I went back to the scene today and tried some new angles and interpretations of the lights. Tried Andy's suggestion (at least an incorporation of the suggestion) and here are my 2 favorite.

and

flame away!

John.

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

Answers

Oops, I meant to credit Jeff Spirer. Too much brainstorming today!

Sorry Jeff,

No harm, no foul?

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

I like the top one very much.The red against a hint of green looks good.

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 24, 2002.

Could pass for ART if you ask me.

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), January 24, 2002.

Well done John!! I like them both but prefer the second one as the shades are more expressive. Too bad the lamp at four o'clock was burnt out! (8>))--Albert

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), January 24, 2002.

John, I like the first photo. What kind of film and shutter speed you used? Regards,

-- tom tong (tom.tong@ckh.com.hk), January 24, 2002.

Albert,

I think the burnt out lamp adds tension.

FWIW.

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

i think the first photo would work if you digitally remove the greenish lights on the lower left.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), January 24, 2002.

I think the less regular, less orderly pattern of the second photo is more exciting. There is a visual interest there, with more depth and complexity, challenging the eye and taking longer to explore.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 24, 2002.

I like the second one, as I think the burnt out light adds some mystery and meaning to the picture.

By the way, are you having the pics developed at a 1 hour foto place; and are you shooting a full roll every day? I wish I could shoot 1 roll a week!

Well, keep up the good work! Phillip

-- Phillip Silitschanu (speedin_saab@hotmail.com), January 24, 2002.

I like both of them, the first slightly more due to the color contrast. For me, it's those splashes of green that make that shot. Besides, it looks like a multi-eyed lamp smiley.

The edge of the dark lamp at the top in the second shot bothers me a touch. A tighter crop at the top to eliminate that might work.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 25, 2002.

Both are nicer graphically than previous one, but less informative (more partial view, no context), and less of an hommage to the architect/designer.

My deep down reaction is "not bad, so what?".

Isn't it interesting to note that it is MUCH easier to play such perspective games than to do the research that would enable you to communicate to us basic information such as: name of architect; name of designer; name of manufacturer; date of building ?

That setup looks original and interesting. I would really like to know more about it. "Cafeteria", "univesity", "sixties" is not quite enough.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

Jacques, I'm curious - is your interest in the provenance of this light fixture part of your general concern (articulated in a thread of a few weeks back) over image rights? Or are you just interested in knowing who made it for purely personal reasons?

I think either of these pictures would work well as an illustration in a brochure about the café, but they don't go further than that to my eye. What I mean is that they don't go further than being a picture _of_ something, in which the real interest is the something, rather than a picture _a se_, in which the real interest is the photo itself rather than it's ostensible subject.

I don't get the stuff about the dead lamps adding tension at all. There's no tension of any kind here, simply a competent portrayal of an object.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 25, 2002.

Hey Jacques,

Have you considered using the "view source" option on your browser? That will give you all the links you are looking for with regards to technical and locational data for the above shots mon ami!

Let me start you off...

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=538838

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 25, 2002.

Rob,

I agree with your views here. My interest is purely personal: I do think John is showing us an interesting interior, and I would not mind knowing more about it: is the whole building decorated in such a fashion? has it been refurbished since "the Sixties"? Who designed those lamps? is the real thing as intriguing as what John's shots suggest?

If John supplied such information with his pics, going beyond attempts to produce "abstract patterns", in the framework of a report on the architecture features of his university, I would find his images (illustrations) very good.

But left to their own devices, I find these images rather vain...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

By "vain" I imagine you mean "futile"?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 25, 2002.

Rob,

Yes, sorry. In French "vain" conveys the same feeling as the English "in vain", so "futile" would be a better word here. Apologies to John, I now realise this might be wrongly understood.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

Well, I like the top shot, but... While you moved underneath like I suggested in the previous post, I still think the 24 would make it a better image as it would be even a bit more abstract.

:) Nice job,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 25, 2002.