Decrepitude

Cornflake

Dr Calohandre

I would have used the word "Dilapidated" as an adjective rather than Decreptitude as a noun. One describes or modifies while the other is static and while it essentially means the same thing descriptiviely, dilapidated is a much more common description word.

As to ths shot. Go back and set your white and black points where you originally had them, but also set a gray point on the gray area just to the left of the coal oil can then lower the middle of the curve just a tad while raising the upper right quadrant slightly above and the lower right slightly below center line and see if it doesn't brighten the image with a bit more contrast.

Cornflake

Thanks for the suggestions, Dr. C.

Earache

Dr Calohandre wrote: »

I would have used the word "Dilapidated" as an adjective rather than Decreptitude as a noun. One describes or modifies while the other is static and while it essentially means the same thing descriptiviely, dilapidated is a much more common description word.

As to ths shot. Go back and set your white and black points where you originally had them, but also set a gray point on the gray area just to the left of the coal oil can then lower the middle of the curve just a tad while raising the upper right quadrant slightly above and the lower right slightly below center line and see if it doesn't brighten the image with a bit more contrast.

Superfluousness



Nice image and treatment Don, it has a tired feeling - much like the objects in frame.
Looks like an awesome place for photography!

black mamba

I like this shot a lot, Don. I agree with Eric....the processing matches the scene very well. Good job.

I'm a little hesitant to post now. I might get an English lesson thrown my way.

Take care,

Tom

Dr Calohandre

I did both. If presenting your work to a jury for entry into a show, something as simple as a title can change a judge's viewing perspective if the title either doesn't fit the image or makes the judging panel twist an ear. There's nothing superfluous about the proper use of the English language.

As to the processing, I think it still needs work. What I suggested could either be done with a B&W contrast adjustment layer with the blend mode set to luminescence or simply by resetting a curved gray point where I suggested.

Earache

I was, perhaps, too terse in my first response - please let me explain.

IMO, elements like titling and processing are subjective and individual expressions of the artist/photographers vision - whether we "like" them or not.
I believe it is incumbent on the viewer/critic to recognize when suggestions to change an image to "how I would have done it" are unnecessary and simply allow the artist to express themselves.
In the absence of any obvious flaws (whatever those are), I think this image falls in that category and stands on it's own - again, whether it appeals to us or not.

Also, IMO, Jurist opinions are like stars in the sky - too many to count and some burning brighter than others.

Cornflake

Eric, Tom, thanks. I welcome suggestions and Dr. C's were sensible ones. This image just tugged me in a different direction.

Sam

When i read the title and opened the thread I expected to see a photo of the white house.

Sam

pathfinder

Earache wrote: »

Nice image and treatment Don, it has a tired feeling - much like the objects in frame.
Looks like an awesome place for photography!

I agree, I like this image.

I am very curious as to the location where it was shot? Some place in Arizona? Can you be specific, please?

Cornflake

Pathfinder, pretty much the whole state of Arizona looks like this.

Joke. This was taken at a place called Gammon's Gulch, about nine miles north of Benson. Jay Gammon decided to create his own ghost town. He built most of the structures. He brought in lots of antiques to fill the place. When he can, he rents it as a movie set. Otherwise, he guides people like me and my wife around. When I read about it, I was dubious, but it was fun to visit. I didn't see a lot that struck me as photogenic, though, beyond these cars.

By the way, I asked if it was okay to take photos and he said yes, unless you're going to sell them. I accordingly put this one in a gallery where sales aren't permitted.

pathfinder

Yes, I have been to Hackney and Oatmen before, so I knew that there were some scenic old towns in Arizona if you were willing to wander about about a bit.

DaddyO

Cornflake wrote: »

I didn't see a lot that struck me as photogenic, though, beyond these cars.

Reminds me of all the locations I've had a tough time working something decent out ... that I could see
I do like this shots POV and balance and I get to spend some time going back and forth checking the interesting details offered.
A person could dial in a tad more pop or perhaps some wash or of course much other.
I figure you will get to that should the mood strike you beyond where you landed this round.
Definitely a photo that much could be played with and worth doing so just for the look see if nothing else..

Cornflake

Thanks, DaddyO.