Too bad about the overcast day, but there was no realy option of going back there another time. What else is bad? Please break this photograph.. allow me to learn...
Well, you are right about the lighting, just too flat and making for a bald sky which can sometimes be tolerated in b+w, but hardly ever in color. I like the lead in from the road, curving inward, but again, the road is overexposed and lacking detail. I think with a lower sun and no overcast, the results might be very nice.
I had the same problem with my EOS 500N, and the solution is to get a simple mechanical plastic device that you can use to take out the lead - it's called a film picker, I believe.
Yes, I did consider doing B&W for this and other things, but my good ol' EOS3000 can't do a decent midroll rewind and leave the lead out, so I am waiting for my Elan II to really start shooting. I could just put a roll of B&W in my 3000, but my wife also uses it to shoot the kids from time to time, and she would kill me if I'd put anything different then a ISO 200 in it.
regarding exposure: the scene is correctly exposered as far as I remember, but the path is a little washed out, so yes, overexposed for the path, correct for anything else. Regarding your new crop: I like it, removing the grass is better, BUT, this way the path looses alot of its power I believe. Just the way you mentioned before, my master ;-)
I mentioned the grass as a question rather than as a statement, because in order not to have the grass there, you'd have to 1) show more of the sky, which, given its state at that time, would have been worse than the grass, or 2) move in closer to the barn (or crop), but then you wouldn't have that path leading to it. So if you wanted the path in the photo, then from this angle at least, leaving the grass out was not an option.
Which brings us to how the path works. To me, it works both ways. But, if I just look at the image without intellectualising too much, I look at the barn first, and then when I follow the path to the edge of the photo and find nothing there, I just follow the path back to the barn again. So although the path is a double-edged weapon, it isn't too destructive in the end.
If we establish that the path doesn't hurt the image, we can still ask whether it helps it. Is it necessary to have it there. Well, IMO the barn's presence in the scene is something that one tends to notice immediately (you can counter by asking whether it's not possible that I notice the barn immediately precisely because the path subconsciously guides me to it). The viewer doesn't need to be led to the barn by following that path. So perhaps the path is not needed (and then you can get rid of the grass too).
Histograms. If you open up the image in PS and apply a Levels layer to it, the graph shows you the distribution of tones in the picture. The horizontal axis corresponds to the individual tones from black to white, the vertical axis represents the quantity of pixels of the given tone in the picture.
When I looked at this photo, I thought it was kind of light. Then I looked at the histogram and it showed almost no black tones. Together, this made me mention overexposure. However, I have doubts now. The lack of black tones could well have been a result of there having been few black tones in the scene in the first place. And, my subjective impression that it's too light is just that - my impression. I haven't seen the scene in reality; you have, and therefore you must judge whether the tones correspond to what was really there. If you say that this is accurate, then the exposure is fine.
What do you think about this crop (with a bit of Levels adjustment as well)?
Thanks Matej, I asked to break it... not to tot totally crush the photograph and me with it ;-) Just kidding, I simply love your comments, because I learn sooooo much of them. Now, down to countering your comments ;-) 1. Composition: it was intended the way you describe it... To lead the eye into the picture to the barn, via the road. I never even thought about the other way round. Just one more thing to look at at my next composition, thanks ;-) As for the grass: you are right, it doesn't really add anything, so I guess I could've better moved in closer, so that there was less grass, and the stuff inside the barn would be better visible, so that there was more happening in the picture. 2. Color: Alot has to do with the bad light that day I guess, you might have noticed that all my pics taken there suffer from this. With regards to the overexposure: I noticed it very well in the path, which is a little washed out, but then again, the barn and stuff looks pretty ok to me (exposure wise). And the histogram: if you can, then a little more info about this would be very welcome, since this is totally new to me.
Please comment my comments now (just comment, don't break this time ;-) )
The very even lighting and the resulting lack of shadows have made this look quite flat, an effect that's further enhanced by what to me looks like overexposure. (The histogram is quite weird.)
I can't quite decide about the composition. The good thing is, I get drawn straight to the barn; if I happen to look at the right side of the picture, the curve of the path and the line of the trees lead me back to the main subject.
On the other hand, that path works in reverse as well, and looking at the barn and then following the path leads me outside the picture rather than to something interesting. There's also the question whether the presence of all that grass in the foreground adds to the image, or is it just empty space.
Overall though, I think I'd lean more towards 'good composition' than to 'bad composition'.
What I see as a more important problem is that the image is lifeless. (The flat light contributes to this as well.) There's nothing going on in there, there are no people, no animals, just a static scene (I suppose this would be more acceptable if the photo were technically perfect). I'm looking at the structure of an old barn - something that's fine for people who count the history of rural Flamish architecture among their hobbies; but for me at least, there's little that speaks to me and I lose interest fairly quickly. The stuff stored in the barn could be of interest, but whatever is in there is too far away and too much in shadow to be seen.
I don't know what else I could break, so I'll just leave it here for now :-)
0 
{K:24381} 8/27/2003
