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

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Throw away three quarters of the subjects. The place is insufferably
cluttered.

The owner is still alive, right?
--
teleportation kills

On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 21:07:42 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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. :-)

I was going to warn him that Peter might mention that...

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 Tue, 08 Nov 2016 21:03:40 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

It looks like everyone is in agreement on that. I appreciate all the
comments, and it's good to know it's not just me.

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.

It's just one day a year - every Nevada Day, and every year is the
last one. One of these days he'll be serious. If you Google Lonnie
Hammargren, there's many articles about him, and his house.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 09:21:09 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Throw away three quarters of the subjects. The place is insufferably
cluttered.

The owner is still alive, right?

Yep. Some of my photos are of him. He was next to the harp with some
woman. That might have been his wife.

On 8/11/2016 7:03 @wiz, Eric Stevens wrote:


I would love to go there.



Aye, me two!
I could see myself wasting two days looking into this place in detail!
That rocket launcher and the Space Station have got me frothing!

On 11/7/2016 10:21 PM, 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?


Looks like a scene out of American Pickers.
I doubt if anyone could get what one might call "decent" pictures,
unless the items were cleaned up and displayed.


--
PeterN

On 11/8/2016 3:27 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 21:07:42 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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. :-)

I was going to warn him that Peter might mention that...


Nope. didn't need to.

--
PeterN

On 11/7/2016 10:21 PM, 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?


I would like to to some interpretations of my own, but to is
resurrection day.

--
PeterN

On 2016-11-08 05:35:24 +0000, Bill W said:

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.

What too much sharpening? There is none that I applied.

Working on a JPEG of your original Flickr file, which already had
compression artifacts, so additional sharpening was furthest from my
adjust plan. All I did was adjust exposure/contrast/curves, dealt with
as much of the blown highlights through the window as I could with that
JPEG, and add a vignette.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-11-08 08:27:22 +0000, Bill W said:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 21:07:42 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
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. :-)

I was going to warn him that Peter might mention that...

Peter would never have noticed that, but he would have been sure to
find something else, and make a comment which would have left us
scratching our heads.

--
Regards,

Savageduck