This image was taken in the cafeteria at our University. The eating area was designed in the 60s (I think that Stanley Krubick would've felt at home there). Anyways, I saw an interesting pattern with the lights and snapped it.

Flame away.

John.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 23, 2002

Answers

No flames here... I like the pattern and the color! But objectively, I think it would have a bit more interesting shot if you had used your 24, positioned yourself a little more under the lights, and included all of the lights off the to the right of the frame. Just IMO.

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 23, 2002.

Nice pic!Looks like it put you in the moment! Keep on!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), January 23, 2002.

OK, the lights are interesting, but the problem is that a) they are not interesting enough by themselves, and b) the background is difficult. I think Jack is right that positioning yourself underneath would make it more interesting.

I'm going to give a photograph as an example of what can be done with ceiling light fixtures. It's a bit different because I've never been in that cafeteria (or any university cafeteria), but I think you will get the idea. These are bamboo lights, and from a side view like you show, they don't look all that different from your pic (I did shoot them from the side, but don't have it scanned.)

Bamboo and Lights, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

The good news is that you can go back and shoot again. I'd look for a perspective that eliminates the background and makes the lights more of the subject.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 23, 2002.

J: No offense, but photo doesn't mean much. Yes, there's color and symetry (sp?), but it's dull. You cropped it, didn't you? If so, why not crop more at the top and give it a purer pyramid look. When I was in college we had more interesting sites to photograph. Where do you study? Are you a photo major? Here in Hong Kong there are no so many universities but many good photography courses.

-- Yul Tang (Yultang@opentalk.hk), January 23, 2002.

John- A pleasing image. At first, I would have guessed you used the 75'lux, but too many of the lights are in focus. So, I guess you used the new 35'lux on these. It does look more like an image you'd see in some kind of lighting equipment brochure than in a display of photographic abstracts. It is too easy to identify what it is.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

Nice image. I take lots of pictures of architectural detail-- something I'm really drawn to photographically. Anyhow, I wanted to suggest spinning the image 180 degrees. (I just held my iBook upside down.) Much more interesting that way, don't you think?

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), January 23, 2002.

I see where the distracting sun-lit window detracts from the ceiling designs. I think to improve the contrast of the ceiling textures I'll return to the scene at night. This was shot with a 50 mm focal length because of the distance of the lights from the floor (about 15 feet for the lowest). I think next time I'll try getting closer to a few of the lights with a wide angle (35) and shoot at a smaller aperture to blur out the other lights. I will report back to the board when that is accomplished.

Keep those comments comin'

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

Basically it's a photograph of some else's art. With today's materials and cameras it's impossible to make a bad exposure or out- of-focus picture. What did YOU contribute to it?

-- (bmitch@home.com), January 24, 2002.

initially an eye catcher based on bold colors and ?unnerving structure, but not sustaining. I looked at it for a while, and find the solitary dark light one possible emphasis -- to make as the solitary in a crowd. -- but then the framing leaves a lot at the top. (? cropping, even tilting angle of camera). As far as color balance, the red swathes are unbalanced (again, top to bottom), and the white window, golden light glows are distracting in terms of color balance and placement. But, I would reiterate, it is an eye catcher.

-- lacey smith (lacsm@bellsouth.net), January 24, 2002.

Interesting image, John !

I think that asking for "objective" critic comments about an image is somewhat contradictory. But I'd strive to follow any advise Jeff and/or other Big Brothers in this site whose body of work actually supports their technical opinions would be willing to issue. Specially if they even take their time to illustrate their words with their own images. Any thing else we could ask for? I doubt we could benefit of such an opportunity to learn by free anywhere else.

Which, rather obviously, also is a subjective conclusion that some of us would not agree with, right ?

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), January 24, 2002.

I like the colors and the general shape (repeated triangles, large triangle and many small ones, etc.).

But, interestingly, I find the white space on the bottom unsettling- I feel as if something... qi perhaps? is escaping from the picture. Indeed, there is a sense of gravity and downward flow, and it goes right out this sort of notch at the bottom of the picture, a notch that goes to its edge.

The white space is a window or portal of some kind, and yet we cannot see what's beyond it. I would've chosen a perspective that had as solid (or dark) a background on the bottom as you presently have on the top, to more solidly lodge the subject.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

I'm trying to address that Tse.

(See above post).

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

Thanks for posting and asking, John.

BMitch's somewhat dry opinion makes sense: this picture would serve a greater purpose if it limited its ambition to an illustrative role, highlighting the very interessant work of a '60's architect and '60's designer.

To play that role, you should include a text providing us with: name of building; date of decoration; name of architect/decorator; name and manufacturer of the fixtures; and any further insight that might put this setup in its historical and aesthetical perspectives.

With such a text, your photo could be considered as a very good illustration.

Without such info, you are claiming your own personal artistic role and you are condemned to rely on your own creativity to contribute really wortwhile graphical content.

As it is, this picture does not reflect such creativity, and therefore does not fulfill its implied artistic ambitions.

Others here have provided some suggestions that just might do the trick.

But, I still feel it would be more worthwhile to pay more explicit dues to the creators of the cafeteria setup...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 24, 2002.

John-

Geometrically it works: a triangle formed my the red lamps and the diagonals formed by the ceiling. The red triangle seems in motion and has an organic feel. I suppose we could go on and speaking metaphorically about the one unlit lamp...The whole thing looks like it might change shape. I like it.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

John-

I do not think that you as a photographer have to ascribe some special meaning or "bring" something to the shot. It's an interesting composition. Who the hell cares if it is a shot of someone else's "art". It's all basically a lie anyway.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

See if you can get them to fix the burned out bulb before you photograph it again. Unless you're trying to make some kind of statement regarding individuality (in which case you should try to make that statement a bit more clearly).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 24, 2002.

LOL.

Mike, obviously you are not familiar with Canada's unionized workforce (CUPE). No offence but if I petitioned someone to fix that light I would probably be reported to the shop steward as a grievance.

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.