Request for Critique, please

mystic86

Hi,

Just looking for a few opinions, if that's OK..

I posted this photo on the random thread a couple of weeks ago:



I got some advice in my local club to maybe remove the cables on the left as they are a bit distracting, which I have done so here:



I would like some thoughts on which version people prefer (if any, lol), and why?

Thanks

DaireQuinlan

I don't think they're 'distracting' I think they form an integral part of the urban environment in which you were shooting. In removing them you have created something that has no reflection in reality.

mikka631

I agree with Daire and think the original is a true depiction of what you pointed your camera at.
I find too often that people sanitise, for want of a better word, their images removing what others might find distracting.
Rather than photoshopping the image to get rid of the cables a good crop might have given a similar end result.
What is more to the point is what pleased you about the image;)

magicbastarder

i'd echo the above; plus, if you pay enough attention to the image, the repetition of the pattern on the wall tiles becomes a bit distracting.

i think both aesthetically and conceptually the original image works better. it's more interesting.

mystic86

Thanks guys.

I guess maybe I'm not being clear, I'm not sure..

Saying that removing them is creating something that has no reflection in reality is only valid for me, to everyone else they don't know what the reality was and the only 'reality' they know is what is presented to them in the photo..

I didn't really mean this post to be about the nature of photo manipulation in general.

Regarding the point about a different crop to exclude the cables, I wanted him on the third and also didn't want him and his window too big in the frame..

Saying that, I think my point has been answered, in that the opinion still seems to be that the cables are not overly distracting and the photo of the scene without the cables is not a definite favourite amongst ye.

Thanks for your thoughts.

CabanSail

I too prefer the original. Nothing to do with reality, as you said only you knew what was there and it's your composition.

The reason for my preference is that the second image is too clean and as such loses the essence which make the original image appealing.

DaireQuinlan

CabanSail wrote: »

I too prefer the original. Nothing to do with reality, as you said only you knew what was there and it's your composition.

The reason for my preference is that the second image is too clean and as such loses the essence which make the original image appealing.

Yes, I should have clarified this a little as well , the second point I made was an incidental one, everyone had their own approach. But I prefer the first one, if there was a bare wall there in reality I think the shot would have suffered for it. It provides visual interest and situates the shot better within a particular urban environment

amdgilmore

**** your local club.

Frankly.

1hsleep

I disagree with other posters. I find the cables distracting, particularly the one coiled around the box. I also find the sharp line created by the roof a bit strong.

To me, it's screaming out to be cropped into a square... And maybe a gradient to balance the left side.

magicbastarder

mystic86 wrote: »

Saying that removing them is creating something that has no reflection in reality is only valid for me, to everyone else they don't know what the reality was and the only 'reality' they know is what is presented to them in the photo..

however, you've presented us with both the 'realistic' and modified version of the photos, and i think there is merit in having the 'real' version separate from aesthetic concerns. i'm probably not alone in that i'd feel slightly cheated being shown a shot which showed merit and finding out it was significantly altered.

however, we're in the luxurious position where the unmodified version is the better shot. IMHO, obviously.

CabanSail

amdgilmore wrote: »

**** your local club.

Frankly.

That's a bit unfair. It's a valid opinion, just as are those in this thread

mystic86

magicbastarder wrote: »

however, you've presented us with both the 'realistic' and modified version of the photos, and i think there is merit in having the 'real' version separate from aesthetic concerns. i'm probably not alone in that i'd feel slightly cheated being shown a shot which showed merit and finding out it was significantly altered.

however, we're in the luxurious position where the unmodified version is the better shot. IMHO, obviously.

I know where you are coming from, and the morals of photo manipulation is an interesting topic, but all I wanted to know is if the cables are distracting or add to the photo.

Cheers.

11811

I'd prefer the first edit too. Don't find the cables distracting at all, in fact I think they add to the image. The overhead balcony I find a bit distracting though. Would look well in a 16:9 aspect I think. That said, I work in film, so I tend to lean towards more cinematic aspect ratios!

kneemos

The symmetrical diagonal lines on the stones where the cables were draws my attention and makes me wonder what was there.
Yer man in jocks and socks is in the eye of the beholder.

r3nu4l

Second image is far too bland and boring. The first image with the cables tells you something about the environment in which the picture was taken and adds context and interest. The cables tell a story as does the rest of the image. Removing them is a complete waste of time and removes the interest.

.Longshanks.

Prefer the first. Cable balance the image.
The second is to 'clean'

mystic86

11811 wrote: »

I'd prefer the first edit too. Don't find the cables distracting at all, in fact I think they add to the image. The overhead balcony I find a bit distracting though. Would look well in a 16:9 aspect I think. That said, I work in film, so I tend to lean towards more cinematic aspect ratios!

Like this?

amdgilmore

I always avoid cropping to non-standard photographic ratios, but I have to say it does look quite good in the widescreen version above.

Myksyk

I like the original. You could title it 'Connection'. It's the modern urban environment ... its not clutter it's detail.

TheQuietFella

It is what it is and I would agree with the majority of posters that the original is fine.
It is after all what would be deemed as 'street photography' and the word 'sanitise' used in an earlier post
would be a fair reflection of the processing on the second image.

Street Photography in my view is the purest form of photography.
You can't or maybe just shouldn't interfere with the results.

magicbastarder

colorise his socks. leave it alone otherwise.

diomed

At the risk of attracting flak I suggest leave all the cables but crop to remove (1) the shuttering to the sitter's right and (2) the roof above the sitter. This leaves the shadow pointing at the sitter, and your eyes also follow the curves of the cables back to the sitter.
You could edit to put on some pants.

diomed

Oops. I didn't see post #17 above. That, but leave in the extra area below the sitter that you cropped out. That bit has the shadow line pointing back to the sitter.
Looking at it again you might just take off the very top of the image to leave just the black underside of the roof for interest.

fret_wimp2

magicbastarder wrote: »

colorise his socks. leave it alone otherwise.

Please dont colorize anything! B&w processing is good. Removes color, lets you focus on the shapes, lines and overall composition more. Color vs b&w is another topic and discussion, but if it works as mono, leave it thst way, it feels more pure, to me anyway.

Regarding the original composition, it was fine as is. I dont like non standard aspect ratios either. The wires add flow and interest, both seperating parts of the frame but also drawing the eye around the image.

LAstly, its your image, and you chose the original crop and edit. Its your image, stand by it, who cares what the club membes, or anyone here thinks! Own your creative decision and be happy with it!

Dramatik

Personally if I was to do anything to the image, I would actually remove some of the space inbetween the cables and the window and bring everything closer together. Say one full brick worth of space from the left side of the window. If you are decent with photoshop, this shouldn't be too hard to achieve and would just take a little extra time to line everything up correctly ect.

I think the photo would read better this way as the cables would lead the eye directly to the subject in the window rather than to the open space and then to the subject. The rest of the image is quite busy with lots of interesting things to look at and I feel the space in between is making the image slightly unbalanced as there's not much going on there compared to the rest of the image.

Just thought I'd mention this as an option as nobody else has so far. Nice pic BTW

DoctorEdgeWild

I don't have any photographic knowledge and just stumbled across this thread from the main page but I really like your first, original image. Makes for a really nice photo. (speaking as just some guy who likes nice photographs!)

beth-lou

I like the first image. I think the cables form a frame and lead your eye in. The crop minus the balcony and the shutter works too.
Nice capture.

Reoil

Prefer with the cables out. They look ugly and draw your eye away from the subject of the photo - the man. The second photo has two subjects.

ScumLord

Cabling is part of the urban environment, especially in more latin countries where they seem to put so much of it outside. I think they can have an organic quality. You wouldn't want to remove ivy from a building because it's distracting.

I guess it depends on whether you want to capture a scene or create one. You can go either way with it and I wouldn't say either is wrong. With the cabling it looks urban and gritty, without it looks more idealised.

Rsaeire

mystic86 wrote: »

Like this?

I find this version to be the best due to the balance between the environment and the person. Composition is so important in photography and I believe you've done a great job with this shot; well done

Reoil

ScumLord wrote: »

Cabling is part of the urban environment, especially in more latin countries where they seem to put so much of it outside. I think they can have an organic quality. You wouldn't want to remove ivy from a building because it's distracting.

I guess it depends on whether you want to capture a scene or create one. You can go either way with it and I wouldn't say either is wrong. With the cabling it looks urban and gritty, without it looks more idealised.

When I look at a photograph, I don't want to immediately think - "What am I supposed to be look at?".
The man is the focus of the photograph. The cables are a distraction. For me.
I think the man, sitting in a first story window, would suggest "urban".
I don't think the outside electric infrastructure would add to tell a story.
Just my opinion.

ScumLord

Reoil wrote: »

When I look at a photograph, I don't want to immediately think - "What am I supposed to be look at?".
The man is the focus of the photograph. The cables are a distraction. For me.
I think the man, sitting in a first story window, would suggest "urban".
I don't think the outside electric infrastructure would add to tell a story.
Just my opinion.

All the cables immediately make me think of Spain so to me, he's gone from a guy sitting in a window in some part of the world, to maybe a guy on holiday in Spain.

PhoenixParker

I don't think the cables take from the picture, as others have said they give it a sense of place.
I think the top of the overhang above the guy in the window is distracting. There's a narrow line there that's pulling focus, but I think the widescreen is cutting too low.

This is my crop matching original proportions.