Light painting photography critique/advise

[Eventer]

I love exploring all the amazing photo opportunities throughout the abandoned earthquake ruins in Christchurch. There are so many un touched places still 4 years on - together with my boyfriend (who has really taken a liking to this long exposure fun) we have scaled buildings and fences but never broken in, altered, or removed anything. Pictured here is the remains of The Odeon Theatre, built in 1883, is the oldest purpose built, masonry theatre in New Zealand. Barriers surrounding the theatre have been torn down and Graffiti artists and have made use of the remaining walls.
I'm still relatively new to this light painting thing - but I'm hooked already and have so many more ideas up my sleeve - Looking into getting access into the Christchurch Cathedral (tried to fence climb this same night but that cathedral is ridden with cameras and I didn't fancy more chances of getting a trespassing notice or a criminal record)
Any way as usual any advice is always welcome!

Link to the other photos from the same gallery -
Michelle Clarke

 

[Eventer]

 

[Braineack]

I don't quite understand the point of the spinning steel wool here in this shot.

you need to clean your sensor btw.

 

[Designer]

Any way as usual any advice is always welcome!

My advice is to stay away from closed properties.

 

[pjaye]

Two things,.

1. Flying sparks & old building.... not really a bright idea.

2. Your watermark states unauthorized use of your photo is illegal, yet you have no problems with illegally trespassing? Pot, meet kettle.

 

[dennybeall]

Since this is a photography forum!!! I'll say the photos show interesting use of light and ideas. And, Yes, You do need to clean the sensor. Look at the sky area and you can see some spots.

 

[waday]

Despite trespassing and what's involved with that, I generally like the photo. It's interesting to look at.

I definitely agree that I don't really understand the concept at this particular location. In addition, you could clone out those spots on the sensor.

 

[tirediron]

I'm a HUGE fan of URBEX and abandoned building photography (as long as it's done properly), but to me, the steel wool pretty much kills the shot.

 

[Scoody]

I have never really liked the use of sparklers or photographer created light trails. It gives a what could've been awesome photo a gimicky, oooh look at me feel.

 

[TCampbell]

If you were photographing the inside of an active foundry, and the glow of molten metal and associated sparks as the metal is being poured into molds... then there'd be a point of "sparks" in the photograph. But this use of spinning sparks is gratuitous -- it's not genuine to the location.

 

[Forkie]

Woah, a lot of goody-two-shoes around here today. No one ever took an interesting photo from the boring side of the fence

I'm sure I've seen photos from "urban explorers" around here before without so much wrist slapping.

I think you've done really well with this shot. There never is a point to spinning wool except to make a fun and interesting photo. The light from the wool here has actually lit up the inside of the building very nicely. The blue and yellow, which are complementary colours, work really well. In fact, I might have blued the sky even further to solidify it a bit more (and yes, you do need to clean your sensor or clone out the dust spots).

You have some really nice negative space at the bottom of the frame and the light has brought out the detail of the wood floor really well.

I think it could be improved quite a bit by:

• Cleaning the sky and adding some more blue and removing the magentas.
• Some perspective correction - straighten up that left hand wall of the building
• The building does take up a lot of the frame. If you could have got any further back or zoomed out a bit more, the shot could have had a bit more space to make it easier for the viewer to take it all in.

For a light-painting newbie, I think you've done really well. Keep doing it!

 

[TCampbell]

Woah, a lot of goody-two-shoes around here today. No one ever took an interesting photo from the boring side of the fence

I'm certainly not going to encourage anyone to trespass.

Your post really comes across as someone who believes the need to honor property rights really only applies to others. I did notice your profile box says "My Photos Are NOT Ok to Edit". I wonder how you'd feel if we decided it wasn't important to honor that.

There's absolutely no reason to trespass. I often get access to areas that are normally off-limits to the public. I do this by asking for permission. When you are respectful and polite about the request, you might be surprised how often people actually willing to grant permission.

 

[Braineack]

It makes a fun interesting photo if it ads something to the photo. Other examples on the OP's website show better integration with the environment and overall better composition.

Here is somewhat interesting subject [the theater] within a poorly framed photo that has little interest going on expect there happens to be a circle of sparks captured within it. It adds absolutely nothing. there's nothing grandiose about these sparks in general, nor to there relationship to the surrounding environment.

The Shag Rock example on the OPs site is a much better use. A least it have a strong Golden Rule so in the least there's good composition.

 

[Forkie]

Woah, a lot of goody-two-shoes around here today. No one ever took an interesting photo from the boring side of the fence

I'm certainly not going to encourage anyone to trespass.

Your post really comes across as someone who believes the need to honor property rights really only applies to others. I did notice your profile box says "My Photos Are NOT Ok to Edit". I wonder how you'd feel if we decided it wasn't important to honor that.

There's absolutely no reason to trespass. I often get access to areas that are normally off-limits to the public. I do this by asking for permission. When you are respectful and polite about the request, you might be surprised how often people actually willing to grant permission.

That's ok. I don't mind my post coming across like that. But I don't think for a second that having "My photos are not ok to edit" will stop someone doing it if they're feeling on the cheeky side. It will stop most people - as will a fence, but there'll always be people here and there who'll have a go anyway for thrills and giggles.

Let them live a little. They risk being caught, but that's their hole to climb out of. If they get away with it, I hope they had fun. I reckon doing something "naughty" like scaling a fence into a restricted area with your boyfriend or girlfriend is quite a thrill, romantic, and probably a good aphrodisiac, too. I hope they had a good night after it, too!

I'm a law abiding guy 98% of the time, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't like getting away with the odd shenanigan from time to time. Like the guy who puts his foot down on an open road when there's no one around, or the guy who downloads the latest episode of Game of Thrones from Putlocker because he missed it on HBO, or the guy who slips a fancy Coca-Cola glass in his bag from the bar, or the Dad who let's his teenager have a beer. I'm not saying it's right - just that's it's fun. It's not my place to judge. Nor, if I may be so bold, is it yours unless they get caught and you end up on the jury.

It makes a fun interesting photo if it ads something to the photo. Other examples on the OP's website show better integration with the environment and overall better composition.

Here is somewhat interesting subject [the theater] within a poorly framed photo that has little interest going on expect there happens to be a circle of sparks captured within it. It adds absolutely nothing. there's nothing grandiose about these sparks in general, nor to there relationship to the surrounding environment.

The Shag Rock example on the OPs site is a much better use. A least it have a strong Golden Rule so in the least there's good composition.

You're probably right. It's not the best light painting photo I've ever seen either, and I made some suggestions for improvement. I just thought it wasn't bad for a light painting newbie and complimented the OP on what they did right. There are much better shots on the OP's website, but I did like the fact that some effort had gone into the shot despite its shortcomings and I thought that alone was worthy of compliment. It's often good for a new photographers' confidence to hear what they did right, as well as what they did wrong.

 

[Eventer]

Two things,.

1. Flying sparks & old building.... not really a bright idea.

2. Your watermark states unauthorized use of your photo is illegal, yet you have no problems with illegally trespassing? Pot, meet kettle.

The wood was not overly dry - we have fire safety equipment with us and I'm yet to light anything on fire with steel wool. Even dry grass hasn't ever caught - not that I make a habit out of spinning wool in dangerous/flammable areas.
Photographers/explorers have been exploring abandoned areas of Christchurch for a long time now. Unless complaints are made (or even when complaints are made) nothing happens. Check out Glen Howeys work perhaps Risk-taking photographer raises concerns | Stuff.co.nz
Maybe ill get a wrist slapping as Forkie said. I didn't harm anyone (Apart from myself slightly falling down some rubble and gaining a few splinters ) It was pretty tame trespassing. fences are down and there was even makeshift stairs built up to this theater. I was hardly breaking and entering in a location for the first time. Around another cathedral - we climbed a fence and easily could have gone inside with a bit of effort breaking in but we didnt, We don't touch or break anything.
In regards to the point of spinning steel wool - when is there EVER a reason to spin steel wool and do light paintings anyway. Apart from its interesting to look at and makes for a neat lighting situation.
I take more photos of these locations without the steel wool and other lighting tools. But i generally find them a bit bland.
And thanks for the sensor comments - I completely missed that - not sure how as it seems so obvious now!