How do you do it?

I live on an Indian reservation and have so many awesome buildings like this one to photograph. I have yet to get a good barn shot or anything like that so I give you this photo to criticize. It will be there again as will the sunlight, so I am hoping to improve my technique through your wisdom. What should I be looking for as far as composition, background, etc.

I know that this shot is not interesting. My question is why. What makes those other great abandoned building shots interesting?

Angle, perspective, lighting, detail. I can't come close to quantifying or verbalizing it like so many here can.
I can see a lot of great shots there, I just don't know that I could actually find them and then even more importantly, actually succeed pulling them off.

Digital is cheap, try different angles, spray and pray can be a great way to learn (that's why I have so many GB )

It's a merely documentary shot, a snapshot if you will. It does not tell a story.

The first question to ask of any picture you're about to make is: what do I want? What do I want to communicate?

As a suggestion, attack the subject piecemeal. Start with the direction of light and play with it. Also, try taking only your camera and one lens, preferably a prime, a wide angle prime. Combine the optics of such lens with direction of light. See what you come up with.

What the others above me said.

Here are two easy, quick tips that will net you a more interesting version of this same building.

1. Photograph it at sunrise or sunset. Or put your camera in bulb mode at night and let the stars circle move over the sky. If at night, experiment with painting the building with hand-held flash.

2. Add someone (or something) interesting into the frame. For example, a sexy girl at the front door or a dog looking through the window. Note: this will probably require a different (tighter) composition.

I don't recommend spray and pray. Imo it's an inefficient way to learn photography. If anything, a beginner may want to slow down, and perhaps take even fewer shots! You should be *thinking* about each composition. Really put serious thought into every potential photo before pressing the shutter button. Even today in 2014 at my university our intro photography classes use 35 mm cameras for most of the semester's assignments.

hummm...my ideas...

I look at this image and I see a building.
But the "setting" for the building is missing for me so I don't get a feel for it being very interesting.
The trees are cut off, the building corner is almost cut off.
I wonder if its the subject,why is it cropped to the point of almost cutting part of it off.
The metal roof takes away the "old building interesting feel" of it.
On another point, the sky is way out of whack. The shadows seem out of place being right at the front of the image.

The window. I wonder what an inside view would offer?
Could you get an angle that would show some of the inside as well as the outside?
Work until you can get some good landscape with it...try to give more of a setting and not so much "smack dab building in my face".
Views of doors are good...to me they seem more welcoming, I'd rather not see the back of the place..more the front.

Those are some things that come to mind for me.

This building alone doesn't have enough character to make it interesting. Get a model to work with and get closer to the wood. The tin roof is not going to cut it either.

Models are not de facto required for interesting photos. You can create entirely good photographs without people. If the main subject is a building or a landscape the introduction of people will distract or at the very least detract from the main subject, because the eye is naturally attracted towards the human figure. Unless you're trying to give an idea of the size of a building or an expanse of land, people are best left out; and in this case, with a one-storey building we really don't need to guess the scale.

The harsh midday lighting and plain blue sky are not helping you in this shot. Twilight, dawn or dusk, will help. A dramatic sky will help a lot, I try to shoot dawn or dusk when the sky is partly cloudy.

Can you get a moon in the shot? Here is a post explaining how I have planned for that in the past; it doesn't need to be a full moon, but the full moon is near the horizon around the same time of day as twilight.

A lot of good advice by those who've gone before me; the only bit that I completely disagree with is the part about a model. As a landscape photographer, that annoys me beyond words-as I, nor any of the other landscape photographers that I know- walk around with models trailing behind us just to add something "interesting" to look at in our images. My other pet peeve suggestion (thankfully not given here but I've seen others post it several times before) is, "If only you had some graffiti on the building, that would make the subject more interesting", as if we photographers can walk around with spray paint defacing building on a whim to improve our subject. *SMH* Anyway, the biggest issues I see with your image is,
#1. It's uninteresting due to composition.
#2. The lighting and shadows are too harsh.
#3. It has what appears to be vignetting on the top left and right corners.

The good news is, ALL of these can be corrected and I'll tackle the two easiest first.

#1. The vignetting can be fixed with software or cropping.
#2. The harsh lighting can be minimized or eliminated by (as was mentioned before) taking pictures in the early morning, just before sunset, or on an overcast day. OR, with certain subjects, you can learn to use the harsh lighting and shadows to your advantage. Your final option is to shoot at night to include light trails and/or the moon if you want.
Here's an example of using the early morning light to enhance your subject: http://fineartamerica.​com …sunrise-amber-kresge.html

Where I live, it's-quite frankly, ugly. More ugly than you can fathom. It's also sunny 364 days a year and the sun's UV index is off the charts-which means the lighting is always harsh. So, I've had to learn to use this light to help portray the bleak and desolate surroundings. Here's an example of me using the harsh light and casting a huge shadow-which actually enhances the image.

http://fineartamerica.​com …-bridge-amber-kresge.html

Here I captured a not so interesting desertscape, but the amazing red moon makes the scene interesting. http://fineartamerica.​com …-rising-amber-kresge.html

Just some of the "pretty" part where I live.
http://fineartamerica.​com …n-death-amber-kresge.html

http://fineartamerica.​com …indmill-amber-kresge.html

Now I'll tackle compositions; this is a very challenging part of photography for many people-but it's something we all must learn if we want our pictures to look like more than snapshots. Being in such an ugly location has taught me more about composition than all the photography blogs, books, and magazines I've ever read along with all the photography classes I've ever taken combined could have ever taught me. Most landscape photographers have the luxury of relying on the beautiful landscape to "make" their pictures, which leaves someone like me rather screwed. Don't get me wrong, they still have to know how to use the lighting and how to compose the shot, but they still have beautiful mountains, waterfalls, lakes, oceans, etc. to work with. I don't have any of those, not one, so I've learned two major things about composition, and they both have everything to do with perspective. If I have a beautiful landscape, I'll try to utilize that and show it in my pictures. I've got examples here:
http://fineartamerica.​com …te-park-amber-kresge.html

http://fineartamerica.​com …ergrown-amber-kresge.html

http://fineartamerica.​com …-desert-amber-kresge.html

However, when I come across what most photographers would walk past as, "uninteresting" and an "ugly surrounding", I've learned that while I can't change my subjects surrounding, I can make it look interesting compositionally by photographing it from a perspective most people don't see it from. This almost always means I get up close and personal with my subject and photograph it from an unusual angle. Examples here (FYI, out of hundreds of pictures, I have less than a dozen with people in them, and never the peoples' faces) :

http://fineartamerica.​com …e-fence-amber-kresge.html

http://fineartamerica.​com …-thorns-amber-kresge.html

http://fineartamerica.​com …s-fence-amber-kresge.html

http://fineartamerica.​com …rophies-amber-kresge.html

There were 5 other photographers at this rodeo; I saw ALL of their photos which all look exactly the same (just google image "bull riding" and you'll know what I'm talking about) and they all feature guys riding bulls. Meanwhile, I don't have a single shot of a guy riding a bull but I do have these.

http://fineartamerica.​com …he-ride-amber-kresge.html

http://fineartamerica.​com …he-ride-amber-kresge.html

http://fineartamerica.​com …wboy-up-amber-kresge.html

http://fineartamerica.​com …muzzles-amber-kresge.html

The point is this, I no longer rely on my surroundings to make my pictures look like more than snapshots-and mostly because it's impossible to do where I live. However, I'm no longer personally satisfied with that type of photography either. My philosophy now is that while I can't make a row of dead catfish heads (or insert a hundred other subjects I've photographed) into a pretty picture, by God I will make it compositionally interesting.

I hope I made sense and you could understand what I was trying to show-which is why I included so many different examples. Good luck and just keep on practicing!

What a fantastic website you have, Amber. I am really impressed not only with the great pictures, but also the little stories. I also appreciated the above advice. You are truly an inspiration!

Wow. Thank you very much Mark! I truly appreciate that.

Amazing work you've there, Amber. I'm humbled.

To the OP: the tin roof can actually cut it: it's peeling off, revealing the wood underneath: this could be shewn better if you shoot from an angle 90º away and to the left: this tells us something about the building that we might not know: it's decaying, probably because it's abandoned. A story is beginning to unravel.

Shooting from that other angle would also shew the house's shadow, which can perhaps be used to enhance the story/mood. Full sun and full contrast are not necessarily your enemies: you can befriend them and draft them to your cause. Here, the mid-day lighting and shadows can help convey the story of a building that was beaten to dilapidation by the weather and the rugged environment.

I just want to bring your attention to this photograph by Amber here, the one titled Overgrown. It's evocative. The old barn emerging from the greenery and ensconced in it at the same time, with its black open door both mysterious and inviting, conjure up a number of emotions in the viewer. That's what we, as photographers, aim for ofttimes: reactive, rather than merely informative, images.

I would be pleasantly surprised to see if the tin roof can add character to this photo. I hope the OP gives it a go and post his results here. As to a model - I think most people conjure up a 6 ft strawberry blonde in high heels - well this location is an Indian reservation and it doesn't take much imagination to come up with some more relevant subject models. And there is nothing wrong with using a model to enhance a scene. No one is suggesting that landscape photographers should always take models in tow. But as a non-purist myself, I see nothing wrong with doing it from time to time. The examples posted by FF and others are interesting subjects in themselves and hardly provide an assist to making the OP's photo better the next time he goes to shoot it.

I love the replies. This is what I was hoping for. I hope to get another attempt at this or to go back to the 10 or so shots I got.

A couple replies:

This is actually a beautiful setting next to a river with a small bridge and steep cliffs. If you look you can get that sense, but I can't portray that. I will try again. I was shooting with a wide angle and thought that might make the colors in the wood more interesting.

I added the vignetting. It was the first time I've done that and I don't like it either.

In Arizona, the sky is usually just blue, but once in a while is the most beautiful sky I've ever seen. I may need to go back there when that is true.

The sun was as low as it could be since I was in a canyon. It was about to "set" even though sunset was an hour away. And yes, the sun is always harsh. I might try shooting on a rare cloudy day or after the sun "sets".

I thank you all for the advice. I hope that you stay subscribed to this thread as I try this again at a later date. It may take a while to get back there and this may take a couple years, but I would appreciate the help. It is one aspect of photography I just can't get my head around.

One extra piece of advice, since you mention there're more landmarks in this area: keep it simple. The dangers of a wide angle lens is that you might be tempted to include too much in your frame: resist the temptation. If you feel the urge, take a whole-enveloping frame or two; done. Now focus on one or two subjects/elements and compose them in relation to their environs.