Need some ideas for improving "detail pics"

[sk66]

I've been doing a series of pics of the city I live in. The city is quite old and has a lot of detail in the architecture....fancy wood work/iron work/ stone work/ etc. The problem is that many of the pictures seem "dull" out of context. For example, fancy copper work along a roofline... without seeing it in context (a large section of roof line at least) it seems "flat"/ "pointless", but with more context you can't see the detail.
About the only thing I can come up with for these situations in a "detail inset" on a "context background" kind of idea...(or skip them/ hugely edit them for more "excitement"...neither is a good option)

[wulf]

How about just presenting them together - a picture of the overall building and then a number of details (or vice versa)?

Other approaches would be to look for what is interesting in the details themselves - a flat area is going to be less interesting than a join or a section that has weathered and so has a rich texture. You could also use post processing to bump up the level of contrast.

Have you got some examples?

Wulf

[sk66]

Here's some examples...



The idea is a showing about the city called "In the Details" (or similar)....I'm not sure many would find these pictures "interesting".
I know the mayor and the Governor in a roundabout way and this could turn into a book....but I feel so very far away from any end, and like I might need to start over...
BTW, these haven't been edited other than maybe crop/resize/conversion to JPG

[inkista]

I think maybe one problem is that your detail shots still seem to have some extraneous stuff in them that pulls focus away from what you want the viewer to focus on. I'd suggest a tighter crop and/or a more direct angle onto the detail itself.

[sk66]

I agree, often a tighter crop is better, but somehow I'm hesitant. I guess it's about the details lost in the crop. But yet the tighter crop has more feel...as in these two..



This is HARD to find the best balance!

[inkista]

I agree, completely; it is hard. That's why it's so much fun to work at it.

[muddy250]

Originally Posted by sk66

I agree, often a tighter crop is better, but somehow I'm hesitant. I guess it's about the details lost in the crop. But yet the tighter crop has more feel...as in these two..

This is HARD to find the best balance!

I was about to suggest really getting in there to show the details like this! The second shot is far more powerful.

[PhotoNewt]

If these are for a publication then you need to consider some context shots as suggested by Wolf. Unless these are from a well known landmark that the reader is expected to be familiar with, they will wonder (like I am doing now) where are these from.

Tighter cropping as suggested by Inkista is the way to go, and a context shot providing the viewer the overall picture.

I had once a book about castles in Europe, it starts the presentations with an extensive panoramic of the whole building and inserted along the text are very close details of different parts of the architecture relevant to the adjoining text.

[sk66]

I was thinking of making it more of a "walking book" kind of idea...
Include a map. See if you can "find it".
Or since the pics are GPS encoded I might be able to do something with that.
Many of these areas/buildings are not very notable except for a couple particular features...

[wulf]

Are you thinking of something you might actually print out? You could have wide views at the start, details following and the challenge would be to visit the buildings shown and identify which details come from which one.

Wulf