dark terrain

[KenC]

 

[Actinometro]

 

[KenC]

Thanks!

 

[bribrius]

this is different. Looks like instead of nailing the texture and detail hard you just went far enough to bring out the directional lines. Makes a nice example.. Looks like the bottom left is oof and the focus point might be just over that bottom bolt head? can you tell me if that was intentional or did you just take it too close?

 

[The_Traveler]

there needs to be something out there or else it looks dull and flat - at least to me.

 

[KenC]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

this is different. Looks like instead of nailing the texture and detail hard you just went far enough to bring out the directional lines. Makes a nice example.. Looks like the bottom left is oof and the focus point might be just over that bottom bolt head? can you tell me if that was intentional or did you just take it too close?

I don't think the lower left is oof. I focused on the middle and it was shot at about f16, so even though I was pretty close, I think everything is well enough in focus. If anything the board on the right, which was slightly closer to the camera, may be just a bit less sharp than the rest. This surface had been painted so many times that some of it was very smooth anyway.

there needs to be something out there or else it looks dull and flat - at least to me.

Yeah, often that's the case (a B&W should have some pure black and some pure white, and all that) but here I just wanted it low key and cropped a gouge near the top of the original frame that was very light for that reason. This was a barn wall painted flat red many, many times, so even the reflections were not very bright. Do you feel that there always should be something in the upper part of the histogram, or is it a question of the subject matter or something else about this particular photo?

 

[The_Traveler]

Do you feel that there always should be something in the upper part of the histogram, or is it a question of the subject matter or something else about this particular photo?

A closeup of densely cracked wood is on the level of a picture of a brick wall.
It's been done, by everyone and it's easy.
I think that images should make some attempt to be interesting and I think this one is just flat and dull.
Increasing the contrast might improve it's interest a bit but in the end it's like a picture of a brick wall or the Washington Monument or a flower up close. It's essentially a copy of 100,000,000 other pictures; so damn close that it makes no difference.