Hi everyone, I'm back again. I've received so much helpful advice on this forum that I would like to present another image for your criticism.

Picture here (http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/major_bloodnok/galleries/UK/Lowry1.jpg)

This is a picture taken in the Lowry Centre in Manchester, UK. This building is a wonderful example of modern architecture, and is filled inside with strong lines and bright colours. I wanted to produce a slightly "abstract" or geometric image, rather than just a picture of the inside of the building (externally, it's just as good, but with no colour - it's basically metal-clad).

Should I have turned the camera a bit more - I wonder if the angles of the lines aren't quite strong enough...

This image (http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/major_bloodnok/galleries/UK/Lowry2.jpg) is another example of the interior of this building. (Just FYI, I'm not trying to sneak two images in.)

hi bloodnok,

i had to study your two images a bit. i knew i wasnt very keen on the first but i liked the second and i couldnt at first tell why. so, this may be a bit hard to convey.

the first shot is ok, but that's all it is, a shot. it's a good shot, but just a shot. there is no story there, really. it's just a picture of some wall, elevator (?) and other structural items. nice colors and all and even some interest in the contrast of colors and design work, but it doesnt really tell a story.

the second shot has more interest and whereas it at first seems to be 'just a shot' also, it drew me in for some reason. the colors and depth are good, but it had that 'something else', though very subtle in this one and that made it a 'picture' rather than a 'shot'.

and that's what took me a while to figure out. why did i like the second but wasnt all that crazy about the first? i finally realized that what was drawing me, making me wonder and giving me something to contribute to the image was that the 'story' seemed to be the absence of something rather than the addition of something. i wanted to fill that empty space with something. i wanted to put people there. or, more precisely, i expected to see people there. the empy space was telling the story by the fact that it was empty. where did the people go? were they coming in or had they already left? and that was the draw.

and that's one of the secrets to great photography and great art, that the user wants to contribute to the image. you make the viewer a participant. it's also partially why the rule of thirds works; you leave space for the viewer to fill something in themselves. it's a bit tricky to do at times, but the good pieces do it and the rest are just 'shots'. music does the same by leaving pauses here and there. those pauses tend to get filled in by the listener.

so, the first one says 'a wall with some interesting colors and designs....a shot'. it's nicely done and well taken, but there's no story. it's a wall. the second says 'nice colors and depth but where are the people? where is the stuff that goes in this space?' and thus is telling a bit of a story, in this case by the absence of something or someone.

i hope that makes sense :)

craig

I tihnk it could do with stepping back a little, (or a lot) to give a more grand perspective. But I also think there are a lot more interesting nooks in the lowry to photograph ;)

I got the same impressions as Kraelin and Nancy of both images. The sense of 'direction and movement' in the lines of the images. Image 1 my eye keeps stopping at the ceiling and there is no 'mystery' there, there is not enough visual information, I feel like I want to step back and/or adjust my viewing angle to get more sense of depth and scale. Image 2 not only has the visual interest of curve and straight lines, but also no finite intersecton for the curved lines movement, they just 'vanish' around another curve of the corner... "what's around there?" (mystery!) there is depth and perspective and the interest of the stairs is a pleasing contrast to balance the strong sense of movement and flow of the curved lines. Hmmm... I'm having flashbacks to art and design classes uh-oh! :dizzy:

Thanks, people. I think I'm starting to get the hang of this, now, because your comments pretty much echo my own thoughts - or, at least, I knew that there was something missing from the first image, and I knew that I actually quite liked the second one, but I thought I was being a bit "selfish" (liking something because I did it, if you see what I mean).

Kraellin: your comment about "absence" in the second one makes a lot of sense.

NancyJ: I think know what you mean about "stepping back", but the shot was taken from the region of the cafeteria - any further back and I'd have got some intrusive extra stuff in there (actually, there already is, I just cropped it out). I tend to get torn between a desire to strip away all context and find something totally abstract and the feeling that I should be looking for the "bigger picture".

Littlecoo: lie down in a dark room, 'til it goes away... :)

Again, thanks to all of you for taking the time to comment. It's really helpful. Now, I need to plan another trip to the Lowry and the War Museum (another interesting piece of architecture). Think "story"!

Cheers, all.

BTW: Littlecoo - could you explain the marks you made? I presume they're something you do in your art and design classes to assist in analysing a design.

Oh yeah hehe...it is a habit of mine to scrawl notes, ideas etc all over my proof prints, layouts, sketches and the like. It's been some time since my days as a student. In your examples I just drew in the way my eyes followed line and shape in the images. In the first one my eyes travelled up verticals only to come to an abrupt halt at the ceiling then my eyes follow the line of the ceiling only to be stopped again at the wall. Lots of right angles and straight intersecting lines but no point/s of great interest to grab and hold my attention. Insofar as 'stepping back', have you got a wide angle lens? I don't know this building at all but something about it grabbed your attention obviously...was it perhaps something that did not quite fall within the bounds of your viewfinder?(both in a physical and perceptual sense) Would experimenting with depth of field and different Fstops be helpful here?... Just some ideas. I hope I am not giving you the $#!+$ lol. I love to ramble on sometimes.