Untitled

I wandered into an old historic church a while back and captured this on my way out. Any and all comments are very much appreciated.

I found it to have too many distracting elements, lines and distortion. So, I simplified those distractions. It's a thought.

James Lemon said:

I wandered into an old historic church a while back and captured this on my way out. Any and all comments are very much appreciated.

Click to expand...

I like the intimacy you've caught. If I was doing this, I'd take advantage of the fact that one can understand what's going on by their body movements and I'd back off and get more blank wall to allow the other distracting details to diminish in importance but use my focus and the most subtle vignetting to emphasize them.

As a second choice I'd cheat and clean the image adding blank wall on both sides.

But preferentially I'd use a longer lens to isolate the two of them.

In any case, you had a lucky find. One cannot always happen to bring the "right" lens for the distance happenstance treasures are discovered! So it all depends on how much one risks intruding and ruining the picture or else one's comfort in altering the picture to show the idea without the clutter. Some people just wont be dishonest.

So Chris, how do you feel about altering what the camera couldn't help including at that moment?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

I like the intimacy you've caught. If I was doing this, I'd take advantage of the fact that one can understand what's going on by their body movements and I'd back off and get more blank wall to allow the other distracting details to diminish in importance but use my focus and the most subtle vignetting to emphasize them.

As a second choice I'd cheat and clean the image adding blank wall on both sides.

But preferentially I'd use a longer lens to isolate the two of them.

In any case, you had a lucky find. One cannot always happen to bring the "right" lens for the distance happenstance treasures are discovered! So it all depends on how much one risks intruding and ruining the picture or else one's comfort in altering the picture to show the idea without the clutter. Some people just wont be dishonest.

So Chris, how do you feel about altering what the camera couldn't help including at that moment?

Asher

Click to expand...

I really like what you have done with this image Asher. Those canes on the right were very troublesome to me but I have never cloned anything out of an image except some dust spots on the sensor, I have usually relied on cropping. Some might be opposed to removing something out of an image and I am certain there are ethical reasons for photo-journalists for not doing so. The subject of an image is the most important part of any image and is deserving of as much attention as the photographer can give it. I delete things out of an image when I crop or hide things in processing so I fail to see what the difference is. I don't think it is dishonest but a creative choice. Just don't buy a lens that makes your wife look fat.LOL. Yes I wonder what Chris and others think.

I don't know you'll like my answer but as soon as we raise the camera to our eye with specific intent we generally enact a process that in any number of ways creates what we see, not necessarily what's there. That's called creativity.

Altering what was originally there is as valid as not changing anything. A vignette, while not as drastic as removing two canes, is still artificially redirecting the eye. Enhancing the light on a face, cropping, converting from color to B&W are all forms of altering. None are any more "worse" or better" than another; they are just different ways to "see."

There have been many times in my life when I shot an image where the camera included objects I couldn't exclude and still get the shot and I almost always made the shot with the intent of removing or altering those unwanted elements. Is that cheating or just being creative with the tools given to me? I like to think of my Photoshop tools like a burin, eraser, blending stump, brush, etc. These are the same tools I used in printmaking or drawing or painting and in all cases, I was building a visual perception of what I "saw," not necessarily what was there.

I'm okay with altering, in any capacity unless other outside elements are added. At that point, it is no longer strictly photographic but for me becomes only graphic even if the outside elements are photographic in nature.

The interest is right at the "ok sign" being formed by the hand. Zoom all the way in to this and frame just what is needed to complete that gesture. The rest is uneventful.

Martin Stephens said:

The interest is right at the "ok sign" being formed by the hand. Zoom all the way in to this and frame just what is needed to complete that gesture. The rest is uneventful.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your feedback . Although I don't like to take pictures with a zoom lens - images just don't have the feeling of being up close and personal; especially if taken from across the street.

Zooming can also be done with the crop.