and one last set of windows

[DanK]

Still working on the ruin porn...

[Tom Barry]

Interesting shot. Lots of detail to occupy the viewer’s attention. Do you ever do this genre in black-and-white?

[Wavelength]

I too have a feeling it will be really working in black and white....

[DanK]

Thanks. I didn't try this particular one as B&W, but I did try two or three others from the same series. They are disappointing as B&W. Other than the difference between the windows and everything else, there isn't much tonal variation in the photos, so without the colors, the B&W is somewhat dull.

[Urbanflyer]

what post processing software do you use? I agree with others that this could make a great b & w

[DanK]

The processing varied somewhat among the photos in the set, but the basic elements are these:

1. LR: pull down whites and highlights because of harsh midday sun
2. LR: increase texture (a lot, because it's a subtle effect)
3. LR Add some clarity (a modest amount, because the effects of this tool aren't subtle).
4: LR: straighten a bit
6. PS: crop
5. PS: levels to pull white point down, change midpoint on some
6. PS: extensive dodging and burning, much of it with a brush, some with simple selections, and some with luminosity masks
7. Nik: contrast and pro contrast (dynamic contrast) filters in Color Efex. I don't use Nik much, but these are very good for pulling out textures on colored surfaces, particularly if you boost saturation a tad in the contrast filter. It does this by default, but I reduced the amount.
8. PS: sharpening with a high-pass filter, radius somewhere around 1.8, opacity between 40 and 75%.

Re B&W: I generally do B&W conversions in LR because what's now called the BW panel offers simple but very powerful tools to change the darkness or brightness of areas using color ranges--much like film photographers did with colored filters. However, for the purpose of this post, I did a BW conversion in photoshop, accepting the default settings. I could have darkened or lightened the bricks. It's a matter of taste, but the brick face seems somewhat featureless to me in B&W. There is a difference in tonality between the brick and the mortar, but it seems dull to me. I generally consider B&W if there is a lot of tonal contrast or strong lines defined by tones, particular if there isn't interesting color contrast.

[Wavelength]

I think, even though it is less attractive than the original, is much successful in conveying the decay feeling ....

[mij]

I think the concept is really cool. However, there is something about the composition. I find the window on the upper left distracting. I would like to see the photo cropped showing only the window on the upper right. Additionally, as a pair, the painted plywood in the two bottom windows provide an interesting texture.

[Round Tuit]

I like the processing of this photo but, from a composition point of view, I find the partial windows at the bottom very distracting. It leaves me with the feeling that something is missing.

[Wavelength]

After the recent edit, the homogeneous nature of wall texture is not there anymore and now it stands at par with its coloured counterpart.

[lunarbo]

Like a couple of other posters, I too find the half-windows at the bottom of the image distracting.

However- to add my two-penneth - I would add that it is generally accepted that an odd number is more pleasing to view than an even number. So I think I would have sought to show 3 windows, all decaying and all different. Seems like you might have had that possibility on the big image of the building that you show in your “ruin porn” post if you could have got the angles from ground level.

As to mono v colour .... well both have their merits IMHO

Incidentally is the term “ruin porn” generally used in US or just your take ? I know it as Urbex in UK.

[DanK]

Urbex is the term used by photographers in the US. I heard the term "ruin porn" from an urban planner, not a photographer. I don't know how widely used it is in his circles.

I would add that it is generally accepted that an odd number is more pleasing to view than an even number.

IMHO, this is like the "rule of thirds," which has recently been discussed here. it's a useful idea that often--but not always--holds true. I sometimes follow this suggestion, e.g.,



However, it's not cast in stone. Take a look at Olivia Parker's photos, for example. If you search online for "Olivia Parker photography" without the quotes and switch to images, you will find a selection. She often has even numbers of objects in her images--often 2 or 4, but sometimes larger numbers. So I often look for odd numbers but don't worry about it if I see a pleasing collection of an even number of things.

Re the windows cut off at the bottom: I agree, these are high enough in contrast that I think they are a bit distracting. However, I treat the common "rule" that things shouldn't be cut off at the borders the same way as the "rule" of thirds: a useful guideline much of the time. It's another "rule" that some great artists freely violate. I've used Renoir's Peonies as an example before, but you'll find it in some his portraits as well, in which he cut off parts of arms and hands. Vermeer cut off part of the right arm of The Guitar Player. I don't recall the area well enough to know why I cut the image there, but there was a reason. I'll have to wait until I have a chance to go back to see what other options there are.

[pschlute]

Nice subject and shot.

[Dave Humphries]

Two, plus two halves, is three

Sorry, I'll get my coat and leave,
Dave

[lunarbo]

Two, plus two halves, is three

Erm, thanks Dave !

Dank- I wasn't just thinking of the rule of thirds & photography with my comment about odd numbers. In flower arranging or putting plants in soil, for example, the general thought is that it is more pleasing to see odd rather than even numbers. Why this is I do not know but in the main I would tend to agree.

However I am most grateful to you for bringing Olivia Parker to my attention. I looked through her website with much interest: she indeed chucks any Rule Book out of the window- numbers, focus, balance.................and it works fabulously!

[DanK]

sorry, Bo, I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that you were citing the rule of thirds. I was suggesting that the rule that one should include an odd number of things is analogous to the rule of thirds, in that neither should be considered a rule. They should be considered guidelines that may--or may not--be helpful in a given case. I agree that more often than not, when there is a very small number of objects in an image, an odd number--particularly three--is often appealing. But I don't see that as a reason to avoid even numbers, if I like the image that way.

I discovered Olivia Parker's work just a few years ago when the Peabody Essex Museum, which is about 30 km away in Salem, MA, had a huge exhibit of her work. I was simply amazed. She worked in many styles over her career, and not all of them appeal to me, but I found some of her work absolutely stunning. The PEM had put together a large volume of prints of much of what they had hanging, and I bought it and have studied it numerous times since. I recommend it as a antidote to the "rule" notion, as her work breaks most of the rules I hear all the time: use an odd number of objects, don't have bright areas on the edges, don't have high contrast areas on the edges, use leading lines that take the viewer to a single main subject, the rule of thirds, and on--you name it, and you can find a violation somewhere in her work.

In the earlier threads about the "rule" of thirds, I pointed out that one doesn't need to look at photographers as unconventional as Parker to see that masters don't adhere to it. Edward Weston created some photos that followed that rule, but broke it with abandon.

BTW, an interesting note about Parker is that she focused some of her early work on selenium split toning when some of the better established photographers shunned it. I don't remember the quote, but Ansel Adams disdained it--until he saw Parker's work. He then invited her to teach at his institute, which she did for some years.

[DanK]

Two, plus two halves, is three

Uh-oh. What if those are 2/3 of the windows?

More seriously, I still don't know whether those cut-off windows are OK in my view or not. I would separate that from the discussion of the 'don't cut things off' rule. I don't buy the notion of rules in general, and I don't buy the notion that one shold never cut things off at the edge. This particular image may be a flop regardless of that.