To crhieatt: The HDR on this photograph

[Weetrees]

Hi Colin,

As i have said to many people before

thanks for taking the time to leave a comment on my work.

I take onboard the point of the title and stuck the HDR tag in as i have fallen foul of the moderation on here before so now like to play it safe

But saying that i think i will take your advice and remove it this time.

I actually enjoy writing my notes sometimes more than the pleasure of the image if that makes any sense?

I understand that art is all in the eye of the beholder but i feel all my images should have a note detailed enough to give some idea of what i was thinking, not only when i took the original images but the construction of the final image you see here.
I have since revisited this one and made some small corrections but nothing serious.

This image formed in my head the minute i turned the corner and spotted the towers.
There was no ifs buts or maybes it was always going to be HDR and gallus
definition below of this Scots word..
"(ga·luss) Dialect, chiefly Scot ~adj.
1. self-confident, daring, cheeky.
2. stylish, impressive (esp. Glasgow “He’s pure gallus, by the way“).
3. Orig. derogatory, meaning wild; a rascal; deserving to be hanged (from the gallows)."

It just had to be, i think it was the juxtaposition of the sheer promise of these tower blocks with the shiny new future contrasting against the broken out windows and obsolute failure 30 years later to deliver on the dream being sold at the time.

a crying shame but there we have it

My homage to the dream of the tower block

John

[Weetrees]

Come on

I post on here 3 mins later the photograph is removed by your moderators

I clearly marked the image HDR of course its post produced HDR cannot be achieved without this

Its getting to the stage on here that i am afraid to post anything other than an untouched image for fear that its removed.........

[crhieatt]

I was still trying to find the right spot to complain about the deletion - when it re-appeared!!!!!

As it wasn't here at the time - I replied to you under cover of your comments on "Are you watching Closely?"


Cheers
Colin

[Weetrees]

Hi Colin

I know back it came
I take my hat off to the moderators this time as they seem to have seen the light and restored my photo with all it entailed

I replied to the email they send out when an image is deleted but i was lets say a trite annoyed at the whole thing

But alls well that ends well

John

[crhieatt]

But a further reply is probably warranted!

Yes, I can quite understand the pleasure you might take in note writing. A note is really just an extension of the title - and a title can have a great effect on the way the image is perceived. I tend to cringe when I see, say, a photograph of a house by a river titled "House by the River" with a note which says "This is a house I saw by the river." Well, however good the photograph may be, a couple of opportunities to extend the mood, the information or the train of thought have surely been missed!

Whatever approach one choses to take it's certainly more satisfying (at least for oneself) if these three elements photo/title/note all go to create an overall impression - whatever that may be.

And, as you say, one might as well be gallus in this respect!

Cheers
Colin

[Weetrees]

I totally agree with all of your last post there.

I was over the moon when the TOS were changed to make sure people put a note along with the image.

There were some great photos on here but with no supporting facts which always seemed a bit lame in my opinion as we post and look through this site to find out more about places
much more than sometimes the image itself gives away

John

[crhieatt]

Yes, surely not always justs "facts". Facts can be pretty tedious sometimes. Sometimes it's the facts which destroy the magic - just like knowing how a magic trick is done. The knowledge of fact has it's own trick, and can magic away the wonder and the mystery of an image - indeed - of a person, or a whole way of life.

Colin