# Lobster Shack



## sleist (Apr 19, 2016)

This one's grown on me.


----------



## KenC (Apr 20, 2016)

Nice.  Very Walker Evans.


----------



## xenskhe (Apr 20, 2016)

I now have a craving for lobster bisque.


----------



## spiralout462 (Apr 20, 2016)

I like it. reminds me of something I would shoot.  Though probably not as proficiently.


----------



## sleist (Apr 20, 2016)

Thanks all.


----------



## kdthomas (Apr 21, 2016)

I like the gradient in the sky and the repeating pattern in the stacked traps


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 21, 2016)

Nicely done.
I think raising the white end a bit would look good also.


----------



## sleist (Apr 21, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> Nicely done.
> I think raising the white end a bit would look good also.



I don't disagree.

I find that the white background of this forum makes the whites in an image appear more grey than they maybe should.
Here's the exif viewer histogram of this image take from Chrome:





I could boost it a a bit, but there would be blown highlights creeping in.  Selective dodging of the shack trim might help.
The buoy to the left of the shack is the the small area that would blow out first.  Still, it may be worth playing with - I see it too.

PP in a dark CS6 window makes these thing less obvious as well.
I would prefer a dark background to this forum - I think CIC has a theme that is much more complimentary to the posting of photos.
This site tends to make photos look crappy.

One guy's opinion


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 21, 2016)

sleist said:


> CIC



CIC?


----------



## Didereaux (Apr 24, 2016)

I like it as well.  CIC(Cambridge in Colour) (I look for context thbfffttt Lew).
It is a location I would revisit  if I were close enough.  Try shooting at different times of day, and sky conditions.  PAying attention to such things as shadows of power lines etc.    Got to be the neatest kept anything of a lobsterman I have ever seen!


----------



## manaheim (Apr 24, 2016)

This is interesting as it defies a lot of the advice I usually give people, and yet the sheer square-ness and starkness of it totally makes it work.  Love it.  It DOES need more pop, though.  And don't be afraid of some blown highlights here and there. It's certainly something you want to avoid in general... but that doesn't mean you can't go for it when it makes sense. Some of the best pictures I've seen blow the highlights to hell.

This is what I did with it...

(removed)

Oh and in case you're interested, this is how I did it...





Curves is your friend.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2016)




----------



## manaheim (Apr 24, 2016)

1> Sorry about that.
2> That "not ok to edit" used to be colored red or something... didn't see red, assumed it was ok. Whoops. (yes, I'm making excuses to justify my embarrassing faux pas) 
3> Traveler, that had to be almost the most abrasive way of pointing that out to me. Bravo.
4> [deleted tirade about how I think "photos not ok to edit" is really limiting]


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2016)

manaheim said:


> 1> Sorry about that.
> 2> That "not ok to edit" used to be colored red or something... didn't see red, assumed it was ok. Whoops. (yes, I'm making excuses to justify my embarrassing faux pas)
> 3> Traveler, that had to be almost the most abrasive way of pointing that out to me. Bravo.
> 4> [deleted tirade about how I think "photos not ok to edit" is really limiting]



Said by the man who is passive aggressive in #4.
Since I am the routine target of passive agressive, abrasive comments, I thought I'd give a little back.


----------



## Watchful (Apr 24, 2016)

I see a photo like this and I need to know what color things are.
So much information is missing.
It does look like unpainted cinderblock, so that's OK, but are the pots blue, red, or also dark grey?


----------



## Watchful (Apr 24, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> View attachment 120189


This is not even a part of the mobile site and not shown on mobile devices, so a lot of people never see that part at all. Mobile users may still edit.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 24, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > 1> Sorry about that.
> ...



Ok, we're derailing this interesting thread about a very interesting image, so I'll refrain from giving you a little back of what you were giving me and we can get back to the image itself.

DISCUSS!


----------



## sleist (May 2, 2016)

Thanks for all the discussion folks!  I'm apparently not getting any notifications regarding thread replies ...

No worries about the edit Mr. Rabbit.
I know you know your stuff so I'm sure it was lovely.  

I use the "Not OK to edit" flag because 9/10 edits were being done by people who had no business editing anything.
It was more irritating than helpful.  Perhaps things are different around here these days.

I'll post an update if life let's me have time for photography.  Hasn't been cooperating much lately.


----------



## manaheim (May 2, 2016)

Thanks, sliest. I felt pretty bad about that. :/ (and thanks for the compliment)

Would love to see an updated image when you have some time.


----------



## deeky (May 2, 2016)

I like it, especially the geometry of it.  I think the white trim popping from the rest of the shot really sets it off, so I would agree with maybe even just adjusting the white point a little. 

Personally, I would also look at taking the power line shadows out.  It would take a little work, but they conflict with the geometry that I want to see.


----------

