[fionaB]

this is another image from the Border Abbeys, similar to one already in the sharing board, i like this one better its been taken from the other end of the "nave" i delibrately left the people in the photo to give the viewer a sense of the scale of the place.
was i wrong should I remove these folk?
positive and negative critisicm appreciated!

[Dabhand16]

Spot on Fi. Great shot. I'll bet P-E is quaking in his boots!! (not really)

Minor thing - the tree visible in the window. Better shot if it was not there?

[fionaB]

thanks Dab i did actually think of removing it, but couldnt make up my mind as it left the window looking a bit bare......... still cant make up my mind........ what does anyone else think?
i shuld add that PE is the master at indoor cathedrals and no way will i ever class myself in his league. This image has not had any filters used on it ( so no lucisart) apart from a gradient to the sky. all i did was convert to mono and tweak the contrast and curves slightly with udiscious burn and dodge of some of the stone work.

Fiona

[Rob Barron]

Oh no, I can see myself getting on my hobby horse about this old chestnut....

If something is there, it's there. We can't chop the tree down and it is part of the landscape as it is. Do we as photographers manipulate the land to give us the picture we want or do we seek to record the lanscape in the best way we see it? I am forever sleighting judges in competitions who look at pictures and insist we should take this out and that out.

In this case, the tree is part of the natural life growing around the ruins of this old abbey and thus fit into the natural landscape that exists.

This is not criticising Dab, he didn't say remove it, he just asked the question which is absolutely fine. I just don't want us to get to the stage, if we haven't already, where every picture has something added or taken away so that it appears how we want it to rather than how it does.

If anything, I'd prefer the two kids to not be on the steps at the end. The adult I can live with as it provides scale but there we go, that's just me. Not saying they should be cloned out, just waited till they were gone.... but I recognise that at places like this you can wait forever and still someone will walk into the picture!

In this case, the only other adjustment I would make would be to pull the left wall vertical as it has a CV which is making it look like the wall is falling inwards. In asense, if the CVs are equal on both sides it doesn't matter so much but when it is on one side, it tends to jar a bit more. I have adjusted it here so just see if you agree. I hope you like it but at least you've seen both to decide.

Cheers,
Rob

[cotter]

Nice shot, i prefer the original

[P-E]

Looking good Fi

I had a holiday as a child up that way visiting both Kelso and Jedburgh.......seeing your pictures Fi makes me wish I could re-visit with my camera now

[fionaB]

a few hours drive PE is a small price to pay for photos! lolol

thanx for comments

fi

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

Oh no, I can see myself getting on my hobby horse about this old chestnut....

If something is there, it's there. We can't chop the tree down and it is part of the landscape as it is. Do we as photographers manipulate the land to give us the picture we want or do we seek to record the lanscape in the best way we see it? I am forever sleighting judges in competitions who look at pictures and insist we should take this out and that out......

I've got another view on this. Quite a few years ago, I was in Rob's part of the world in Corfe. I was taking some shots with my SV Pentax (yes, it was a LONG time ago!), and I was up by the church looking toward the village centre.

An artist was painting from there, and I got into conversation with him. We were talking about composition, and he said something to me that has stayed with me ever since.

"As an artist, I have the advantage over you" he said. "When you take your photograph, no matter how good the image is technically, or how well the colours and lighting are represented, you are going to have that ugly telegraph pole, the 'no parking' sign, and that scruffy plant in the pot outside the pub in your shot, whereas I am not going to paint them into my picture, and I will transform the scruffy plant into a lovely shrub. If we displayed your photograph next to my picture in a gallery, no-one would even look at your photo because my composition is more pleasing as It will not show the things that detract from the scene".

Now, after all these years, I am on an equal footing to that artist. I too can choose not to include that ugly telegraph pole, or the no parking sign screwed onto the dry stone wall. I can clone out the plastic bag stuck high up in the tree, the graffiti on a wall and the dead branch intruding into the only angle I can get the shot I'm after. My composition will be the same as his.

If Rob's argument is applied to other elements in photography, surley we should not be increasing saturation, dodging and burning or, indeed, doing anything that 'improves' the image. As a matter of interest, what if Fiona had cloned out the tree in this image before it was posted? Unless anyone knew the location really well, no-one would be any the wiser.

Discuss.

[Rumrunner]

I really like it. I don't mind the people, they look like they belong there. My only critique is the border, to me, it contrasts to mush for my eye, it kind of makes me dizzy because my eye keeps wandering off to it. I think it would look better with no border, or maybe a darker border..

Rob

[skipper954]

Both Rob and Graham are correct. Each artist must decide what works for him. Both are perfectly valid views and in the end, there are only 2 people you have to please, yourself and the person who buys your print.

Sure, that is a bit of a copout for me, but I would come down on the side of mild manipulation to remove distractions. I personally don't like huge manipulation because it creates a different kind of art that in my eyes, is not photography, but nontheless it is art!

Also, in a portrait, would you print as is and really anger the subject or would you soften, remove some blemishes and create a more pleasing image? I would alter the image to present the best face without changing personality, etc.

And now we have hijacked Fi's wonderful image to discuss imagology. The discussion should probably be in another thread somewhere.

skip

[fionaB]

imagology??????? omg not another ology! lolol is that a word skiip or did u just make it up cos it sonded good! lolol

fi

[skipper954]

I wondered if anyone would pick up on that word. It is a perfectly good one that I made up.