Texture vs. No Texture

Home|Before & After, Blog, Photography|Texture vs. No Texture

I just did a quick re-edit to a “Before & After” photo I just posted to my Google+ stream (the one on the right) by removing the texture (here’s my original post about it: https://plus.google.com/u/0/113097851206100618060/posts/dAV3BJtQdXQ).

I like them both … the one on the right would make a cool movie poster or something like that, and the one on the left would look nice hanging on my wall. :)

What do you think … ?

By | 2015-04-08T13:55:17+00:00 July 10th, 2012|110 Comments

About the Author:

My name is Nicole and I'm a photographer, author, & educator living in Portland, Oregon, USA. When I'm not making photos I'm writing books and tutorials for my online store, Learn more about me and my story here.

110 Comments

  1. Mike Spinak July 10, 2012 at 11:38 pm - Reply

    I think the texture takes away from this. I prefer the left one.

  2. Mike Spinak July 10, 2012 at 11:38 pm - Reply

    I think the texture takes away from this. I prefer the left one.

  3. WT Gator July 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm - Reply

    The textured one is far more atmospheric.

  4. WT Gator July 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm - Reply

    The textured one is far more atmospheric.

  5. Mike Wood July 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm - Reply

    I prefer the one on the left. Though your point about the movie poster right version is well taken. :)

  6. Mike Wood July 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm - Reply

    I prefer the one on the left. Though your point about the movie poster right version is well taken. :)

  7. Paul Ritzkat July 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm - Reply

    I like the textured one better +1 for that :)

  8. Paul Ritzkat July 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm - Reply

    I like the textured one better +1 for that :)

  9. Zachery Jensen July 10, 2012 at 11:40 pm - Reply

    I like this latest (left) edit a lot better, and (given my stated biases) I think it reads much better. I noticed there is more discernible detail in that broken sign to the left of the building (and roof) and the effect that has on reducing the strength of the building's leading lines pretty much resolves the conflict I was feeling reading the front of the building.

    And now that the texture in the sky is gone but you kept the smoothing, I am enjoying what seems to be a well balanced contrast between a smoothed sky and a rough old textured building. I think it works really well that way, adding some depth to the whole scene beyond my personally relatable experience, it adds a more interesting and balanced abstract nature to the image itself.

  10. Zachery Jensen July 10, 2012 at 11:40 pm - Reply

    I like this latest (left) edit a lot better, and (given my stated biases) I think it reads much better. I noticed there is more discernible detail in that broken sign to the left of the building (and roof) and the effect that has on reducing the strength of the building's leading lines pretty much resolves the conflict I was feeling reading the front of the building.

    And now that the texture in the sky is gone but you kept the smoothing, I am enjoying what seems to be a well balanced contrast between a smoothed sky and a rough old textured building. I think it works really well that way, adding some depth to the whole scene beyond my personally relatable experience, it adds a more interesting and balanced abstract nature to the image itself.

  11. Dan Hall July 10, 2012 at 11:40 pm - Reply

    I like the p e without the texture. The emptiness of the sky adds to the isolation. The texture I find distracting

  12. Dan Hall July 10, 2012 at 11:40 pm - Reply

    I like the p e without the texture. The emptiness of the sky adds to the isolation. The texture I find distracting

  13. Dave Veffer July 10, 2012 at 11:44 pm - Reply

    I'm kind of torn…I like both.  I think I like it without the texture a little better but I like the tonality and harshness of the slightly darker sky on the right with the texture better.  I'm guessing that is a byproduct of the texture being added :)

  14. Dave Veffer July 10, 2012 at 11:44 pm - Reply

    I'm kind of torn…I like both.  I think I like it without the texture a little better but I like the tonality and harshness of the slightly darker sky on the right with the texture better.  I'm guessing that is a byproduct of the texture being added :)

  15. Shanti Gilbert July 10, 2012 at 11:45 pm - Reply

    I prefer the one without texture, but I like both in a different way.

  16. Shanti Gilbert July 10, 2012 at 11:45 pm - Reply

    I prefer the one without texture, but I like both in a different way.

  17. Bob Beggs July 10, 2012 at 11:46 pm - Reply

    All good comments … I guess it just shows that there's no right or wrong when it comes to art.

  18. Bob Beggs July 10, 2012 at 11:46 pm - Reply

    All good comments … I guess it just shows that there's no right or wrong when it comes to art.

  19. Nicole S. Young July 10, 2012 at 11:46 pm - Reply

    +Dave Veffer Yes, I had to darken the sky a bit when I removed the texture. I didn't want to push it too far or I'd add banding to the image (already had to nip that in the bud once with the motion blur).

  20. Nicole S. Young July 10, 2012 at 11:46 pm - Reply

    +Dave Veffer Yes, I had to darken the sky a bit when I removed the texture. I didn't want to push it too far or I'd add banding to the image (already had to nip that in the bud once with the motion blur).

  21. Dave Veffer July 10, 2012 at 11:47 pm - Reply

    Ah yes that makes sense :)  Friggin banding ugh

  22. Dave Veffer July 10, 2012 at 11:47 pm - Reply

    Ah yes that makes sense :)  Friggin banding ugh

  23. Paula Thomas July 10, 2012 at 11:49 pm - Reply

    My vote is for untextured.

  24. Paula Thomas July 10, 2012 at 11:49 pm - Reply

    My vote is for untextured.

  25. holger feroudj July 10, 2012 at 11:51 pm - Reply

    I wouldn't say any one of these is better per se – but I guess the right one is more attractive to people that don't look at photos very long, because the texture is another eye catcher that draws them in immediately. The left one takes a bit more time to captivate.

    As for prints, I noticed that when doing large format (45x30inch and bigger) texture becomes a more and more important factor, so I could well imagine the right one to have an additional bonus when printed huge :)

  26. holger feroudj July 10, 2012 at 11:51 pm - Reply

    I wouldn't say any one of these is better per se – but I guess the right one is more attractive to people that don't look at photos very long, because the texture is another eye catcher that draws them in immediately. The left one takes a bit more time to captivate.

    As for prints, I noticed that when doing large format (45x30inch and bigger) texture becomes a more and more important factor, so I could well imagine the right one to have an additional bonus when printed huge :)

  27. Ian Thomas July 10, 2012 at 11:54 pm - Reply

    I love that sky – so, I probably never would've thought to have even try a texture on a shot like this.  That being said, I do love the texture you used here and it does add another layer (har har) to an already great shot.

  28. Ian Thomas July 10, 2012 at 11:54 pm - Reply

    I love that sky – so, I probably never would've thought to have even try a texture on a shot like this.  That being said, I do love the texture you used here and it does add another layer (har har) to an already great shot.

  29. Stanley Yamada July 10, 2012 at 11:55 pm - Reply

    Prefer the one on the left…may be a different texture would work better.

  30. Stanley Yamada July 10, 2012 at 11:55 pm - Reply

    Prefer the one on the left…may be a different texture would work better.

  31. Zachery Jensen July 10, 2012 at 11:56 pm - Reply

    +holger feroudj Ah but printed large, the subtleties of the sky would be more apparent as a texture, even with the motion blur.

  32. Zachery Jensen July 10, 2012 at 11:56 pm - Reply

    +holger feroudj Ah but printed large, the subtleties of the sky would be more apparent as a texture, even with the motion blur.

  33. Milena Ilieva July 10, 2012 at 11:57 pm - Reply

    I like them both. I think that the one on the right will look good hanging on a wall too, printed on canvas for example :)

  34. Milena Ilieva July 10, 2012 at 11:57 pm - Reply

    I like them both. I think that the one on the right will look good hanging on a wall too, printed on canvas for example :)

  35. Jason Teale July 11, 2012 at 12:01 am - Reply

    I like the one on the right mostly because with so much sky the texture makes more interesting. The darker tones also make it more pleasing with the storm or what ever is coming. 

  36. Jason Teale July 11, 2012 at 12:01 am - Reply

    I like the one on the right mostly because with so much sky the texture makes more interesting. The darker tones also make it more pleasing with the storm or what ever is coming.

  37. Michael Seneschal July 11, 2012 at 12:04 am - Reply

    I understand it's fun to Instagram* photos, but in my opinion the cracks and pseudo imperfections really take away from the effort to make a good original photo. Why not take photos with a instant film camera rather than masking over all those great modern optics we spend so much money on. The photo on the left is really nice and requires (and shows) some effort and knowledge needed to create. The photo on the right says, look at the filter I applied.

    PS- I don't know how my text is reading… but I'm not trying to be Internet Jerk. I think the left photo is really nice that requires effort and skill to create.

  38. Michael Seneschal July 11, 2012 at 12:04 am - Reply

    I understand it's fun to Instagram* photos, but in my opinion the cracks and pseudo imperfections really take away from the effort to make a good original photo. Why not take photos with a instant film camera rather than masking over all those great modern optics we spend so much money on. The photo on the left is really nice and requires (and shows) some effort and knowledge needed to create. The photo on the right says, look at the filter I applied.

    PS- I don't know how my text is reading… but I'm not trying to be Internet Jerk. I think the left photo is really nice that requires effort and skill to create.

  39. Kevin Yu July 11, 2012 at 12:31 am - Reply

    i like the origenal one. but i am keen to know how the texture is attached. that may works with others. good effert

  40. Kevin Yu July 11, 2012 at 12:31 am - Reply

    i like the origenal one. but i am keen to know how the texture is attached. that may works with others. good effert

  41. William Frankhouser July 11, 2012 at 12:36 am - Reply

    Same. All for the original non-added texture

  42. William Frankhouser July 11, 2012 at 12:36 am - Reply

    Same. All for the original non-added texture

  43. Carrie Mung July 11, 2012 at 12:46 am - Reply

    Original :-)

  44. Carrie Mung July 11, 2012 at 12:46 am - Reply

    Original :-)

  45. holger feroudj July 11, 2012 at 12:46 am - Reply

    +Zachery Jensen That's true of course, the sky in itself can already be a wonderful texture for large prints :)

    +Michael Seneschal First of all – I agree with you. But just as some food for thought, we all know them, the people that are pleased by extreme texture-effects (same as e.g. saturated colors, contrasts, vignettes, etc) – usually 'normal' people that don't know much about photography nor necessarily want to know much about it. So why is this?

    I'm on your side, I prefer photos that require and show effort and knowledge, but also if somebody has no clue about the effort and knowledge it takes, someone who just looks at the result and prefers e.g. a photo that took no skill and knowledge to take, edited with a premade filter with texture and color effects, to the photo that at least we know took lotsa skill – then is this a bad thing? Not sure myself what to think about this situation so just want to throw this into the room.

  46. holger feroudj July 11, 2012 at 12:46 am - Reply

    +Zachery Jensen That's true of course, the sky in itself can already be a wonderful texture for large prints :)

    +Michael Seneschal First of all – I agree with you. But just as some food for thought, we all know them, the people that are pleased by extreme texture-effects (same as e.g. saturated colors, contrasts, vignettes, etc) – usually 'normal' people that don't know much about photography nor necessarily want to know much about it. So why is this?

    I'm on your side, I prefer photos that require and show effort and knowledge, but also if somebody has no clue about the effort and knowledge it takes, someone who just looks at the result and prefers e.g. a photo that took no skill and knowledge to take, edited with a premade filter with texture and color effects, to the photo that at least we know took lotsa skill – then is this a bad thing? Not sure myself what to think about this situation so just want to throw this into the room.

  47. Rod Hoekstra July 11, 2012 at 12:48 am - Reply

    I prefer the left.  The one on the right looks like someone applied a texture to it in some software,  whereas the effect you probably want is to make it look like an old photo.  The two are not the same,  and the result you have is too obviously manipulated.  

  48. Rod Hoekstra July 11, 2012 at 12:48 am - Reply

    I prefer the left.  The one on the right looks like someone applied a texture to it in some software,  whereas the effect you probably want is to make it look like an old photo.  The two are not the same,  and the result you have is too obviously manipulated.

  49. Jim Clark July 11, 2012 at 12:53 am - Reply

    left for me

  50. Jim Clark July 11, 2012 at 12:53 am - Reply

    left for me

  51. James Howe July 11, 2012 at 1:01 am - Reply

    I prefer the non textured image. I really like the smooth look of the sky.

  52. James Howe July 11, 2012 at 1:01 am - Reply

    I prefer the non textured image. I really like the smooth look of the sky.

  53. Charles McKnight July 11, 2012 at 1:33 am - Reply

    Left for sure

  54. Charles McKnight July 11, 2012 at 1:33 am - Reply

    Left for sure

  55. Phill Farrugia July 11, 2012 at 1:34 am - Reply

    get rid of the glassy texture, otherwise great shot!

  56. Michael Seneschal July 11, 2012 at 1:38 am - Reply

    +holger feroudj Exactly. That's exactly how I feel. Non-photography interested people eat this stuff up.

    What do you think about the archivability of textured photos? In other words, in 30-years from now, do you think we'll look at all these pseudo textured photos of our kids etc. and wish there were better versions?

    I personally think we'll look at all these filters and borders and try to find the originals. That's just my opinion, not saying I'm right or wrong. I can't imagine looking back in 30 years and thinking, 'sweet, I Photoshopped it to look torn even though it's a digital photo and getting torn is pretty much impossible'.

    It does, though, speak to a fun side of digital photo manipulation. As an example, I don't think any wedding photographers are doing this to the formal photos… at least I hope not. haha Even if the non-photography-interested bride may request their wedding photos all instagram-filtered up… in 30-years she's going to look back and wish she has great photos of her wedding.

    It's all subjective, no right or wrong.

  57. Michael Seneschal July 11, 2012 at 1:38 am - Reply

    +holger feroudj Exactly. That's exactly how I feel. Non-photography interested people eat this stuff up.

    What do you think about the archivability of textured photos? In other words, in 30-years from now, do you think we'll look at all these pseudo textured photos of our kids etc. and wish there were better versions?

    I personally think we'll look at all these filters and borders and try to find the originals. That's just my opinion, not saying I'm right or wrong. I can't imagine looking back in 30 years and thinking, 'sweet, I Photoshopped it to look torn even though it's a digital photo and getting torn is pretty much impossible'.

    It does, though, speak to a fun side of digital photo manipulation. As an example, I don't think any wedding photographers are doing this to the formal photos… at least I hope not. haha Even if the non-photography-interested bride may request their wedding photos all instagram-filtered up… in 30-years she's going to look back and wish she has great photos of her wedding.

    It's all subjective, no right or wrong.

  58. Keith Bradshaw July 11, 2012 at 1:43 am - Reply

    Prefer the shot on the left.

  59. Keith Bradshaw July 11, 2012 at 1:43 am - Reply

    Prefer the shot on the left.

  60. Josette Bloomer July 11, 2012 at 2:03 am - Reply

    wow, i like the shot on the right

  61. Josette Bloomer July 11, 2012 at 2:03 am - Reply

    wow, i like the shot on the right

  62. Sergey Bidun July 11, 2012 at 2:07 am - Reply

    I like the one on the left, more natural….

  63. Sergey Bidun July 11, 2012 at 2:07 am - Reply

    I like the one on the left, more natural….

  64. Rob Kayfish July 11, 2012 at 2:16 am - Reply

    I have to vote for the non texture one also. Great dramatic shot.

  65. Rob Kayfish July 11, 2012 at 2:16 am - Reply

    I have to vote for the non texture one also. Great dramatic shot.

  66. Youngstown Consulting-Corp July 11, 2012 at 2:17 am - Reply

    WOW..!  You are no Internet Jerk! :-)

  67. Youngstown Consulting-Corp July 11, 2012 at 2:17 am - Reply

    WOW..!  You are no Internet Jerk! :-)

  68. Chris Woodley July 11, 2012 at 2:23 am - Reply

    the right one is better

  69. Chris Woodley July 11, 2012 at 2:23 am - Reply

    the right one is better

  70. Matt BeDell July 11, 2012 at 2:31 am - Reply

    would of liked to been there it lookes like an interesting moment

  71. Matt BeDell July 11, 2012 at 2:31 am - Reply

    would of liked to been there it lookes like an interesting moment

  72. Matt Gordon July 11, 2012 at 2:50 am - Reply

    The image on the left, without texture, is great as is.  I think the one on the right, with texture, is distracting without context.  Meaning, that I believe it should only carry the pseudo-texture if within, as you said before, a movie poster or something.  Without the context, the texture is meaningless, and distracting. 

  73. Matt Gordon July 11, 2012 at 2:50 am - Reply

    The image on the left, without texture, is great as is.  I think the one on the right, with texture, is distracting without context.  Meaning, that I believe it should only carry the pseudo-texture if within, as you said before, a movie poster or something.  Without the context, the texture is meaningless, and distracting.

  74. Douglas Ford July 11, 2012 at 3:05 am - Reply

    I agree with Matt, the texture on the right detracts rather than enhances. Perhaps a different approach to the texture? It might work with a more generalized, finer grained, "sandy" type of texture, rather than something that draws the eye up away from the main subject.

  75. Douglas Ford July 11, 2012 at 3:05 am - Reply

    I agree with Matt, the texture on the right detracts rather than enhances. Perhaps a different approach to the texture? It might work with a more generalized, finer grained, "sandy" type of texture, rather than something that draws the eye up away from the main subject.

  76. Anthonny Arias July 11, 2012 at 5:15 am - Reply

    I like no texture. The texture photography remind me some kind of beer ad.

  77. Anthonny Arias July 11, 2012 at 5:15 am - Reply

    I like no texture. The texture photography remind me some kind of beer ad.

  78. Farah Jack Mustaklem July 11, 2012 at 6:12 am - Reply

    Although the textured one looks cool, I prefer the one on the left.

  79. Farah Jack Mustaklem July 11, 2012 at 6:12 am - Reply

    Although the textured one looks cool, I prefer the one on the left.

  80. Damien Harrison July 11, 2012 at 6:38 am - Reply

    I prefer a mixture no texture in the sky but texture on the ground and building works well. X

  81. Damien Harrison July 11, 2012 at 6:38 am - Reply

    I prefer a mixture no texture in the sky but texture on the ground and building works well. X

  82. Advait Murudkar July 11, 2012 at 7:18 am - Reply

    No texture the smoothness gives a pleasant feeling..love to hear from all of you..

  83. Advait Murudkar July 11, 2012 at 7:18 am - Reply

    No texture the smoothness gives a pleasant feeling..love to hear from all of you..

  84. Eli Salvans July 11, 2012 at 7:20 am - Reply

    Sin "textura" … para este cielo

  85. Eli Salvans July 11, 2012 at 7:20 am - Reply

    Sin "textura" … para este cielo

  86. Haydn Mowbray July 11, 2012 at 7:29 am - Reply

    I prefer no texture myself!

  87. Haydn Mowbray July 11, 2012 at 7:29 am - Reply

    I prefer no texture myself!

  88. Helly Belly July 11, 2012 at 10:32 am - Reply

    God …. With these pictures it can be concluded that the man who drew this picture.
     The first reason: The picture is very strange, and this effect was obtained by the camera dirty.
     Other reasons include:
     -the man was drunk
     -the man was drunk a lot
     Drunken-made ​​two images of the same, except that the camera broke on the second camera :-)

  89. Helly Belly July 11, 2012 at 10:32 am - Reply

    God …. With these pictures it can be concluded that the man who drew this picture.
     The first reason: The picture is very strange, and this effect was obtained by the camera dirty.
     Other reasons include:
     -the man was drunk
     -the man was drunk a lot
     Drunken-made ​​two images of the same, except that the camera broke on the second camera :-)

  90. Erkki Juurus July 11, 2012 at 11:38 am - Reply

    I tend to prefer the one on the left, too. The one on the right looks a bit like a neglected and poorly handled print, and in case it's not one, aka a scan of a wrinkled and weathered print, it looks just like a rather pointless fake gimmick. The end result looks fine and almost authentic, though. 

    On the other hand, had it been the other way around, the one on the right being the original and the one on the left the end result, that would have been equally cool too. Actually even more so. Here's why I think so.

    Even though the one with the texture is showing commendable level of Photoshop skills, and it is a matter of taste of course, but what's the point of making a photo look like (a scan of an) old and battered (photo), if it really isn't one? 

    I agree that they both look kinda cool and the one on the left might make a nice print to be hanged on the wall. However, I think the one with that particular texture would only make a fine print in a frame or even as a poster if the subject in the photo was something or someone of great emotional value. A loved one already passed on, or in case it's a place or building, it should be a one of great importance, something that no longer exists, like from one's childhood. It should be something worth preserving, even as a battered copy, with the crackles and all.

    That photo of an old building could of course be just that but, if it wasn't, it would be just a pointless gimmick, wouldn't it. More so than many other obvious gimmicks. All about showing off photo editing skills, little about content.
    Not that there's anything wrong with that per se, though, we all tinker and play at times, just for the heck of it.

    Suppose the point I'm trying to make is that, real crackled photo is usually not saved and copied for just the sake of the battered and crackled look. Quite the opposite, the crackles and other damages are the unwanted features we try to avoid and hide at all cost, rather than enhance. People pay money to get rid of real defects like that in real old photos. I, too, have salvaged such old photos for other people. That's why I think the wrinkled and aged photo texture should be used very carefully, for it so easily ends up looking a bit daft.

    Having said all that, however, I do appreciate the effort and skills, and I kinda like both of the photos. I do see the point of the technique, if/when one actually wants (or needs) to fake the past for fiction. They do it all the time for the movies, for example.

    It just that this particular effect is a bit tricky, for the aforementioned reasons. However good you are with Photoshop. If you do it, and especially as a print, make sure your subject has (or looks like it does) a reason powerful enough to be saved, copied and reprinted even with the wrinkles of age and abuse still visible, and that the end result looks un-gimmicky enough.
    Just saying, since you asked… ;-)

    PS.
    I think the one on the right, with the texture, it might look even better as a b&w version. Could be worth experimenting.

  91. Erkki Juurus July 11, 2012 at 11:38 am - Reply

    I tend to prefer the one on the left, too.
    Even though the one on the right with the texture is showing commendable level of Photoshop skills, and it is a matter of taste of course, but what's the point of making a photo look like (a scan of an) old and battered (photo), if it really isn't one? 

    That photo of an old building could of course be of a great emotional value to someone but, if it wasn't, adding the texture would be just a pointless gimmick, wouldn't it. More so than many other obvious gimmicks. All about showing off photo editing skills, little about content.
    Not that there's anything wrong with that per se, though, we all tinker and play at times, just for the heck of it.

    Suppose the point I'm trying to make is that, real crackled photo is usually not saved and copied for just the sake of the battered and crackled look. Quite the opposite, the crackles and other damages are the unwanted features we try to avoid and hide at all cost, rather than enhance. People pay money to get rid of real defects like that in real old photos. I, too, have salvaged such old photos for other people. That's why I think the wrinkled and aged photo texture should be used very carefully, for it so easily ends up looking silly.

    However, I do see the point of the technique, when one actually needs to fake the past for fiction, for example. They do it all the time for the movies, for example.

    It just that this particular effect is a bit tricky, for the aforementioned reasons. However good you are with Photoshop. If you do it, especially as a print, make sure your subject has (or looks like it does) a reason good enough to be saved, copied and reprinted even with the wrinkles of age and abuse still visible, so that the end result looks un-gimmicky enough.
    Just saying, since you asked… ;-)

    PS.
    I think the one on the right, with the texture, it might look even better as a b&w version. Could be worth experimenting.

  92. Helly Belly July 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm - Reply

    WOW!

  93. Helly Belly July 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm - Reply

    WOW!

  94. Matthew Lewis July 11, 2012 at 4:00 pm - Reply

    I saw your post last night and looked at again this morning. As many have said, I think I prefer the version without the texture. In my mind a print is so much different than what you "see" on a digital display. Some treatments work well in both media, others only one. I find that I still have to print certain photographs to stare at for a while, to see if I really like them.

  95. Matthew Lewis July 11, 2012 at 4:00 pm - Reply

    I saw your post last night and looked at again this morning. As many have said, I think I prefer the version without the texture. In my mind a print is so much different than what you "see" on a digital display. Some treatments work well in both media, others only one. I find that I still have to print certain photographs to stare at for a while, to see if I really like them.

  96. Javier Esvall July 11, 2012 at 5:29 pm - Reply

    I like the one on the left.

  97. Javier Esvall July 11, 2012 at 5:29 pm - Reply

    I like the one on the left.

  98. Nick Nieto July 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm - Reply

    I agree with you.

    If I was just to pick my favorite of the 2, without the texture….

    If I was a client and I wanted to use it for a poster hell yeah I like the texture – if it fit with my theme. So It really comes to usage. nice work.

  99. I’m in agreement with your initial analysis of the right making more sense as some sort of movie poster or even an album cover with a recrop. As it stands now, the garage is the main element of the photo, and on the non-textured one, its presence draws your eyes down to it. The heaviness of the texture draws your eyes away from the interesting element of the image, which would be perfect of there was a title up there, but not so much when it’s just sky.

  100. Troy Guillory July 11, 2012 at 8:59 pm - Reply

    Left

  101. Troy Guillory July 11, 2012 at 8:59 pm - Reply

    Left

  102. Michael Anderson July 12, 2012 at 12:07 am - Reply

    On the left.

  103. Michael Anderson July 12, 2012 at 12:07 am - Reply

    On the left.

  104. Dena July 11, 2012 at 5:45 pm - Reply

    I like them both, too, but the one on the right is my favorite. The texture makes me see a story emerging within, Love it.

  105. Scott Stuart July 12, 2012 at 3:02 am - Reply

    I like the one on the left. People used to pay me to fix those cracks on their old photos ;] I say, print it and in time it'll find it's way to the photo on the right eventually.

  106. Scott Stuart July 12, 2012 at 3:02 am - Reply

    I like the one on the left. People used to pay me to fix those cracks on their old photos ;] I say, print it and in time it'll find it's way to the photo on the right eventually.

  107. Rick July 12, 2012 at 12:04 am - Reply

    Without texture please :P

    Cheers.

  108. John Zachary July 16, 2012 at 10:31 pm - Reply

    I love the one on the left. Nice work.

  109. John Zachary July 16, 2012 at 10:31 pm - Reply

    I love the one on the left. Nice work.

  110. extra resources July 16, 2012 at 9:53 pm - Reply

    Had to come by, Was just browsing NewsGator and this blog post made
    my day. Keep it up!

Leave a Reply