Ghost in the Cathedral

[Mike Farley]

I am posting as I did not think this image got a fair hearing from the judge at the last DPI competition. It was taken at Canterbury Cathedral in February when the seats are removed so that people can see how the aisle would have looked in years gone by. While it is a composite, I combined it with a small section from another shot to remove some people who were near the altar. I had the camera on a tripod so I could set a slow shutter speed and blur the figures as they went past, one of the clergy in this instance.

Exposure was 0.6 sec, f/8 and ISO 400. The focal length was 18 mm on an APS-C sensor.

Quite evidently the judge did not like the shot, which is fair enough. Essentially his opinion was that a good architectural shot had been spoiled by the blurred figure. Most of the critique though was an allegedly authorative dissertation about how apparitions display themselves. Really? How many ghosts has he seen, I wonder, that his interpretation is correct? I believe that we ask a lot of judges to give an almost instant opinion of images and they have to fill the time with something, I suppose.

Anyway, I would be interested to know what others think.

[Rose]

I saw the image for what it was and thought the judge's comments were unfairly based simply on the title. I like the image - the only niggling factor for me is the apparent lack of a head on the figure !

[Mike Farley]

I saw the image for what it was and thought the judge's comments were unfairly based simply on the title. I like the image - the only niggling factor for me is the apparent lack of a head on the figure !

Thanks, Rose. I had another shot which was criticised because it did not show what he thought the title suggested it should and this one certainly did not fit in with his fixed view about how spirits should be depicted. I think it was down to him not liking either image, but could not think of another way to express what he found unsatisfactory. He is not alone in that and I have seen others do it on occasion.

I know what you mean about the head, but ghosts do not always have them. Perhaps I should photoshop one in tucked under his arm.

[Peter Boughton]

I agree the criticism was unfair, and the whole bit about the floor being a different height and thus ghosts would appear sunken into it... I don't know where to start.

However, I wouldn't have chosen the current position of the ghost - it is too close to the darkness behind the alter for my eyes.
A step or two to the right would work for me (and be worth the cloning effort to change), and not having an invisible head might help too (it'd give the brain a more traditional/recognisable shape to distinguish).

[Mike Farley]

...... the whole bit about the floor being a different height and thus ghosts would appear sunken into it... I don't know where to start.

I have been having a good chuckle about that for the past couple of days, although I thought he said that the ghost should float above the floor as historically its height would have been lower, which makes no sense whatsoever. It also supposes that ghosts, if they exist at all, have to date back centuries. Is there a qualifying period which must elapse for the more recently deceased?

Thanks for the other comments. This is one of a series of shots with the camera static on the tripod, so I can easily use the information from another image to replace the area hidden by the "ghost". The possibility of another position for the figure was one of the more positive aspects of the judge's critique and I might experiment to see if a different placement works better. I have probably also got a spare head knocking around which I could use.

[davidc]

I think the addition of a "human element", whether it is intended to be a person or ghost, has taken an average architecture shot and made it better. The judge is talking out of their arse and I wish I'd heard the criticism in person.

In terms of presentation, I agree with Peter about the unfortunate placement of the figure & the altar, it's not ideal. Had it been obscuring a column it would have provided more contrast.

The biggest problem for me is the portrait orientation. Maybe it would be worth shooting three portrait shots then merging to regain the landscape orientation while keeping the roof/architecture?

You know all those composition rules we learn, then learn how to break? I think we need to add a "listen to judges, learn what they will say, then ignore".

That said, something about the shot caught my eye. I've run it through some filters to enhance the exposure and I've found a hidden element to the image I can't explain - can you see it too, or is it just me?

Ghost in the Cathedral.jpg (123.84 KiB) Viewed 7359 times

[Mike Farley]

...... something about the shot caught my eye. I've run it through some filters to enhance the exposure and I've found a hidden element to the image I can't explain - can you see it too, or is it just me?

The Candlish Version

Ghost in the Cathedral.jpg (123.84 KiB) Viewed 7358 times

That has to be the best comment so far.

[Mike Farley]

I think the addition of a "human element", whether it is intended to be a person or ghost, has taken an average architecture shot and made it better. The judge is talking out of their arse and I wish I'd heard the criticism in person.

In terms of presentation, I agree with Peter about the unfortunate placement of the figure & the altar, it's not ideal. Had it been obscuring a column it would have provided more contrast.

The biggest problem for me is the portrait orientation. Maybe it would be worth shooting three portrait shots then merging to regain the landscape orientation while keeping the roof/architecture?

You know all those composition rules we learn, then learn how to break? I think we need to add a "listen to judges, learn what they will say, then ignore".

The placement of the figure is a common theme in the responses, the judge included. I did wonder if it was too central when I was preparing the shot, but did not really have time to do much about it. I am going to tug at one David's strings and say that an alignment on the right hand vertical third would probably be more aesthetically pleasing. It's something I am definitely going to experiment with.

I am not convinced that representing the interior of a tall building with such a high roof would suit the landscape orientation and I cannot think of any image of a cathedral where this has been done successfully. If anyone knows different, then do post an example here.

As for the judge, least said the better in my opinion.

[davidc]

I'm never quite sure that rule of thirds works in portrait-oriented images. To be honest, the placement isn't a deal breaker and it's much better with it than without.

[Mike Farley]

I'm never quite sure that rule of thirds works in portrait-oriented images. To be honest, the placement isn't a deal breaker and it's much better with it than without.

There is no reason why RoT should not work with vertically orientated images, but some people do find the 3:2 aspect ratio becomes a bit too thin for their taste when rotated through 90 degrees. That might be a possible explanation why you do not find it effective. Given that so many people have commented on the figure's placement, it is worth trying to see if moving it to the right really is an improvement. The difference between success and failure can be quite subtle sometimes.