Composition critique?

[Aaron Strasburg]

I've always liked this photo, taken a few years ago on the Isla Mujeres, Mexico. For Mary's benefit this was taken with my G2 as a Large/Fine JPEG.

Other than the obvious "the horizon is centered" does anyone have ideas for improving the composition? It's not terribly balanced left-right with the two lights, but I think the bright red frame on the left, then the modern light on the left seem to draw the eye in, then you see the storm in the distance. Even the centered horizon doesn't bother me, but I'm curious to see what others have to say.

Finally, here it is:

 

[Mary Bull]

One idea

Aaron, it's quite beautiful. I can only aspire to such clarity and color balance as I'm learning to better use my G2.

You're right about the interesting contrast of the two lights. But the intense red frame of the one on the left overwhelms my sense of proportion. Would you consider it to be a good idea to crop out part of the left-hand light?

If you would give me permission, I would like to save this image to my Desktop, move it into LightZone, and play with that idea a bit, myself. Not for re-posting here, necessarily, but just to see if it would work for me.

I'll be very interested to see what you and other more experienced and able phtographer-artists would have to say about this cropping-idea of mine.

Mary

 

[Aaron Strasburg]

Hi Mary,

You have my permission to "borrow" this image. I would be interested to see what you come up with, perhaps others may be as well so I think reposting back here is appropriate.

Thanks, Aaron

 

[Mary Bull]

Hi Mary,

You have my permission to "borrow" this image. I would be interested to see what you come up with, perhaps others may be as well so I think reposting back here is appropriate.

Thank you so very much, Aaron.

I'm borrowing it, and after we have finished our OPF discussion, I will delete it and all my copies from my hard drive.

The one place it will stay will be at Flickr, for the embedding link. And I'll be sure to have a copyright notice on that one.

Off to play.

Mary

 

[Mary Bull]

Mary's Take on Aaron's Beautiful Image

Hi Mary,

You have my permission to "borrow" this image. I would be interested to see what you come up with, perhaps others may be as well so I think reposting back here is appropriate.

So, here it is. See what you think.

I'm not at all sure I like my take better. The crop took some of the drama out of the image, made it a bit more conventional.

The only thing I did with it was to make several crops in LightZone and choose the one which suited my gut feeling best--excluding, from the mix I chose from, your original; because it is growing on me. I am not so jarred by the prominent red frame of the left-hand light as I was on first viewing it. Have a look at my crop, though:

Mary's Take on Aaron's Beautiful Photo

Mary

 

[Ray West]

Hi Aaron,

I think the red at the top and the bit of bright blue sky makes it all a bit too cheerful. On my monitor your original image is six inches high - crop off the top inch and it looks more centred to me. All subjective, of course.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Don Lashier]

I would just make a moderate crop. Analysis based on the corners.

Image Copyright Aaron Strasburg

 

[Alain Briot]

I think the high tech light on the right conflicts with the classical Fresnel lens on the left. That may be the purpose of the image, and if this is the case then it is not for me to discuss. Just let me know and I'll add to my post. I prefer to stop there than comment on what may be an intentional, purposeful and thought-out choice.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Mary,

Your crop is correct, putting more emphasis on the center and providing a more serene look to the water. It is not jarring, but is pretty peaceful. There is a feeling of openness and safety.
The lights and railing are all protective.


Aaron,

Your original is strong, has immediate close presence as the red is unavoidable penetrating the nearby space. This makes the attention very near the viewer and that is somewhat disconcerting. There appears so little room. It is generally a not inviting space. One wonders even if one is permitted to go past the red light.

For these reasons, the very strong engagement with the viewer, I like this original view better. I'd do a lot of careful work on the shy and water in separate RAW conversions. Otherwisew I like it.

It depends what you want a picture for? A postcard, One that might sell in an art gallery, or one that for tourists in a village store near Cape Cod in Massachussets?

Asher

 

[Don Lashier]

I think the high tech light on the right conflicts with the classical Fresnel lens on the left.

I agree. I'd prefer that the right hand light not be in the image at all. I suppose it could be cloned out but here's a severe crop that deals with it.

Image Copyright Aaron Strasburg

- DL

 

[Alain Briot]

Don,

That's what I had in mind. I like it that way. Thank you for posting this new version.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Gon, Alain and Mary, All the red light and the total light on the right are important. They close the space and makes the effect of the red form more imposing.

Further, it brings an element of a 4th dimension, time, as there is rust that has eroded the base of the mid 20th Century light fitting on the right and it has stained the railing.

Cropping the right side of the picture removes impact and meaning which might be fine if one is going to add text over the water for a billboard, but hardly a good idea,

In no way would I ever think such a cropped picture would be chosen for a gallery. But maybe if someone with unique tastes owns a store for tourist in Cape Cod, fine, perfectly fine.

Think about this.

Aaron took the shot because he saw the components and then used all his training, experience, thoughts, sense of "great and impactful" (that we., at least are not even aware of), consciously or by "intuition and then he chose what to include and what to exclude.

Now is it the idea "to start the creative process from the beginning" or just critique?

I gave a critique.

To me, at least, it is strong, impactful, invades my near space and indicates forces and limits, the presence and the past as well as future possibilities beyond this foreground.

I have neither license nor inclination to make a bland, softhearted post card out of such a picture.

Asher

 

[Alain Briot]

Asher,

Good point. As I wrote in my original post:

"I think the high tech light on the right conflicts with the classical Fresnel lens on the left. That may be the purpose of the image, and if this is the case then it is not for me to discuss. Just let me know and I'll add to my post. I prefer to stop there than comment on what may be an intentional, purposeful and thought-out choice."

I'd like to hear from Aaron to know how his intentions for the photograph. To me what makes an online critique difficult is not all looking at the same print at the same time...

 

[Ray West]

It looks to me as if someone should have used stainless fixings for the new lamp, a couple more years and it won't be there. Typical of today's standard of workmanship ;-)

 

[Mary Bull]

Gon, Alain and Mary, All the red light and the total light on the right are important. They close the space and makes the effect of the red form more imposing.

Further, it brings an element of a 4th dimension, time, as there is rust that has eroded the base of the mid 20th Century light fitting on the right and it has stained the railing.

Cropping the right side of the picture removes impact and meaning which might be fine if one is going to add text over the water for a billboard, but hardly a good idea

Asher, I did begin this, and I take full responsibility. Aaron mentioned my name--he wished me to see what the possibilities were for my G2--when he posted the critique request.

No one replied for awhile, so I gave my honest reaction to the picture: so much red in the foreground made me want to back away from it.

I asked and got permission to see if I could calm the image down to my own taste. I really never intended when I made the request to post what I'd done here. But Aaron replied that he thought I should--that he would like to see what I did, and that others here might be interested, also.

Then, as I worked with the image, I began to see that Aaron's original image was much stronger, and I liked it more than my crop. That crop, for me, removed all the pictorial drama, and it was not good to have done that. This aside from the historical and documentary values the crop removed.

But, I posted it because I had promised Aaron that I would. And in the text with my post, I said--essentially--that his picture had grown on me as I worked with it, and that I did not now find it jarring.

In no way would I ever think such a cropped picture would be chosen for a gallery. But maybe if someone with unique tastes owns a store for tourist in Cape Cod, fine, perfectly fine.

Indeed, I made a "postcard."

But I see the great beauty and artistic value of Aaron's original image.

Think about this.

Aaron took the shot because he saw the components and then used all his training, experience, thoughts, sense of "great and impactful" (that we., at least are not even aware of), consciously or by "intuition and then he chose what to include and what to exclude.

Now is it the idea "to start the creative process from the beginning" or just critique?

I gave a critique.

To me, at least, it is strong, impactful, invades my near space and indicates forces and limits, the presence and the past as well as future possibilities beyond this foreground.

I have neither license nor inclination to make a bland, softhearted post card out of such a picture.

Well, call me a philistine, but I did have the inclination and I received specific license/permission from Aaron Strasburg to try it. I tried it, I did not end up liking what I did, but in the process I gained an appreciation for the work, which I did not, at first sight, fully understand. And also greater insight into, and enjoyment of, Aaron's achievement.

If this forum is not the place where I should have been learning that, then I offer my apologies for replying to the OP in the first place.

Mary

 

[Erik DeBill]

I think the red at the top and the bit of bright blue sky makes it all a bit too cheerful. On my monitor your original image is six inches high - crop off the top inch and it looks more centred to me. All subjective, of course.

Ironically, I was wishing for a bit more of the sky. I was wishing that it was taken with a little wider lens from a position where I could see more of the sea between the lights and where the top of the image would extend higher, where I could see the top of the red light and more of the dramatic clouds. I like the contrast of the bright sunny happy foreground and the storm in the distance. I find the red light curious and would love to see more. Being near the sea is all about the big huge sky (rather like being on the great plains) and I wish for more of it.

Not useful for cropping the existing image, but perhaps if a similar opportunity were to present itself in the future.

 

[Don Lashier]

Well, Aaron asked for a composition critique, and for a given shot, at least part of the answer is cropping suggestions, theoretically to exhibit ways that the composition might be improved. It's much easier and more immediate to demonstate the suggestion rather than try to describe it in words.

I agree with Alain that the image would be much stronger without the light on the right. Two prominent subjects fight each other and draw attention from the dramatic background. However I'm not nuts about the crop required to remedy that in this shot. My first crop was my preference simply (IMO) strengthening the shot by drawing the corners (as I mentioned "corner analysis") without significantly altering the original concept. I suspect that the conditions would not have permitted a similar shot without the light on the right, but I suspect a vertical shot might have worked better - both eliminating the light on the right and pulling in the tops of the dramatic cloud formations.

These issues aside, I like the potential here - contrast of natural/manmade both in colors and subject, but regardless I doubt that the current shot is gallery material - a vertical might have been. Aaron did ask for a critique and that's mine. Sorry if I violated the rules - I'll stick to words for critiques in the future.

- DL

 

[Asher Kelman]

My points were not meant to be harsh to anyone. Just we need to look at the heading.

Critique is, "This is how I feel when I look at this.” not "This is how you should have taken or made the picture! We didn't take the picture.

"I fee" is to do with all the senses: happy, sad, angry, frightened, lovesick, worried, desperate etc.

Then one could say what my reaction is now: "I move on" or "I remember, compare, shout, run, stare for an hour, think of the consequences, or ponder the relevance".

Now, "What is my overall impression?"

"Do I like it? Would I want to see it again?" If so, then why? "What is it about the picture that makes me react that way? Are there other photographs or works of art, films, poetry that have the same ideas, latent in this image?"

None of this involves cutting someone's pictures!

Now, maybe, big maybe, this is my fault for not clarifying this matter sufficiently, but here we are here now.

So look at the posts heading and the photographers question.

Optimize, we all know: we do whatever we like to make best use of the image file presented.

Optimize with a title or theme: The photographer has expressed a point of view and has defined somewhat, the narrower limits to investigate.

Retouch deals with getting rid of flaws such as the in difficult challenge Bev just posted. Retouch also deals with extractions, changing backgrounds, removing flare, rebuilding rooms after mess is taken away etc.

We are doing well here; we just need to remember the instructions given by the poster.

It's finer, BTW to say, "I can't fathom what the rusty light on the right adds to this picture" or "I wonder where the photographer wants us to look as xyz distracts me?"

That's unfortunate, but at least it is part of a spectrum of valid opinions if that's your reaction.

So let's try again to critique.

Asher

 

[Alain Briot]

Well, Aaron asked for a composition critique, and for a given shot, at least part of the answer is cropping suggestions, theoretically to exhibit ways that the composition might be improved. It's much easier and more immediate to demonstate the suggestion rather than try to describe it in words.

I agree with Alain that the image would be much stronger without the light on the right. Two prominent subjects fight each other and draw attention from the dramatic background. However I'm not nuts about the crop required to remedy that in this shot. My first crop was my preference simply (IMO) strengthening the shot by drawing the corners (as I mentioned "corner analysis") without significantly altering the original concept. I suspect that the conditions would not have permitted a similar shot without the light on the right, but I suspect a vertical shot might have worked better - both eliminating the light on the right and pulling in the tops of the dramatic cloud formations.

These issues aside, I like the potential here - contrast of natural/manmade both in colors and subject, but regardless I doubt that the current shot is gallery material - a vertical might have been. Aaron did ask for a critique and that's mine. Sorry if I violated the rules - I'll stick to words for critiques in the future.

- DL

Exactly. We must also remember that the original poster wants help. There may be a specific topic they want help with, but my experience taught me that when someone needs help, they are not totally aware of precisely what help they may need. That in fact is the basis of consulting. In my consulting practice, many people who register want to get an evaluation so to speak. I have had countless students come to me asking for help in regard to "fine tuning their work" while in fact what they needed was to do serious improvements in areas they were not aware needed work. I see it as my role to point out everything that can be improved upon, provided what I see needs improvements is not a purposeful intent on the part of the artist, as I pointed in my original post.

 

[Dierk Haasis]

OK, my go for what I see in the image.

1. Since Aaron himself notes the centred horizon - in what I understand is a negative: It's exactly where it should be! The rule about never cutting an image in half by a horizon line is one of the most stupidest photographic rules ever - and the one broken most. If at all it applies to rather featureless landscapes, i.e. ocean without waves breaks or the flatlands of any country.
In this case the composition is feature-rich with a very prominent foreground. Don't worry about a centred horizon.

2. The rising storm makes a good background, lending some aesthetic feature to it [instead of empty] and it gives meaning to the lighthouse lamps.

3. Every now and then since I saw the photo for the first time I thought about a "more interesting" crop since another stupid rule has cut itself into my brain: Never use a square or near-square since it is boring. Well, I don't see another crop in this image. Whatever one cuts out to improve upon the dimensions of the photo would change the content and aesthetic.

4. Colours could be enhanced a little, but only in so far that the ocean's turquoise could be pushed a bit to make a stronger counterpoint to the strong red [BTW, I am not a fan of Baroque music but the idea of the counterpoint is brilliant].


Now, any formal analysis is only a tool for, curiously, various tasks; there's the question of how to see a good image in the future. And there is the interesting search for meaning: How does form follow function [less loaded: what does the form relay to us].

We see several themes:

a) purely formal big vs. small, colour vs. dullness
b) purely technical 'see what a wide angle lens can do'
c) nostalgia vs. modern times
d) nature vs. nurture [sounds better and is less confusing than nature vs. technology]

I can only guess what captures Aaron's imagination even after years but it most likely is a combination of the four major themes I delineated - question remains what is the main theme for him. It depends on this decision what to do to enhance this, make the content more apparent.

Which brings me to my only negative point. The picture is a bit unfocussed, it does not tell the viewer what he should see [no, art is not in the ey of the beholder, not in any meanigful or productive sense]. The artist has to give me something to work with, I, as the observer, may see more or other things than the artist but I should have a lead of what the original intent was - what's the theme the author saw?

I hope this helped a bit, Aaron.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've always liked this photo, taken a few years ago on the Isla Mujeres, Mexico. For Mary's benefit this was taken with my G2 as a Large/Fine JPEG.

Other than the obvious "the horizon is centered" does anyone have ideas for improving the composition? It's not terribly balanced left-right with the two lights, but I think the bright red frame on the left, then the modern light on the left seem to draw the eye in, then you see the storm in the distance. Even the centered horizon doesn't bother me, but I'm curious to see what others have to say.

Finally, here it is:

I'm afraid I don't know what you are trying to say, or what feeling you want to convey. The contrast between the two lights doesn't say anything in particular to me, and the rain cell in the background is not strong enough to be a satisfying conclusion to scanning the picture. It might work in conjunction with some additional shots that establish some premise, and show the storm coming much closer. Or you could have taken a different picture, one which showed more of the red warning light, and gave the distant storm more character. That would have required standing further back, a longer lens or tight crop, and losing the second light on the right. Not very helpful advice with respect to an existing file. But next time a scene strikes you, ask what story it is telling you, and then try to tell that story in a picture. That's a somewhat journalistic approach, but it has worked for me.

scott

 

[Aaron Strasburg]

Wow

Thanks for all of the comments and different interpretations. I wasn't able to get back to this yesterday so I was quite surprised to see all the comments. Let me take some time to reply to some of them as well as provide some insight into the photo. This image is nearly 3yrs old, and it's quite likely that this lighthouse doesn't even exist today. Isla Mujeres, off the coast from Cancun, Mexico, was hit very hard by a hurricane last summer. That may color my feelings for the image a bit as well.

Mary, I'm glad you like the image. Your crop is quite different, changing the feeling substantially. It does take away much of the drama, which isn't really what I intended. I find it fascinating that such a seemingly minor change makes such a difference.

Similarly for Ray's comment, removing the top inch would indeed make the image yet more dramatic. It also brings it closer to 3:2, which looks more "right" to me after shooting almost exclusively with the 20D for the past 1.5yrs.

I like Don's crop a lot. It removes the extraneous decking and blown highlights without a major change to the feeling of the image.

With regards to Alain's comments on the juxtaposition of the old and the new that is indeed something that I like about the image. It's probably from my upbringing, spending a fair bit of time on the farm that my dad grew up on and now being an electrical engineer working on computer chips. I love old machinery, trying to figure out what it does and how it works. At the same time I'm highly technical and moderately infatuated with gadgetry. Something I have to restrain when it comes to photography.

Asher, your interpretation of Mary's crop is spot on. If you wanted the image to show the safety and comfort provided to ships, even in the face of a storm, the nearly square format and less red does that nicely. What do I want to do with the image? Good question. This group is the first outside my immediate family to even see it. I don't believe I've ever tried to print it, because I've not felt confident that I could get a print that would do it justice. This feedback and ideas on interpreting the image has inspired me, though. I grew up in Missouri and now live in New Mexico. The sea is a mystery to me. Dangerous, foreboding.

The crop without the small light feels off balance, but I can see why some may like it. If I'd never seen the original I might, but I can't get past the emptiness on the right. Again, I really appreciate everyone's efforts in modifying the original image and the many insightful comments. I should have been more explicit that I was requesting both criticism and reinterpretation.

Mary, thank you for kicking off this discussion. I was really quite shocked to see how it had grown and I regret that I wasn't able to reply sooner.

I like Erik's idea for a vertical shot. That would have made it much simpler to eliminate the modern light and would have been a substantially different interpretation. Too bad I didn't think of it at the time. I did take a few more shots from the lighthouse but none were particularly interesting.

Dierk's comments are interesting as well, and the comment about the lack of focus is difficult to argue with as well, though I remain uncertain as to the solution in this case. My comment on the centered horizon was out of place with this group. I've seen too many "critiques" in other fora where that was the most substantive comment made, which is obviously not the case here.

To address some of the technical concerns, the platform at the top of the lighthouse was rather cramped. This was shot at the shortest focal length available on the G2, 35mm equivalent. The fresnel light was very close, and only the 7mm actual focal length allowed me to capture everything in focus. Given my 20D and EF-S 10-22 I'd have many different options. They didn't even exist at the time, and 35mm was the widest lens I even owned for my film body.

I laughed at Asher's comment about using all my training. That would be a big zero at the time, so this is more a matter of luck, things I'd unconsciously absorbed, and perhaps a small amount of inate talent. But I'm probably not supposed to admit any of that.

Thank you all for your time. It's been quite instructive for me. And I will try to be more explicit in my expectations for feedback.

Regards, Aaron

 

[Don Lashier]

The crop without the small light feels off balance, but I can see why some may like it. If I'd never seen the original I might, but I can't get past the emptiness on the right.

I agree that it doesn't work with this shot, but a vertical would have balanced better with more background, in particular more clouds. I don't think such would have looked unbalanced (as does the square crop) but would have made a stronger statement of the manmade "protector" versus wild nature, safe here versus at mercy out there.

One habit I developed early on is if I find a promising shot, I shoot the hell out of it, both vertical and horizontal, and varying the composition. It's often surprising (at least until your viewfinder eye is highly trained) what works when you view on-screen versus in the viewfinder. It's exactly such exercises that train your "viewfinder" eye.

- DL

 

[Asher Kelman]

Congratulations every one who did so well under fire! It's tough to be honest, yet without it, the comments are like social greetings, "I love that dress!" when you think, "Doesn't she look in the mirror before leaving the house?

I think this critique serves all of us well and it's a start!

And if something clicks, refer to other photographs or wroks of art that this might remind you of or contrast with.

Good job!

Asher

 

[Don Lashier]

Congratulations every one who did so well under fire! It's tough to be honest, yet without it, the comments are like social greetings, "I love that dress!" when you think, "Doesn't she look in the mirror before leaving the house?

I see two types of critique requests (elsewhere). The first is where the OP already thinks it's the ultimate shot and is really looking for "oohs" and "aahs", and is sometimes offended by honest critique. The second is where the OP likes the shot but believes it could perhaps be made better, either thru cropping/adjustment, or in a re-shoot (next time), and is looking for honest feedback and suggestions. I perceived Aaron's request as the latter, and I think some very good observations were made.

- DL

 

[Asher Kelman]

The oohs and the aahs we've delegated to the show and tell thread challenges like, "Wild Animal Hunting". There we post and admire or not each other's work.

Critique if far more important. Hopefully this will give really useful information to hte photographer.

And Don, usually, Critique that is not asking for changes, just for honest reactions and evaluations. This is where feedback can, in part be used by the photographer to help decide which of 120 pictures he/she loves should be presented to a gallery for a potential show.

It is not that the photographer is delegating his taste to others, rather he can use the honest reaction, assessment and feedback to pace and order which pictures might belong to which kind of audience.

I just hope we a state what we a looking for when we ask for help: As examples:

1. Have fun with my RAW file and do your best with your own idea of my file!

2. Express best this idea, of mine, "XYZ".

3. Just give a critique of the picture as it is.

4. Repair or deal with these issues.

Each photographer can decide which of these are needed and it could be all of them or just one!

Asher

 

[Don Lashier]

And Don, usually, Critique that is not asking for changes, just for honest reactions and evaluations.

Asher, I agree, but Mary had already asked for, and received, permission to post a crop. I would not have done so otherwise, and never even considered "editing" changes. Even so the request was specifically for composition critique and suggestions - for a given image (especially where the image isn't easily reshot) this is almost synonymous with cropping suggestions. For that matter, I rarely respond to critique requests at all although I don't hesitate to praise an image I particularly like, whether in a critique thread or "show and tell".

- DL

 

[Ray West]

does anyone have ideas for improving the composition?

To me, composition refers to layout/format/position of objects. With a scenic view, you can normally only arrange things by moving your position or focal length, maybe erase stuff in pp. Aaron took this a few years ago, so I thought it was outside his request to suggest re-taking it. So, the only thing left is cropping or pp. Not much to play with in pp wrt moving things around in this image.

However, if composition includes the general colouring/appearance of the image, and so on, then I would like to add, as well as my suggested crop, a darkening of the storm clouds, and possible darken the shadows of the white woodwork to a blue grey, perhaps to pickup the colours of the new clouds. Maybe paint in some more interesting storm clouds, although these are OKish, maybe posterise it.

Finally, a 'moving gif' to give the beacon a flash, every five seconds or so.....

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Asher Kelman]

Don,

You are a leader and an excellent fellow! We are on the right track. You should, IMHO, be able to go over the difficult line and after you've said what is truly you like about a photograph, (if anything) say, this does nothing for me, it looks muddy, uninteresting and the colors make me want to vomit.

Now for sure, that is not pleasent to read. however, if this describes you reaction truthfully, then it is what the photographer needs to hear.

If you are off the chart, other opinions should balance you out. We are doing damage to each other if we cannot bring ourselves to disclose feelings.

Anyway, this is still the beginnings in a process we are trying to create, where everyone knows the kinds of reviews there are and how to post and how to respond.

These reviews are some of the best I've seen!

Asher

 

[Aaron Strasburg]

Thanks again for the feedback. Don's advice to "shoot the hell out of it" is very good. On the other hand there's a shot in this sequence of my wife down on the ground looking up at me patiently that serves as a reminder that we may not have infinite time. Photography vs vacationing. I enjoy trying to capture not just vacation shots but interesting photos as well, but they do require more time.

I'm still trying to visualize this shot in a vertical orientation as Don suggests. I have the advantage of seeing the whole sequence of shots that tell me there's nothing but blue sky above the dark clouds. That would be an interesting, definitely very different image.

Don is exactly correct in his interpretation of my intentions with this thread, though my request was poorly worded. Mary's request to attempt variations on the image was entirely appropriate, as were the other attempts, in my opinion. Asher's more detailed list of requests will serve us well.

To Ray's comment on further adjustment, now that I have seen some of the possibilities for this image I will go forth and Photoshop with the idea of generating a nice print. I think it would quite a nice addition to the drab cubicle walls at work, a reminder of quite possibly the most relaxing vacation I've ever taken.

Recognizing that this thread has consumed considerable time and effort from those who have contributed, you all have my deepest thanks.