Another reject

On 06/06/2016 10:39 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
Another reject of a "Historic Building" photo.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f7oc5ujdw...DxxVR-Upa?dl=0

Interesting structure, but not a particularly interesting photo. The
only Photoshopping that was done was adding lace curtains in the
windows that were reflecting the light. (See the RAW file)

If I liked the photo more, I'd take out the chimney because just
doesn't look right there.

This is one of those photos where framing the original shot, and
cropping the result, is difficult. The entire building was not really
frameable. There was a clutter of cars and some landscaping equipment
in the driveway.

How to crop (it had to be 10" x 8") was restrictive.

For some strange reason, I like that photo! I don't have a problem with
the chimney, either. The only nit that I can pick is the sky in the top
left corner seems painfully bright, drawing my eyes out of the picture.

The curved section on the right contrasts with the straight lines and
angles on the left. The details of the column tops and the "dental
molding" on the gable end add interest. The repeating windows on the
lower level, and the different repeating windows on the upper level give
a continuity horizontally.

No, Mr Cooper, I submit that you are being too hard on this simple, but
yet complex photo. I want to see a 16x20 print on a matte paper, with a
1/8" black border, centered on a white, pebble-grained 20x24 mount
board, with a 1" rounded gloss black frame! But first, burn in that top
left corner a bit!

--
Ken Hart

On 06/06/2016 07:45 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:47:17 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 06/06/2016 10:39 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
Another reject of a "Historic Building" photo.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f7oc5ujdw...DxxVR-Upa?dl=0

Interesting structure, but not a particularly interesting photo. The
only Photoshopping that was done was adding lace curtains in the
windows that were reflecting the light. (See the RAW file)

If I liked the photo more, I'd take out the chimney because just
doesn't look right there.

This is one of those photos where framing the original shot, and
cropping the result, is difficult. The entire building was not really
frameable. There was a clutter of cars and some landscaping equipment
in the driveway.

How to crop (it had to be 10" x 8") was restrictive.

For some strange reason, I like that photo! I don't have a problem with
the chimney, either. The only nit that I can pick is the sky in the top
left corner seems painfully bright, drawing my eyes out of the picture.

The curved section on the right contrasts with the straight lines and
angles on the left. The details of the column tops and the "dental
molding" on the gable end add interest. The repeating windows on the
lower level, and the different repeating windows on the upper level give
a continuity horizontally.

No, Mr Cooper, I submit that you are being too hard on this simple, but
yet complex photo. I want to see a 16x20 print on a matte paper, with a
1/8" black border, centered on a white, pebble-grained 20x24 mount
board, with a 1" rounded gloss black frame! But first, burn in that top
left corner a bit!

I think you are misunderstanding what I am rejecting. I'm submitting
photographs for a historical society's 2017 calendar competition. I've
taken a number of photographs of historical buildings in the city, and
have to choose which to submit.

I have to select three of my photographs of historical structures,
render them in black and white, and crop them to 10" x 8" at 300 ppi
for the 2017 calendar contest. Thirteen submissions will be selected
for the calendar (12 months and a cover photo). There will probably
be a 100 or so entries. I'd consider myself very lucky to get one in.

I'm not rejecting this photograph because it's a bad photograph. I'm
rejecting it as one of my choices because I think I have three better
ones. I don't think this photograph is particularly interesting
compared to the others.

Even though it's a reject for this purpose, I still processed the
image as I would if it were to be submitted. It's a form of practice.

One of the reasons I was critical of the Duck's version is that it
gave too much emphasis to the sky. This about the structure, not the
sky. The fact that you noticed the brightness in my version
emphasizes that the sky shouldn't be what the viewer sees in this
case.

If it was a submitted entry, btw, I would not remove the chimney. I
might just for my own files, though. I'd prefer the clean lines of
the tower's turret.


OK, my mistake. If you have others you feel are better candidates, and
you posted those other three, I'm sorry I missed them!

I still think it's interesting, and it does showcase well some
historical details of the structure.

I agree with your criticism of Mr Duck's version, both with regard to
the sky, and his wider crop. The building has a lot of detail to it, and
your tight crop narrows down on _some_ of those details. His wider crop
leaves me confused as to what to look at next, so I just look at the
turbulent sky, and wonder how bad the storm was.

--
Ken Hart

On 6/6/2016 10:03 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 06/06/2016 07:45 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:47:17 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 06/06/2016 10:39 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
Another reject of a "Historic Building" photo.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f7oc5ujdw...DxxVR-Upa?dl=0


Interesting structure, but not a particularly interesting photo. The
only Photoshopping that was done was adding lace curtains in the
windows that were reflecting the light. (See the RAW file)

If I liked the photo more, I'd take out the chimney because just
doesn't look right there.

This is one of those photos where framing the original shot, and
cropping the result, is difficult. The entire building was not really
frameable. There was a clutter of cars and some landscaping equipment
in the driveway.

How to crop (it had to be 10" x 8") was restrictive.

For some strange reason, I like that photo! I don't have a problem with
the chimney, either. The only nit that I can pick is the sky in the top
left corner seems painfully bright, drawing my eyes out of the picture.

The curved section on the right contrasts with the straight lines and
angles on the left. The details of the column tops and the "dental
molding" on the gable end add interest. The repeating windows on the
lower level, and the different repeating windows on the upper level give
a continuity horizontally.

No, Mr Cooper, I submit that you are being too hard on this simple, but
yet complex photo. I want to see a 16x20 print on a matte paper, with a
1/8" black border, centered on a white, pebble-grained 20x24 mount
board, with a 1" rounded gloss black frame! But first, burn in that top
left corner a bit!

I think you are misunderstanding what I am rejecting. I'm submitting
photographs for a historical society's 2017 calendar competition. I've
taken a number of photographs of historical buildings in the city, and
have to choose which to submit.

I have to select three of my photographs of historical structures,
render them in black and white, and crop them to 10" x 8" at 300 ppi
for the 2017 calendar contest. Thirteen submissions will be selected
for the calendar (12 months and a cover photo). There will probably
be a 100 or so entries. I'd consider myself very lucky to get one in.

I'm not rejecting this photograph because it's a bad photograph. I'm
rejecting it as one of my choices because I think I have three better
ones. I don't think this photograph is particularly interesting
compared to the others.

Even though it's a reject for this purpose, I still processed the
image as I would if it were to be submitted. It's a form of practice.

One of the reasons I was critical of the Duck's version is that it
gave too much emphasis to the sky. This about the structure, not the
sky. The fact that you noticed the brightness in my version
emphasizes that the sky shouldn't be what the viewer sees in this
case.

If it was a submitted entry, btw, I would not remove the chimney. I
might just for my own files, though. I'd prefer the clean lines of
the tower's turret.


OK, my mistake. If you have others you feel are better candidates, and
you posted those other three, I'm sorry I missed them!

I still think it's interesting, and it does showcase well some
historical details of the structure.

I agree with your criticism of Mr Duck's version, both with regard to
the sky, and his wider crop. The building has a lot of detail to it, and
your tight crop narrows down on _some_ of those details. His wider crop
leaves me confused as to what to look at next, so I just look at the
turbulent sky, and wonder how bad the storm was.


the purpose for the submission was to submit a historical building. I
also don't know what tony Cooper's shooting conditions. But, I assume he
worked with what he had. Having said that I would have made an even
wider crop to show the building, and just int of the details. See my
version.



--
PeterN

On 2016-06-07 12:12:46 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/6/2016 10:03 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 06/06/2016 07:45 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:47:17 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 06/06/2016 10:39 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
Another reject of a "Historic Building" photo.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f7oc5ujdw...DxxVR-Upa?dl=0


Interesting structure, but not a particularly interesting photo. The
only Photoshopping that was done was adding lace curtains in the
windows that were reflecting the light. (See the RAW file)

If I liked the photo more, I'd take out the chimney because just
doesn't look right there.

This is one of those photos where framing the original shot, and
cropping the result, is difficult. The entire building was not really
frameable. There was a clutter of cars and some landscaping equipment
in the driveway.

How to crop (it had to be 10" x 8") was restrictive.

For some strange reason, I like that photo! I don't have a problem with
the chimney, either. The only nit that I can pick is the sky in the top
left corner seems painfully bright, drawing my eyes out of the picture.

The curved section on the right contrasts with the straight lines and
angles on the left. The details of the column tops and the "dental
molding" on the gable end add interest. The repeating windows on the
lower level, and the different repeating windows on the upper level give
a continuity horizontally.

No, Mr Cooper, I submit that you are being too hard on this simple, but
yet complex photo. I want to see a 16x20 print on a matte paper, with a
1/8" black border, centered on a white, pebble-grained 20x24 mount
board, with a 1" rounded gloss black frame! But first, burn in that top
left corner a bit!

I think you are misunderstanding what I am rejecting. I'm submitting
photographs for a historical society's 2017 calendar competition. I've
taken a number of photographs of historical buildings in the city, and
have to choose which to submit.

I have to select three of my photographs of historical structures,
render them in black and white, and crop them to 10" x 8" at 300 ppi
for the 2017 calendar contest. Thirteen submissions will be selected
for the calendar (12 months and a cover photo). There will probably
be a 100 or so entries. I'd consider myself very lucky to get one in.

I'm not rejecting this photograph because it's a bad photograph. I'm
rejecting it as one of my choices because I think I have three better
ones. I don't think this photograph is particularly interesting
compared to the others.

Even though it's a reject for this purpose, I still processed the
image as I would if it were to be submitted. It's a form of practice.

One of the reasons I was critical of the Duck's version is that it
gave too much emphasis to the sky. This about the structure, not the
sky. The fact that you noticed the brightness in my version
emphasizes that the sky shouldn't be what the viewer sees in this
case.

If it was a submitted entry, btw, I would not remove the chimney. I
might just for my own files, though. I'd prefer the clean lines of
the tower's turret.


OK, my mistake. If you have others you feel are better candidates, and
you posted those other three, I'm sorry I missed them!

I still think it's interesting, and it does showcase well some
historical details of the structure.

I agree with your criticism of Mr Duck's version, both with regard to
the sky, and his wider crop. The building has a lot of detail to it, and
your tight crop narrows down on _some_ of those details. His wider crop
leaves me confused as to what to look at next, so I just look at the
turbulent sky, and wonder how bad the storm was.


the purpose for the submission was to submit a historical building. I
also don't know what tony Cooper's shooting conditions. But, I assume
he worked with what he had. Having said that I would have made an even
wider crop to show the building, and just int of the details. See my
version.

Are you having problems with DB?
This is the second time you have indicated that you have posted a
version of one of Tony's buildings, and the URL is not included in your
response. You say, "See my version", but you give us no way to do that.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/7/2016 10:03 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-06-07 12:12:46 +0000, PeterN said:

On 6/6/2016 10:03 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 06/06/2016 07:45 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:47:17 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 06/06/2016 10:39 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
Another reject of a "Historic Building" photo.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f7oc5ujdw...DxxVR-Upa?dl=0



Interesting structure, but not a particularly interesting photo. The
only Photoshopping that was done was adding lace curtains in the
windows that were reflecting the light. (See the RAW file)

If I liked the photo more, I'd take out the chimney because just
doesn't look right there.

This is one of those photos where framing the original shot, and
cropping the result, is difficult. The entire building was not
really
frameable. There was a clutter of cars and some landscaping
equipment
in the driveway.

How to crop (it had to be 10" x 8") was restrictive.

For some strange reason, I like that photo! I don't have a problem
with
the chimney, either. The only nit that I can pick is the sky in the
top
left corner seems painfully bright, drawing my eyes out of the
picture.

The curved section on the right contrasts with the straight lines and
angles on the left. The details of the column tops and the "dental
molding" on the gable end add interest. The repeating windows on the
lower level, and the different repeating windows on the upper level
give
a continuity horizontally.

No, Mr Cooper, I submit that you are being too hard on this simple,
but
yet complex photo. I want to see a 16x20 print on a matte paper,
with a
1/8" black border, centered on a white, pebble-grained 20x24 mount
board, with a 1" rounded gloss black frame! But first, burn in that
top
left corner a bit!

I think you are misunderstanding what I am rejecting. I'm submitting
photographs for a historical society's 2017 calendar competition. I've
taken a number of photographs of historical buildings in the city, and
have to choose which to submit.

I have to select three of my photographs of historical structures,
render them in black and white, and crop them to 10" x 8" at 300 ppi
for the 2017 calendar contest. Thirteen submissions will be selected
for the calendar (12 months and a cover photo). There will probably
be a 100 or so entries. I'd consider myself very lucky to get one in.

I'm not rejecting this photograph because it's a bad photograph. I'm
rejecting it as one of my choices because I think I have three better
ones. I don't think this photograph is particularly interesting
compared to the others.

Even though it's a reject for this purpose, I still processed the
image as I would if it were to be submitted. It's a form of practice.

One of the reasons I was critical of the Duck's version is that it
gave too much emphasis to the sky. This about the structure, not the
sky. The fact that you noticed the brightness in my version
emphasizes that the sky shouldn't be what the viewer sees in this
case.

If it was a submitted entry, btw, I would not remove the chimney. I
might just for my own files, though. I'd prefer the clean lines of
the tower's turret.


OK, my mistake. If you have others you feel are better candidates, and
you posted those other three, I'm sorry I missed them!

I still think it's interesting, and it does showcase well some
historical details of the structure.

I agree with your criticism of Mr Duck's version, both with regard to
the sky, and his wider crop. The building has a lot of detail to it, and
your tight crop narrows down on _some_ of those details. His wider crop
leaves me confused as to what to look at next, so I just look at the
turbulent sky, and wonder how bad the storm was.


the purpose for the submission was to submit a historical building. I
also don't know what tony Cooper's shooting conditions. But, I assume
he worked with what he had. Having said that I would have made an even
wider crop to show the building, and just int of the details. See my
version.

Are you having problems with DB?
This is the second time you have indicated that you have posted a
version of one of Tony's buildings, and the URL is not included in your
response. You say, "See my version", but you give us no way to do that.


I guess that's what you meant by "Casper."

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/tony%202016-04-22-40.jpg


--
PeterN

On 6/7/2016 10:27 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 08:12:46 -0400, PeterN
wrote:


the purpose for the submission was to submit a historical building. I
also don't know what tony Cooper's shooting conditions. But, I assume he
worked with what he had. Having said that I would have made an even
wider crop to show the building, and just int of the details. See my
version.

You have not posted a link to your version.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/tony%202016-04-22-40.jpg

--
PeterN