Lab in B&W - looking for composition/general critique

[IABoomer]

All discussion up to and including this post: http://digital-photography-school.co...42-post16.html was about the B&W version only without the color available.

A bio-research lab, taken from an upper-level window. I went black and white with this because there wasn't a whole lot of vivid color to maintain, and I like how the contrast turned out. I'd originally shared this in SYS, but there was some talk about wanting to make some constructive comments, so I've copied it to the critique section. Don't pull punches. If it's a pile of **** in your opinion, say so, but tell me why.

I wanted to capture this view from above as it might be seen by the supervising members of the lab looking down on their teams like Lee Iacoca. I will say I can see where that dark tube with the arrow label right up front could be considered distracting. Otherwise, I'm wondering what people think of the composition and depth of field. Might this work better if the foreground tubes are sharp as well as the equipment down on the floor?

The 800 ISO comes from being in the darker offices and I wasn't going to bother dialing down the ISO for the one shot, only to bump it back up. I don't think the bit of grain/noise that comes from that distracts from the image.


The lab in B&W by IABoomerFlickr, on Flickr

Camera Nikon D5000
Exposure 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 800
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash No Flash

A color edit for comparison sake. Does the color help or hurt the image?


The lab in Color by IABoomerFlickr, on Flickr

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by IABoomer

A bio-research lab, taken from an upper-level window.Camera Nikon D5000
Exposure 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 800
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash No Flash

To reiterate a few comments I made previously, I like the geometry, the straight lines and curved surfaces. Also, from a documentary angle, it illustrates a very different image of a bio-research lab than most viewers might imagine. And I like the perspective from up above, especially in relation to the angles of the pipes and the one perpendicular to the main ones. And the pipes also frame some of the floor level equipment over on the left half.

You pointed out the black area in front that is somewhat blurred, and I agree that that is distracting from the main subject which I take to be the complex, macro-scale pipes and implied processing capability for what may be, for all we know, some nasty bio-materials. The lack of detail at all in the black area, except for the arrow, provides for me the basis of the distraction, the arrow accentuates it, and the blur is sort of the third strike for this area of the image for me.

I work in the area of industrial chemistry, and so was interested in your image and I tried three fairly radical crops in PSE. I don't know if you'd be interested in trying them youself, but here they are. First, if you drop a line from the end of the pipe that runs perpendicular to all of the others so that that line falls on top of the left front corner of the cabinet just above the blurry black pipe at the bottom, and then go to the right edge taking out most or all of the area at the bottom, I think that crop accentuates the geometry of the pipes and still largely preserves your intent?

The second one would start almost parallel with the top pipes at the left edge, extend over to the right, and drop down the the bottom pipes so as to emphasize the lighter and sharper area they frame.

The third one would take the entire top square portion, cropping out most of all of the black area at the bottom but keeping the rest.

And then the final thing, and the primary reason I wanted to see your EXIF data, is the DoF question you raised as regards the pipes running laterally mid range, forgetting altogether about the area at the bottom. The blur on those pipes clearly puts them into the range of detectable deviation from a minimal or optimum circle of confusion.

So If that contributes to the intent, it might be a good thing. Otherwise, I'd say not. And so if you consider them a sort of frame for the ligher colored area they enclose on the second crop, maybe OK. But generally, I think a f/number greater than 2 would have produced a result you could do more with. Maybe 5.6 or 8 which would have been -3 or -4 EV. But since the hightlights look a little strong and the histogram also suggests this, maybe you would compensate with 2.5 to 3 EV.

Nothing's moving, so you might have picked up 2 EV by 1/60 s or 3 EV at 1/30 s and that would probably have sharpened things up and given more options. Can't do much with ISO since 1600 might get into worser noise territory.

So that's my 2 cents, as they say, or maybe even a nickel with inflation. I like your concept and now I think I'll expand my horizons to look for some interesting possibilities in technical kinds of structures like this which would otherwise have been presumed not to be fertile ground.

Thanks for posting, and I'd be interested in any reactions you might have to the above; after all, you know what you were after here and I'm kind of guessing in large part.

[zona5101]

I think the big drawback is there is not an easily identifiable subject. I am not sure what I am supposed to be looking at. For instance, if there was a lab worker in front of the file cabinet that is prominent in the center of the image, that would be a focal point.

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by zona5101

I think the big drawback is there is not an easily identifiable subject. I am not sure what I am supposed to be looking at. For instance, if there was a lab worker in front of the file cabinet that is prominent in the center of the image, that would be a focal point.

Bruce,

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the image was labeled, right? It is a picture of a bio-research laboratory. So how can this possibly be the biggest drawback; that it's not easily identifiable.

I may sound frustrated, Bruce, but I'm not frustrated with you. However, this brings up a pet peeve of mine; viz., sometimes the presumption is that we cannot or should not mix words with images. I fundamentally disagree with that notion.

This is clearly stated to be the image of a biological research laboratory. That is how it is identifiable. The fact that there isn't a person there is irrelevant, IMHO

[JFSanders]

A very interesting image that suffers from a lack of focus throughout the frame. Chicago John went through the whole enchilada very well. Try it stopped down so that the entire frame is in focus. I think it would work better that way. Jim

[IABoomer]

What I wanted to do was get something at ground level in sharp focus and let the foreground blur away as if it was in your peripheral vision. I'm thinking the focus point was set on the cabinet below.

I can see what people say about not having a real clear "subject" to focus on. Your eyes end up kind of wandering about the whole scene bouncing from the tubes, to the floor, to the dark foreground, etc.

Thank you all for your commentary so far.

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by chicagojohn

Bruce,

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the image was labeled, right? It is a picture of a bio-research laboratory. So how can this possibly be the biggest drawback; that it's not easily identifiable.

I may sound frustrated, Bruce, but I'm not frustrated with you. However, this brings up a pet peeve of mine; viz., sometimes the presumption is that we cannot or should not mix words with images. I fundamentally disagree with that notion.

This is clearly stated to be the image of a biological research laboratory. That is how it is identifiable. The fact that there isn't a person there is irrelevant, IMHO

The person was an example of a subject, hence the qualifier "for instance". I could have easily said a machine of some type as a subject. Machine, or person there is no subject in this image, no point of interest, nothing that draws the viewer in and holds them there. The fact a label must be used to identify the subject substantiates my point.
You can agree with or disagree with a PP but do me a favor and don't critique my (or other's) critique. They are opinions right or wrong. It is up to the poster to determine which ones have merit.

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by zona5101

The person was an example of a subject, hence the qualifier "for instance". I could have easily said a machine of some type as a subject. Machine, or person there is no subject in this image, no point of interest, nothing that draws the viewer in and holds them there. The fact a label must be used to identify the subject substantiates my point.
You can agree with or disagree with a PP but do me a favor and don't critique my (or other's) critique. They are opinions right or wrong. It is up to the poster to determine which ones have merit.

Point taken, Bruce. But note that I will always reserve the right to express my opinion, even if my opinion is that I disagree with another's critique comment. And I will probably continue to do that, except for anything I encounter written by you.

Fair enough?

I do see what you are saying about the image itself not containing sufficient information to identify what it is in the mind of the viewer, and I thought I had made that clear. I also agree with you that if there had been someone with a lab coat on or a few flasks with colored liquid in them, or another specific subject, other than the whole of it, that would have been preferable.

Can you also see mine; that images are often identified by their labels, and in some cases it is that language which makes the meaning of the image evident to the viewer?

These two perspectives are not mutually exclusive, and I apologize if my tone seemed one-sided.

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by chicagojohn

I will always reserve the right to express my opinion, even if my opinion is that I disagree with another's critique comment. And I will probably continue to do that, except for anything I encounter written by you.

Exactly, like I said, agree or disagree. I expect that people will come from different viewpoints than mine. My point of contention was elaborating on how my critique itself was in ill-concieved. neither here nor there any more - no blood, no foul.

Can you also see mine; that images are often identified by their labels, and in some cases it is that language which makes the meaning of the image evident to the viewer?

Good images should not need labels. Name a great photograph that can not stand on its own without verbage to explain it. That's not to say we don't see a great photograph and are compelled to want to know more but that is different than an image needing language to make it understood.

[zona5101]

IABoomer - my apologies for taking your thread off target. Bad internet manners...