The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
After seeing Chris’s “Still Standing” post, I was reminded of similar scenes we saw driving across the U.S. in 2016. This is near Alexander, Kansas. The little house(?), the windmill, and the remaining tree told a story for me.
Apologies for the title.
Specific Feedback
Any comments welcome. This is mainly just for fun.
Hi, Bonnie. What may look bleak and lonely to many folks looks like home to me! I was born just east of there (about 70 mi,) in Holyrood, Ks., but was raised south of there in Ashland, Ks. Growing up in that neck of the woods didn’t seem like nowhere, but having been away from there for many years, we went back last year to inter my mother-in-law, and I was struck by scenes like the one you show here. Nothing but miles and miles of miles and miles!
Bonnie, this is a fine vintage scene from a passing era. It is a true survivor in many ways including passing tornadoes. As I’ve only been in 1 tornado in Amarillo a zillion years ago now it’s amazing the destruction of certain areas and others missed entirely. Living in So Cal they’re extremely rare here. I think one about a year or two back took roofs off buildings in a coastal area. Seeing the news updates at times it would seem trailer parks have a magnetic draw for the darn things… …I’ll take my chances with earthquakes…
Two thoughts for change here on this image. Maybe turn down the gamma slightly and recheck the sharpness. No nits at all…
It’s a small world! I quite enjoyed the scenery in this area and the small towns.
I’m with you on the earthquakes vs. tornados! Although I wouldn’t live in an urban area in California that was near the San Andreas or the major faults in SoCal.
I like the idea for turning down the gamma (that would be in an exposure layer in PS, correct?). Not one of the ways that I usually adjust brightness/darkness, but it did give this a better mood. What was it about the sharpness? Too much or too little? Generally, I don’t worry about sharpness - I let ACR do it’s thing when opening (whatever is the default) and have it set at 1% when exporting using the TK8 panel. So, I don’t think I’m oversharpening, but again, not something I think about much.
@Bonnie_Lampley
Hi Bonnie, yes the Gamma is one of the 3 adjustments in the Exposure Layer. I find if an image seems to be overly intense it along with other ways brings the intensity of the brightness down. This of course can be monitor dependent too like any of the PS changes. Sorry, I should have said the image looks like it could be a bit more sharper. I have away of sharpening that is as old as PS and I’m sure I’m the only one that uses the method. But, whatever works best for each person in the end it’s just a matter of increasing the sharpening % or decreasing % with a blur if overdone.
I turned the Gamma down 10% and turned the Exposure up 15% to keep the same brightness but drop the intensity of the light if you will.
I also sharpened it slightly.
Thanks, Paul, for the explanation. I added your edit to the OP so folks (and I) can compare. Your edits do make it pop ever so slightly more. I guess I need to pay more attention to these things!
Makes me feel the loneliness just looking at it. I like the composition and POV. I thought your original was good, but see what Paul is talking about from what he’s done.
Bonnie, these tpes of images pull me in . I love the implied history. Your crop suggests the vastness of the land and the smallness of man-made objects. @Paul_Breitkreuz has made some great suggestions. I tried somthing a bit different, but it rather changes the composition into a different story. I
used a 5x7 crop and put the house in the loweer left 3rd of the picture which gives more importanace to the sky. Then I used the PS sky mask and curves to darken the clouds and suggest that nature is still in charge and storms do happen.
Thanks for looking at my image, @Barbara_Djordjevic. While your crop follows certain “rules”, my intent (which I didn’t make clear) was to show the little house in a wider landscape. The story isn’t about the house per se, but rather it’s place in the landscape. I wanted to convey more of a sense of lonliness, not just what the house looked like. I have other shots where I deliberately framed the house more closely, but upon reviewing them, the larger view told more of a story for me.
Interesting discussion and viewpoints. For me, @Barbara_Djordjevic’s version and crop tells more of the story of loneliness – or maybe just more effectively. And I’m wondering why. Yes, Bonnie’s version shows more of the vast setting, but the centered composition doesn’t grab my attention. In the cropped version the house interests me right away, and leads me to examine its environment, which shows well enough to say Midwest prairie.
The house and its setting are such a gem, I want to be right there, just across the ditch…
@Diane_Miller thanks for your response. Interesting how we all see things do differently. And I did not anticipate that this photo would generate so much discussion!
Bonnie, I’ve seen many places like this in the upper mid-west. What always strikes me the most is how lonely they seem, tiny houses miles from the next house. I agree with your choice of keeping the subject smaller as that emphasizes the loneliness. Comparing the two versions, Paul’s has a bit more “pop” with it’s extra crispness, but I’m thinking that your version with it’s reduced contrast “feels” more nostalgic.
…I’ll take my chances with earthquakes… 
