transportation

[skieur]

A very old car under the world's longest train trestle bridge.

skieur

 

[Remi M.]

You have allot of things going on in there. None of them really working with anything. I would try to isolate a little more. For example, taking a photo of the car with only the wall in the background.

 

[skieur]

You have allot of things going on in there. None of them really working with anything. I would try to isolate a little more. For example, taking a photo of the car with only the wall in the background.

They work together historically in that the section of the bridge you see was built in 1910. The car is early 1900s and the abandoned building is certainly not remotely recent either.

Perhaps you are suggesting it would be better with the bridge taken out?
You could not have just the wall as you suggest without the doors and/or part of the roof. I was also trying to shoot it as a scenic, not just a car shot, which was why I did not shoot superclose in the first place.

skieur

 

[Remi M.]

I didn't pick up on the historical connection, sorry. I'm just looking at it as a image.
As a image, the 3 things in this scene have no connection with each other, there are no lines, shapes, colors, tones, textures that connect between each other.

You could have all three things in there if you wanted a scenic but arranged differently. I don't know if you had use of the car or not. If you did you could park it differently. If you did not, you could try getting lower and more to the right. So the trees between the building and the bridge disappear and the slope of the steeper portion of the roof mirrors the angles on the bridge deck and the car is to the left out of the way of the bright red and blue door.

 

[marinaw]

I like the whole concept of combining different items of similar age. A mono or duo tone could enhance the feel of age, also.

The composition itself feels a bit awkward, though. To me, the bridge pylons appear to be chimneys attached to the building. The car is so beautiful but my eyes are drawn straight to those 'chimneys'. A different angle might help to alleviate that.

I REALLY love that car!

 

[meotter]

They work together historically in that the section of the bridge you see was built in 1910. The car is early 1900s and the abandoned building is certainly not remotely recent either.

Perhaps you are suggesting it would be better with the bridge taken out?
You could not have just the wall as you suggest without the doors and/or part of the roof. I was also trying to shoot it as a scenic, not just a car shot, which was why I did not shoot superclose in the first place.

skieur

I'm apt to agree with remi M's original post. whilst the photo may indeed capture the similar age of the building, bridge and the car, the photo doesn't really convey that to people who aren't from the area. it doesn't tell a story, and if it does, it's not the story that you want told. that's fine if this is a pic just for you, but since you're posting it here, i'm guessing you want other people to understand and enjoy it too?

I've typed and deleted about 5 different ways to reshoot this, or work with this image, but in the end, i still feel that it's not really satisfactory to your end of including all 3 images... from what i can see, they really just don't go together visually.

if you can move the car, i'd do that and take remi m's other suggestion of shooting from a lower vantage point.

 

[skieur]

suxxx, read a book. HAHA

And you are the one who complains about useless posts!

I really sympathize with the fact you seem to be challenged in the area of literacy and sentence construction as well as spelling. If your reading skills are up to average then I would kindly suggest that:

YOU READ THE ******* GUIDELINES AND MAKE AN EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPLY WITH THEM"

skieur

 

[skieur]

Skieur,

Since you're probably all fired up right now, for some reason this instance brings to mind the situation of quantity of thread starts in this gallery.

I think there's a couple of folks that are nearing abuse with the time they take from not only the critics, but from others who get pushed down in the pile from superfluous threads being posted over these photographers who really could use the help.

Sometimes it just seems like this is turning into an exclusive gallery for a couple who wish to have viewers faun over their work when they would get just as much praise in the forums.

I think limiting the critique requests to one per week would be more than fair. Just wondering if you have any thoughts on the subject?

Frankly Abraxas, I think that beginners are not ready to be posting in Critical Analysis, and their photos should be moved to the galleries instead. Comments and critique should be solidly based in photography and posters should be willing to listen to and logically discuss critiques.

I am also amazed at "the blind leading the blinder" in some of these threads. No one should be posting in General Critique who says that a 2 stop underexposed or overexposed shot is spot on or that a fuzzy photo is in focus. Again, General Critique should not be for beginners.

skieur

 

[The Phototron]

Frankly Abraxas, I think that beginners are not ready to be posting in Critical Analysis, and their photos should be moved to the galleries instead. Comments and critique should be solidly based in photography and posters should be willing to listen to and logically discuss critiques.

I am also amazed at "the blind leading the blinder" in some of these threads. No one should be posting in General Critique who says that a 2 stop underexposed or overexposed shot is spot on or that a fuzzy photo is in focus. Again, General Critique should not be for beginners.

skieur

Frankly skieur, until you have those qualities yourself, your suggestion holds no weight.

 

[skieur]

Frankly skieur, until you have those qualities yourself, your suggestion holds no weight.

You should read the guidelines too. I don't think expletives such as "suxx" qualify as critique that should be listened to.

skieur

 

[The Phototron]

You should read the guidelines too. I don't think expletives such as "suxx" qualify as critique that should be listened to.

skieur

You apparently missed the point. I was simply saying that you don't have enough experience with the medium to point fingers at beginners.

You are right in the technical respect, but in terms of composition most people are capable of expressing what they like and don't like and why. They might not use "terms" professionals use, but they're adequate.

For this picture in particular, even though your idea makes sense, the whole come-from-the-same-period part. The way you present it didn't work as Remi points out much earlier.

And that supports my point. Even though you might have adequate knowledge of technicalities, your composition skill as a photographer isn't adequate to differentiate yourself from beginners.

 

[Peanuts]

Okay.. to get this topic back on.

There is lots of potential here, however several limiting factors are also present.

- The composition is snap-shotty and it may be the world's longest train trestle bridge, but I have no idea or suggestion of this looking at the image. Perhaps a wide angle cropped into a panaromic shot parallel to the bridge with the building and the car in the foreground

-Personally I think an image of this subject begs for a moody black and white reminiscent of the 'good old days'

- I am positive I see that you cloned the building the background out. Why not get lower and step a few paces to the right and hide it with the building?

- Take advantage of the big blue sky, grab a polarizer

Hopefully that helps some.. and out of curiousity, where is this taken?

 

[The Phototron]

Okay.. to get this topic back on.
- I am positive I see that you cloned the building the background out. Why not get lower and step a few paces to the right and hide it with the building?

All your suggestions are sound, but changing the vantage point could greatly complicate other elements he's trying to put together: the car, warehouse, bridge.

 

[Peanuts]

Not necessarily. By moving to the right, the bridge will likelystilll be visible above the building and I personally would rather like seeing just the back of the car - it simplifies and unifies the lines.

(Beats cloning)

 

[The Phototron]

Not necessarily. By moving to the right, the bridge will likelystilll be visible above the building and I personally would rather like seeing just the back of the car - it simplifies and unifies the lines.

(Beats cloning)

True, but it's hard to give good judgment. The image doesn't give three dimensional information for your brain to rotate it and visualize how it'll look at different vantage points. You could get a rough idea, but then you wouldn't know the actual impact on your eyes.

And again, just to get that house out of the way you are changing the composition. Ideally, if the problem is just the house, everything else is already established, cloning is the way to go (or call in an air strike, plant some c4 whatever ).

For this shot though, you could be right, because everything else is still problematic.