question

[low_delta]

Take a look at these photos.

Which four are most like each other? Or which one is least like the others (disregard size and shape)? And why, of course.

Comments

[mummm.livejournal.com]

The first one, to me, is the least like the others since it has subject matter which is ornate. Also the walls are finished, not in any decay.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I think this is probably the most relevant distinction. I was going for a feel of urban emptiness, with the set, but the others are a little more run down, than simply empty.

[laciann.livejournal.com]

The first one is different - it seems to be elegantly aged. The other ones speak of age and decay.

[laciann.livejournal.com]

Oh look at that!! We used the same words! I swear I didn't read the other response first!

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Good comment. Thank you!

[sunshine-two.livejournal.com]

the last 4 based on their condition.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Thanks! (see comments above)

[mellary4.livejournal.com]

The first one is the least like the others to me also and for the same reasons the others said so far but also because the first one suggests more activity by people and the others seem to convey abandonment and aloneness.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Good thought.

#2 is abandoned and run down. #4 and 5 are not abandoned, but still run down. #1 and 3 are neither abandoned nor run down, but #1 is pretty.

[likethebeer.livejournal.com]

I take myself out of the quiz, because I read the answers before coming up with my own.

Those photos really cool - I like what you did with the colors. In that way, I see the 4th photo, because the space has no bricks, and the composition is different in a way I can't properly articulate without a Kelly blue book.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

You mean the cream city bricks? I hadn't thought of that distinction.

Funny, to me, the two most similar, compositionally, are numbers 3 and 4.

[pondhopper.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...the first one stands out as being a different sort of building and less run down. All the pics include signs of some sort. The second one is the only one without a touch of color. Take your pick.
;)
I like them all, though.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I might be able to redo #2 to add some color. I think #1 is the winner (or loser?) as the odd man out (see other comments).

[sirreal13.livejournal.com]

#1 is kind of like #5 in that the infrastructure helps frame the field of view. I like the framing in No. 1, but it is slightly claustrophobic (like Chicago under the EL tracks)

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Good call. I hadn't caught that. The subject is set off by iron girders. Unfortunately, there are only two of them.

In #1, the thing that makes the shot is the contrast between the very ornate and soaring Marshall Building, and the very industrial and heavy EL.

I just thought of another difference - #1 was Chicago, while the others are all Milwaukee. Not that it makes a difference in what I'm after, but it's there.

[cynnerth.livejournal.com]

To me, they all show old buildings, but the first one is a building that is being taken good care of. The rest don't have any restorations done.

[opalescence.livejournal.com]

Well, the fourth is least like the others because it has no windows.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

It does have a big window. But not double-hung sash windows!

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Cool question! Initially i thought the first one was different, as it's more contemporary looking - it looks sharper and the subject matter isn't dilapidated. But i changed my mind. The photo that's most different is the fourth one, because the sign has no words on it. All the other pics have signs with words.

[cynnerth.livejournal.com]

Oh! I like your answer.

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Yay! But is it the correct one? Or maybe there isn't a correct one. :)

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Only a special few answers can be wrong. Like if you had said "number 3 is most different, because it has cars in it." That would be wrong. Fortunately, my friends list is more discriminating than that.

That having been said, I'm going to go with your initial thought. What I was getting at was for the feel of the images, rather than the details.

Thanks!

Oh, and your second answer is not a bad one, in that there are no words in the image. But if that were the criterion, number 1 wouldn't pass very well, since the words are not as much of a focal point as they are in any of the others.

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

So Cyn was correct too. :D

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

True, that second part. Although dilapidated buildings was your common theme (making the first pic the odd one out), i thought the signs could be the common theme, and so chose the only one without words in the signs. But wait, i could still chose the 4th pic because the sign itself (with or without words) is so understated. The signs may not be prominent in the first pic but there sure are a lot of them! OK, i'd like to see you do another one of these questions some time.

[ranunculus.livejournal.com]

# 4 which has a lot of wood rather than brick as it's background. Of course it could also be # 3 which has Welsh on the window, but not on the sign....

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Someone else commented on the difference of brick in the walls.

When I first posted this, I Googled the text on the window. "An teach tabhairne Eireannach" is Gaelic for "an Irish pub."

Thanks!