<<< o >>>untitled #0015 65 comments + add yours

My wife says that she hates this one, but it's definitely my favourite of the last three. I suspect she's probably exagerating, and she really means that she just doesn't like it, but either way, she much prefers yesterday's image. Anyway, while I think that it might have benefitted from a little more DoF in the foreground, I like everything else about it: the grains of sand, the colours, what might be a shadowy figure in the background, and so on.

As always, let me know what you think: despite the fact that I already know that when my wife and I disagree about a shot, she's normally right about how everyone else will react ;-)

shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
image quality
RAW converter
2.05pm on 5/2/06
Canon 20D
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
aperture priority
C1 Pro
3x2 + piers [Fleetwood] + abstract
comment by dj_evil at 08:03 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

Nice shot but i need to know why it is your favourite shot of all three?

comment by Roger at 08:09 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

This is my fav over the last few days.

comment by Keith at 08:12 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

I Like this one especially for the background and the colour of the step against the background. DOF suits me just fine.

comment by owen at 08:20 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

I like the colours and that sliver of detail that we can see on the step due the the shallow DOF. I prefer this to the previous two posts.

comment by RD at 08:23 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

I'm with your wife on this one. I don't hate it, but my eyes hurt when I look at the background, too overpowering. I do like the colors and the grains of sand, but that gets lost in the image. You do have a wonderful way with color saturation.

comment by Lee at 08:28 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

I like the three colours, green, purple and yellow but other than that.....i dont know.

comment by Sharla at 08:32 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

Zip, nada, zilch. Sorry, I'm with the Mrs. on this one. Not only my least favorite of the last three, but maybe my least favorite c h r o m a s i a of all time.

The sand doesn't do it for me and, after that, what is there, the rusted tread? If there were a disappearling line of successive risers perhaps.

I like the colors.

comment by Rob at 08:34 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

I like this better than the previous 2 as well, as a complete package. There are elements of yesterdays shot I really liked, but this is more interesting. I also think this is far better than "pole dancing" 2 days ago. The OOF works here. The foreground color and sand detail is superb. The background yellow color is great and the shadowy green figure, well.....just makes the shot complete IMO (personally it looks like a discarded christmas tree to me on a long look, but it did look like a person at first glance) ;-)

comment by Dean at 08:58 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

David this is superb, to be honest I wasn't too keen on the last couple of posts. This however, is superb. Really like it mate.

comment by Benjamin Riley at 09:02 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

the colors are the most compelling element in this photo. however, it does seem to fall into a proverbial caterogy crack somewhere between "industrial stock photo" and "abstract". Maybe adding or retracting one element would have thrown the photo in one direction or another and accomplished a specific theme. Nonetheless, great quality and color depth.

comment by prasoon at 09:06 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

c'mon people - it really has lovely colors - those shades of purple, the green blend in the background due to dof, the diffused yello and the clear partciles of sand on those grooves - what could get better - this image is a perfect blend and is completely justifying "abstract" theme..
no wonder, why it'd have been a tuf time for djn thinking for a title for this image and finally had to settle with "untitled" :D

comment by Caryn at 09:34 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

I love the shadowy figure in the back of this one. I find it very intriguing, and my mind automatically wants to build a story around it. My husband and I sometimes disagree on the photos I post as well. I'm happy to say that my radar's usually a little more accurate than his, but I do post the ones he feels strongly about, too.

comment by Bill at 09:44 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

I think what's happening is the background is too strong, like RD mentioned above. My eyes are naturally trying to remain focussed on the "in focus" part of the shot but the background is trying reeeeeally hard to tear them away, and it makes my head hurt. Funny how that works.

comment by PARCPHOTOGRAPHY at 10:07 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

Simple, but interesting . Is that ash? Sugar? Dandruff? Hehehehe j/k.

comment by david at 10:15 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

I'm with your wife on this one Dave. It's doing it for me...

comment by Deb at 10:36 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

My eyes hurt too. It's like attempting to simultaneously accommodate two impossibly different focal distances. The clarity of the foreground makes you want to resolve the background even more, so you're caught in a cycle of flicking between "foreground / background" in attempts to accommodate that latter. Not an unusual phenomenon in visual imagery but....somehow jarring in this one. (Smart woman, your missus)

comment by drdubosc at 10:40 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

Sure, the colours and textures are nice, even exciting, in isolation, but the picture doesn't work as a pure abstract, and hasn't enough info to work any other way. Hate is too strong. Maybe as part of a series, diptych or some such arrangement, to give more form and/or content, and make the yummy colours work?

comment by djn1 at 10:42 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

Again, it's interesting how we can have different views of what's essentially the same thing. For me, the foreground and background are linked, but only insofar as I imagine that the shadowy figure first walked down the step in the foreground. Though having read that back, I'm not sure quite what difference it makes. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that this one doesn't make my head hurt ;-)

comment by kevin at 10:43 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

for the subject matter, it turned out nice. It's certainly "something else" though, when you consider many of your other shots.

comment by cj at 11:09 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

You make your viewers work, don't you!

I think I would need to live with this one for a while. Is there more to it than a group of complimentary colours? I don't know. No strong feelings either way. Not often I get a maybe/maybe not reaction to one of your shots.

I do like the foreground textures, I know that much.

comment by David at 11:14 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

Hehe - I'm with your wife. Mine says the same all too often :)

comment by antmanbee at 11:34 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

Sorry mate, But I have to agree with your wife

comment by Micki at 11:40 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

Well, this is my favorite of the three. I was struck by it immediately when the page opened. I'm not sure I'd like the extra focus in the foreground; I think it works wonderfully as is. The colors in the background are quite complimentary, and the whole shot just works well. In other words...LOVE IT!

comment by Jamey at 11:59 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2006

I definitely preferred yesterday's to this one. I don't really know why.

My first thought when I saw it was "I could've done that!" but I don't know why that should be a bad thing. I guess I just expect to see stuff that boggles my brain here and this is one of those shots that doesn't have that instant appeal for me.

That's a pretty shallow viewpoint, I guess. But it's the truth anyway.

comment by mark at 12:09 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I don't hate it, but I certainly don't like it Dave. It feels too contrived to be honest. The colours are good, yeah, but for me the overall image is pretty non-emotive I'm afraid.

comment by jbuhler at 12:31 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

This one works better than yesterday's, for me. The composition is less busy and the colors complement each other nicely.

comment by shaun h at 12:36 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

hey dave, i commented several pics ago that I was losing favor w/your pics. Again, let me reiterate, I'm a big fan of your work. You didn't mind my comment, but suggested I give you a reason. I couldn't put my finger on it until now...

I haven't been digging your pictures for the last few weeks because its missing the great shots of people that you're so good at taking! Obviously, its ultimately up to you what you want to shoot - but I have to say for me as a viewer and fan, it seems like your running out of things to shoot.

I don't mean to discourage, rather than to encourage you because its you that helped inspire me to get my first SLR in the first place. SH

comment by djn1 at 12:48 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

shaun: yep, you're right, I've not shot many people lately ... not sure why, other than that other things have caught my eye (tomorrow's being no exception). I'll see what I can do.

comment by Cindy Carver at 01:11 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

Yep, your wife's right. This does nothing for me. Too abstract perhaps?

comment by Ash @ Nighthawks at 01:13 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

i'm gonna leave off the candy coating....it doesn't work for me either...nothing wrong with experimentation and trying different things though....

comment by djn1 at 01:14 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

Cindy: I've discovered that my wife is always right, which does get a bit irritating at times, but I've learnt to live with it ;-)

comment by Kris at 03:01 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

i wonder if its the photographers dilemma...starting with shooting simple things that are bright and attractive to a lot of people...then you raise your bars and go for more artistic one's that gives you the photographers satisfaction, but its still artistic/abstract to the general population, who may not like it in most cases? just a thought and i dont mean to make a point here...:-)

comment by PlasticTV at 03:03 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

i like the beautiful bokeh, but other than that, hmm...

comment by Michael Brown at 03:11 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

Excellent use of selective focus and depth!

comment by jbp at 04:31 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

sure, it illustrates a technique, but why? why should we care about this image?

not an insult, just a question... if you could put it into use with a captivating subject, then it could make and extraordinary picture.

comment by justin at 06:13 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I think your just putting up shots now beacuse you have to for people to comment on to be honest, take a few days off and think about actually what you really want to post...

comment by djn1 at 07:42 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

justin: I genuinely like this shot – it's my definite favourite of the last three that I've put up – but Kris may be right, maybe this one appeals to me as a photographer rather than me as a consumer as imagery. Also, and it's worth stressing this point, chromasia is a daily project where I put up the best shots that I've been able to take. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're not so good – that's just how it goes – but for me, documenting that process is important.

comment by Roberto at 08:40 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I really like this one. The deep of field gives to it a lovable atmosphere. The texture and colors are very nice. Good as usual for you.

comment by ben at 08:43 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

It's certainly the best of the last 3 posts - but then I am very unimpressed with the last 3 posts!
As usual your colours are superb in this one - but the background blur is too overpowering. You need more foreground sharpness. Current impression - this is the sort of shot film camera users get when they're winding forward to the first frame! You should prbably listen more to Mrs N!

comment by Kenny at 09:15 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

The fact that I don't know what the he.. is going on in this shot makes it very interesting storywise. The colors are very cool and keeps me hanging a while longer! ;)

comment by peter at 09:26 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I don't know....hmmmm....I like the colours, the fact that so much is blurred is also pretty much ok, my eyes hurt when I look at it for too long. But I can't get myself to say it's bad. Confused, I am :-)

comment by JD at 10:38 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I haven't had time to read the comments so sorry if any of this is repeated :S

This is definitally my favourite of the Macro shots of the last few days.

The colours are striking and complement each other magnificantly. The sharpness of the grains and rusty texture is brilliant.

But I can't help but wonder whether it would have worked better without the macro! What I mean is I think the subject lacks something which maybe the overall environment could have had.

Anyway looking forward to tonights post


comment by [t e r r o r k i t t e n] at 11:04 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I find the shapes and colours of the background the more interesting.....but even so I feel that it is not up to the high standard of lots of your other photographs....just my opinion.

comment by Ioannis at 11:22 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I basically don't find any interest in this picture. It's well implemented, sure enough. But by looking at it, I really don't know what it's showing, or what it's trying to say.

That doesn't in any way mean that it's a bad photograph. It's just that my style, for pictures, as well as for movies and books, is that I try to find a deeper meaning, which I think is lacking here.

That said, a photoblog is different than a gallery in that it is about experimentation as much as it is about displaying of work. Therefore, although my opinion is that I don't really like this picture, you have done very well in putting it on.

comment by Matthew Campagna at 11:25 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

As a photography, it may not have much going for it. As modern or impressionalistic art, however, it's quite nice. And I see no reason that photography can't go to places generally frequented by painters. It's the colors that make it work, and it probably wouldn't work well in black and white. But you must have guessed that, because here it is in color.

comment by Tin - www.ragmus.com at 12:12 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

i'm with your wife on this one. i dont particularly like this shot in comparison to the last few images of yours.

comment by Jasmine at 01:42 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

Okay, I'll weigh in ... I love this one. I find it soothing and captivating. There is plenty of visual interest. Beautifully soft colours, the horizontal lines of the foreground repeated strrangely in the background, the strong contrasting vertical impression of the background, the hard and soft textures. It is not an image that tells a story. It is an image that offers a playground for the eyes.

Many of your shots of late have been beyond my capacity for positive appreciation (translation: I didn't like them). And for what it's worth, imho you have to push the edge and try new things in order to stay fresh and interested in your hobby. Even the shots I don't like are worthwhile to me.

comment by Fabio Giolito at 02:16 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I didn't like this one that much also, though my eyes go up and down in the lower part and that's intresting

comment by Paul Courtney at 02:31 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

Hi Dave,
I've read all the previous comments and find it fascinating how different people see things so differently from each other. I personally find this shot very appealing and indeed MUCH better than the previous two shots. This has really good foreground interest, a nicely out-of-focus distance with enough shadowy detail to make me take a guess at what it is, and above all great colour combination. I felt as though I was looking across the threshold into a conservatory with a vertical blind in the background with light slanting through onto a potted rubber plant. Some Coloumbian had flicked his ash onto the rusty-coloured step before stepping into the air-conditioned room. Anyway, suffice it to say I like it.

comment by Brett Admire at 02:52 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I like this also my fav in the last few days

comment by Jeroen Broeckx at 03:37 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I like it very much.
Your wife isn't right...

Love it!

comment by Gavin at 04:49 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I really like this. Has to be my favourite out of them all. Great background colours.

comment by Mikelangelo at 05:28 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

heh... wow... that's a lot of comments. Didn't read 'em all but I have the gist of most of them, I think. I like this shot. I like the tension between the sharp/bold foreground and the soft/blurred background. I like the composition. I agree with your initial point, Dave, that I'd like to see a smidge more DOF in the foreground.

Neat shot. I supposed that it doesn't hurt that I'm a fan of rust. ;-) For what it's worth...my wife is usually right, too. It can be REALLY irritating at times.... fortunately..she'll never read this. ;-)

comment by alan at 05:52 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

I've scanned and skimmed down throught the comments on this one. Definitely some strong opinions. Personally, I like the shot. A question that I have been asking myself lately is: would a casual observer (un-trained photographically) be drawn to the image? What sort of immediate reaction would an image create for that person? I believe this image would make anyone stop and look.

Personally, the color saturation (I agree with a prior comment - you do have a way with it) is great. It might have been interesting to see what a shot with more foreground DOF, but then again, that might have detracted from the detail in the grains of sand.

comment by Kev Rosie at 07:01 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

Love it, for no other reason than it made me go "wow!" when it appeared. Great shot!

comment by djn1 at 07:18 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

Thanks everyone - it was an interesting discussion, more of which in the description to tomorrow's shot.

comment by John Hartl at 07:30 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

COLURS ARE SUPER FINE and soft fine background blur.

comment by esko at 08:07 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006

sorry don't like it... gives me nothin...not a shot of your quality

comment by localhost at 11:19 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2006


Personally I think that the comments here are disgusting.

Here he is, documenting on what he sees, good or bad, he documents it, as it is.

There is a few comments that I have seen that don’t look like constructive criticism instead they look like a personal attack.

Sure you might not like the photo, or you might like it, that’s fine. But be constructive about it.

I think people here forget out difficult and time consuming that running this like this site takes.
The guy has quite a few kids, a wife, a job and a very popular site which would consume at least an hour of his time a day.
An hour isn’t bad but when you have to please a large audience such as this, it’s a tough call.

This is his work.
His documentary of his work
And if its not up to “your” standard well fine convey that.
But don’t attack him.


comment by Kyle at 12:47 AM (GMT) on 10 February, 2006

This is my favorite in a while. The colors are really beautiful (magenta rust, soft yellow, subtle green), the funny patterns with the background are great, and the subject in the foreground has an ambiguous story. Wonderful.

comment by flying cow at 05:20 AM (GMT) on 10 February, 2006

i like this one actually. maybe its the texture or maybe its the purple.

comment by sudeep mukherjee at 08:51 AM (GMT) on 10 February, 2006

I think I love this one. Requires a lot of imagination to capture abstracts

comment by Bob at 12:22 PM (GMT) on 10 February, 2006


I've never seen a flower I didn't love. Some are breathtaking, some extraordinary, some exquisite, some astonishing, and some are, well...beautiful. So too, in scope and entirety, I find your images.

Sincerely, you are currently the best in this field.

With ambitions of my own, I've sought to make a determined study of photo blogs the past year and find yours to be the only one in which I feel a real emotional connection. You not only have provided your admirers and critics with a consistent flow of extraordinary images, but have opened yourself to all of us in a real, humble, and extraordinarily personal way.

Of course, to truly criticize, one would surely have a firm grasp of the artistic aesthetic and technical expertise required to create a mere handful of images worthy of presenting another person. Likewise, an informed critic would find it easy to teach themselves what it takes to design, program, and maintain a site like you have. Or to find the time to shoot, digitally process, and post a consistently remarkable image on a daily basis for the entire world to see, for a very long time. All that, of course, coming after managing a full-time career and a sizable family--oh, and find themselves ranked among the best in the world at their endeavor. A firm grasp on all this, of course a critic would have.

I've learned from you that it takes a a proper attitude and focus on your own goals and objectives to put both constructive and non-constructive criticism in its proper perspective, and to handle it with humility, grace, and good cheer. Thank you for your good example.

Also, thank you immensely for generously posting your EXIF data on every shot, and for the fairly routine inclusion of additional post-processing comments. That data is incredibly helpful, not only from a shooting standpoint, but aids a trained eye in estimating the processing you did after the fact. Thanks, because that data is surprisingly and routinely omitted by most other folks.

On the matter of this shot. It is, well...beautiful. As have been all the recent ones beginning with the shot of John. Probably a moral there somewhere. (I sense a sea change since the "Between Destinations" pair, as if those breathtaking shots were somehow a bit emotionally draining as the achievement of a certain peak. An ebb and flow kind of thing. Like finishing any masterpiece, heartbreakingly-good shots like those can sometimes make one pause for a breather before gathering a new head of steam.) Though the shape beyond the stair is likely your own shadow and the stair you're shooting through, I'm playfully imagining the shape to be another, in pursuit of: http://johnwashington.co.uk/index.php?showimage=610. Also, well...beautiful.

Looking forward to your best work in the years yet to come. Cheers, and all the best.

comment by PCN at 07:36 AM (GMT) on 13 February, 2006

I'm with you on this one - the girls cannot be right all the time....

comment by marie madeleine at 09:39 PM (GMT) on 24 June, 2006

almost like a Rothko...
i love it!