The tool

[Antonio Correia]

This photo was made a long time ago but I always liked it.
The light was coming through a piece of glass on the roof of this warehouse.

[Manfred M]

Antonio - I can see why you like it and I think it has potential, but it looks like it needs a lot of work.

The strength of this image is the lighting and the weakness is the clutter. If you can tame this and open the scene up a bit, you might have a successful shot, but the way it is I find myself jumping all around the image and not really landing anywhere.

[odds]

The light was coming through a piece of glass on the roof of this warehouse.

Your image certainly brings back memories from a time long gone.

In contrast to Manfred M, I like the "clutter" and would actually like to see more of it. He is right about my eye jumping all over the image, but that is because I recognize almost every element, some barely visible.

I remember my grandfather's smithy from my childhood, your photo could even be from a place I used to work in my early teens. I can imagine myself in there at the grinder to sharpen a twist drill for some work at the drill press located to the right.

--
Odd S.

[Manfred M]

He is right about my eye jumping all over the image

The conventional view in photography is that an image must have a subject or centre of interest to capture a viewer's attention. The view then goes on to suggest that the photographer needs to ensure that there are visual cues to guide the viewer through the rest of the image. If either of these things do not happen and our eyes jump all over the place, then the viewer will quickly lose interest in the image.

The key problematic areas are the bright lower left hand corner and whole right hand side that can't decide if it is a part of the image or not. A few hours of dodging and burning will tell.

Do I necessarily agree with the point of view? Not always (and I tend to get into trouble with the "experts" who tell me that I'm wrong), but in this case, I feel that Antonio is showing us a "diamond in the rough" that needs more cutting and polishing to shine properly. If this was my image, I would take it in this direction:





This is about 90% dodging and burning with a few areas where I reduced the saturation in a specific colour channel and area. I spent a lot more time here than I normally do when I try to demonstrate a concept. Is it a finished product? No.

[billtils]

I like the image and am in complete agreement with what Manfred says (or what I think he said, namely there is an established 'norm' in regard to compositions having a centre of interest, features that draw you to it, and nothing that distracts), but that there are captivating images that do not fit the norm.

And to me his edit improves the image.

[DanK]

My opinion, for what little it is worth, falls in the middle. While detail at the edges, in particular, birght or high-contrast detail, can often distract, I think it is a mistake to make it a strict rule that detail other than the core subject should be removed. Look at the paintings of Vermeer, for example. In most cases, he did avoid details of that sort near edges--with the exception of partial views of the windows letting in the light in the painting. However, in other cases, he included detail. It's a question of whether the detail contributes or detracts.

In this case, I think the dimly lit detail along the right side contributes interesting context, and I would not burn it as Manfred has. However, I do think that the very bright area toward the bottom of the left-hand edge distracts and draws the eye, and I think that burning it to tone it down as Manfred has makes the image stronger.

Just my two cents.

[Manfred M]

Interesting comments that I generally agree with what Dan and Bill have written.

Dan - on the right hand side I burned the top to calm that area a bit and dodged the bottom to open up the details a bit more. Like you was of two minds here and went both ways, but showed the image that I felt was the stronger of the two. This is the other version...





This is the version where I balanced out the right hand side and brightened it up to the point where it showed the material without overpowering the wall-mounted grinder.

Regardless, I think Antonio was right in understanding he has an image with potential. The fun part is trying to unlock the potential.

[Wavelength]

Very nice image and good editing....

[xpatUSA]

Perhaps the title is steering the comment to an extent ...

... The image seems to be more about the play of light on the wall than it is about the grinder itself.

If it were about the grinder, stepping closer at a wider focal length and the largest possible aperture would have given a greater degree of separation and the grinder would be much larger in the frame - at least double, I reckon; I would also have physically removed the tall rust-color rod that is leaning to the left.

Had the title been "Sunlit Workshop Clutter" I wouldn't have changed much at all ...

[Manfred M]

Perhaps the title is steering the comment to an extent ...

An interesting point Ted. It seems that different people take different views on how to look at a work.

We had a fairly interesting discussion on this topic during the fine art printing course I finished a few weeks ago. There seem to be four different ways that people usually react to art, especially art found on display and in galleries (i.e. "fine art").

1. Just look at the work without regard to its title, artist, description or artist's statement (in the case where there is a collection of works on display).

2. Look at the information that goes with the work including the artist's name and title of the work.

3. Look at the information that goes with the work including the artist's name and title of the work and either the curator or artists comments on the piece.

4. Read the artist's statement.

I tend to be someone that uses approach #1. I think it stems from a number of directions including the feeling that I should be able to glean what the creator was trying to do without having anything explained to me. I rarely read the title or other information when I wander through galleries.

I understand that the trend among experts and people looking at art that #4 is now very much in fashion. People seem to want to understand what the artist is trying to say and that is more important than the work itself. This is an approach I simply cannot fathom.

[Antonio Correia]

How can I thank you guys for commenting so deeply my photo ?
I must thank you all for being so nice and informative.
The adjustments Manfred has done are indeed spectacular ! But mine is not that bad. OK I know you did not say that it was a bad shot but this is just a figure of speech.
When working on the photo I have done several adjustments and the right area was one where I have hesitated to leave dark or with more detail and light. On the left side I am aware that there is great "white" spot on the wall and ground.
I show you here the original photograph and a new interpretation of the same photo respecting the great light from the roof.
I would like also to tell you that perhaps the title is important. Yes, it is important but I didn't know how to call that machine. In fact, I even do not know the Portuguese for such equipment.
Thank you again to all of you. ! Cheers !

Sorry but after wring all this I am not in conditions to adjust th photograph. But I will not forget. Tomorrow.

[Manfred M]

Yes, it is important but I didn't know how to call that machine. In fact, I even do not know the Portuguese for such equipment.

In English we would call this a bench grinder. It will generally be mounted on a workbench and has two abrasive grinding wheels. These are used for sharpening tools and for removing sharp edges from work pieces.

[Antonio Correia]

I returned to the photograph and I found myself not getting anything better that I have done previously.
Perhaps I have some addictions, some ways of work I can't overcome... even if I try.
Conclusion: I have to try harder ! Simple !

Well, never mind. Let's move on !

[Shadowman]

Nicely seen and captured.

[Manfred M]

I returned to the photograph and I found myself not getting anything better that I have done previously.
Perhaps I have some addictions, some ways of work I can't overcome... even if I try.
Conclusion: I have to try harder ! Simple !

Well, never mind. Let's move on !

Antonio - much like taking a good image, which requires a plan, the same is true for retouching. Unless you know where you want to take the image, you are going to have a hard time getting there.

I generally have a view of what I want the final image to look like before I take the shot. Once I see it open in my editing software, I move to make that plan happen. On a large scale, that generally happens quite quickly for me. The global adjustments usually take less than a minute and the area adjustments take another couple of minutes. The rest of the time; measured in minutes to hours is all about working the fine details to get the look and feel that I see in the image. Most of this is dodging and burning, although I sometimes desaturate areas (often only a single colour channel) and some cloning. I rarely complete an image in one go and usually prefer to leave it at least overnight before I complete my final touches.

Sometimes I just leave an image open in Photoshop for days and I pop back and look at it from time to time until I can figure out what is missing. Sometimes I post the partially completed image here and sometimes I do it a one of the photography clubs I belong to. At times I take the suggestions, especially if a number of different people make them and at other times I trust my own judgement and ignore the advice.

I usually get everything finished within a few days and up to a week. There are a few images that have been sitting unfinished for weeks, months and even years before I finally figure out what I don't quite like and fix it.

[Ken MT]

Bench grinder = Moedor do banco

courtesy Microsoft translate

[Antonio Correia]

Bench grinder = Moedor do banco
courtesy Microsoft translate

I am not so sure about this translation.
To begin with it wouldn't be "do" but "de" what is a minor error or inaccuracy.
I will ask someone who knows the right noun.

In Latin languages where Portuguese is included, there is masculine and feminine. Everything has a genre. However, the same genre can be applied to the same noun ! Particularities of languages...

A few month ago I did not know Moldavian was also a Latin language. Perhaps because their history is much related to Romania...

Thank you Ken !