It's totally beyond
the ability of a photographer to do more than justice to a very few
selected items.

I would love to go there.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:35:24 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:27:22 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-11-08 03:21:06 +0000, Bill W said:

That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a
former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and
he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he
actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole
giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of
hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I
don't know. This is them:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062

I know that no one is going to look at all of them, but if you're
bored, and want to critique some photos, here's your chance. Every one
of these photos just leaves me cold, and I can't figure out why. I
admittedly forgot the lens I wanted, and had only the slowest, most
useless lens for this purpose, but still. It's not just the subject,
it's the IQ, it's everything. I got sick or processing them, and
sorted by ISO, flash on/off, indoor/outdoor, and batch processed most
of them that way, and just touched up some of them at the end.

What I'm wondering is if these photos just have a subject that doesn't
lead to appealing photos, or if there is something I missed in
processing. The photos were all meant only as a documentary record of
a very cluttered house - cluttered with faded, dusty things, but like
I said, not even one of them holds any interest for me.

Where did I go wrong? Is there anything that could help these photos?

I don't think that you went too wrong. The problem is the location in
its entirety. What you have is a picker's/hoader's cluttered junk pile.
There is no organization to the collection so there is little hope of
isolating much of interest. The cars could have been worthwhile, but
they are just parked too tight, and as a display they are difficult, if
not impossible to capture their individual character. In the end, there
is just no way to do anything other than document how not to assemble
and display a coherent collection. This is a non-museum of tasteless
clutter, and there is little hope for 99% of these shots.
Out of all your shots I only saw one which had some promise after a
little tweaking on my part.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/30713824242_E.jpg

That's an improvement, but I'm trying to wean myself off
micro-contrast and too much sharpening. I'm not sure why, though.

Heh heh! Someone accusing Savageduck of too much sharpening. :-)

Anyway, there actually is some organization - the junk is arranged by
certain broad themes. He's a movie nut, a space nut, music nut, etc.,
and collects memorabilia for his interests. He's also a bike stunt
nut, and I believe was Evel Knievel's surgeon for some things. One odd
little story: He was at a jump over a Caesar's Palace fountain, and
the jumper didn't quite make it. The EMT's got to him right away, and
this doctor also raced over to help. He is a highly respected
neurosurgeon, but the EMT's didn't recognize him, and wouldn't let him
near the victim. He went public, claiming that the guy would have
lived if he would have been allowed to do a tracheotomy on the spot.
Going public with that didn't go over well with the medical
establishment, of course. He was widely disliked as a politician, and
by hospital staff in his other profession. But definitely a character.
Not all of our Vegas characters are gamblers.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens