The Attendant's Chair

[Bearface]

"No man passes this chair, without first paying the appropriate fare..."

:D

Kinda creepy and even slightly odd, I admit, but this particular room feels like it has a spooky presence and I really wanted to try and capture the essence of it. Shot at around 4pm today, using the Canon 5D and the 17-40mm f4L lens, on a tripod. Settings: 30 sec @ f13, ISO 200. Converted to mono in CS2 using channel mixer.

There's a skylight above the chair, but the level of light was considerably lower than it appears in the image. It did however serve to provide the lighting for the chair itself, which I think worked rather well.

All feedback appreciated - thanks :)


http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/685/x11.jpg

[Pol]

"No man passes this chair, without first paying the appropriate fare..."

:D

Kinda creepy and even slightly odd, I admit, but this particular room feels like it has a spooky presence and I really wanted to try and capture the essence of it. Shot at around 4pm today, using the Canon 5D and the 17-40mm f4L lens, on a tripod. Settings: 30 sec @ f13, ISO 200. Converted to mono in CS2 using channel mixer.

There's a skylight above the chair, but the level of light was considerably lower than it appears in the image. It did however serve to provide the lighting for the chair itself, which I think worked rather well.

All feedback appreciated - thanks :)

]


Oh I'd say you certainly captured the essence of it - assuming the room was previously used for some sort of sinister activity, or even a set for a chilling scene from a horror film.

My first impression is it resembles an abandoned interrogation/torture setting with basic sort of 'stand-and-deliver loo' at the back of the room. :D

Pol

[Josh Bear]

Honestly. Very very disturbing. Really strong composition combined with great lighting.

Best Regards

Josh

[Bearface]

Oh I'd say you certainly captured the essence of it - assuming the room was previously used for some sort of sinister activity, or even a set for a chilling scene from a horror film.

My first impression is it resembles an abandoned interrogation/torture setting with basic sort of 'stand-and-deliver loo' at the back of the room. :D

Pol

:D

My studio takes up the third floor of what used to be a textile mill, just outside the centre of Huddersfield. On the entrance floor there is a basement corridor which has the usual ladies and gents toilets and this is (obviously) the gents. The mill is a very old, very large building and it's dark and spooky at the best of times, but today the whole place was completely deserted and so I figured it was probably the best time to take a camera and tripod into the gents' loos...........:\

I'm pretty much a sceptic when it comes to ghosts and the paranormal in general, but I'm almost convinced there's a presence in this room, such is the atmosphere. I moved the chair from the side wall to take this shot and when I did so I could almost feel an invisible resistance to my effort.........it was very unnerving :eek:

[ddigit]

This would be the most powerful image I have seen on this site (since I have been looking). Great tonal range, sense of mystery and a grimey quality that is the feature of all great B&W photos.

Trevor

[Bearface]

This would be the most powerful image I have seen on this site (since I have been looking). Great tonal range, sense of mystery and a grimey quality that is the feature of all great B&W photos.

Trevor

That means a lot. Thanks Trev :)

[Andrew Thatcher]

Sorry to be so negative to start off with on this image:( I think the lack of legs kind of spoils this shot for me I'd like to see the whole chair just sitting in the middle of the room. Ok got that out of the way:) The mood is as you say very creepy and love the way the light falls on the chair. Did you take many more frames of this?

[Archangel]

Hi Tim,

Since one of the main objects of the photo is the chair, I would prefer if the entire chair was visible. I don't mind where in the room the chair would be as long as the distance form the lens allows the chair still to be a main theme and of course the light to still hit the chair.
The chair slightly off-center I think it would look more natural and less of a setup.

Post processing treatment and contrast looks very successful.
Apart from the leg cut the entire photo is really very nice and rare.


Regards

George

[Bearface]

Sorry to be so negative to start off with on this image:( I think the lack of legs kind of spoils this shot for me I'd like to see the whole chair just sitting in the middle of the room. Ok got that out of the way:) The mood is as you say very creepy and love the way the light falls on the chair. Did you take many more frames of this?

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I took some more, although the others were taken with the chair to one side, which somehow lacked the impact of this positioning. Still, I'll post one or two more to see what people think.

[Bearface]

Hi Tim,

Since one of the main objects of the photo is the chair, I would prefer if the entire chair was visible. I don't mind where in the room the chair would be as long as the distance form the lens allows the chair still to be a main theme and of course the light to still hit the chair.
The chair slightly off-center I think it would look more natural and less of a setup.

Post processing treatment and contrast looks very successful.
Apart from the leg cut the entire photo is really very nice and rare.


Regards

George

Thanks George :)

[Pol]

:D

I'm pretty much a sceptic when it comes to ghosts and the paranormal in general, but I'm almost convinced there's a presence in this room, such is the atmosphere. I moved the chair from the side wall to take this shot and when I did so I could almost feel an invisible resistance to my effort.........it was very unnerving :eek:


I know exactly what you mean. I suspect the spooky atmosphere and the feeling of 'a presence' is linked to the acoustics and general direction of draughts, shapes and layout of the surroundings. Our senses can work together in some very strange ways if and when they're all being very subtly stimulated simultaneously ... used to great effect by some of the best film-makers. :D

BTW - I like the chair where it is, even without showing the full chair + legs. It's more 'in yer face' and I feel like I'm about to be forced to sit in it and interrogated.


Pol

[Tinka]

Hi Bearface,
A very strong and as you said,somewhat spooky image, it is a shame the legs of the chair are not in the frame, non the less a great image.

[coupekid]

"No man passes this chair, without first paying the appropriate fare..."

:D

Kinda creepy and even slightly odd, I admit, but this particular room feels like it has a spooky presence and I really wanted to try and capture the essence of it. Shot at around 4pm today, using the Canon 5D and the 17-40mm f4L lens, on a tripod. Settings: 30 sec @ f13, ISO 200. Converted to mono in CS2 using channel mixer.

There's a skylight above the chair, but the level of light was considerably lower than it appears in the image. It did however serve to provide the lighting for the chair itself, which I think worked rather well.

All feedback appreciated - thanks :)




Hi Tim,

Outrageous image! Have you been watching the film 'Saw' at all?

I think someone else pointed out about the minor point of the legs being cropped, but it is only minor, and I love this picture! Very creepy, how on earth did you find this place!

The central point of the chair works extremely well, and the treatment given is bang on. Nice work as always!

Ben

[Bearface]

Hi Tim,

Outrageous image! Have you been watching the film 'Saw' at all?

I think someone else pointed out about the minor point of the legs being cropped, but it is only minor, and I love this picture! Very creepy, how on earth did you find this place!

The central point of the chair works extremely well, and the treatment given is bang on. Nice work as always!

Ben

:D

No, haven't seen "Saw", although it sounds brilliant. Some people think that I'm twisted enough however, so I might just stick to Bambi and the occasional episode of The Simpsons... ;)

The concencus seems to be that the legs of the chair (or the absence of them...) is an issue. Their inclusion wasn't really my aim, but the feedback I've received thus far on the matter has been consistent, so I'll give it some thought.

Thanks :)

[Stephen]

:D

No, haven't seen "Saw", although it sounds brilliant. Some people think that I'm twisted enough however, so I might just stick to Bambi and the occasional episode of The Simpsons... ;)

The concencus seems to be that the legs of the chair (or the absence of them...) is an issue. Their inclusion wasn't really my aim, but the feedback I've received thus far on the matter has been consistent, so I'll give it some thought.

Thanks :)

Since the "issue" was first raised it has been my strong opinion that the need to see the feet of the chair was unnecessary. It would make absolutely no difference to the feel or message of the image IMHO. Infact were the feet to be included it would have meant moving back which may have even destroyed the prominance of the chair. Am I contradicting myself there :) well you know what I mean. In short I don't see the absence of feet an issue at all. :mad: Bah Humbug

[Patrick]

:D

No, haven't seen "Saw", although it sounds brilliant. Some people think that I'm twisted enough however, so I might just stick to Bambi and the occasional episode of The Simpsons... ;)

The concencus seems to be that the legs of the chair (or the absence of them...) is an issue. Their inclusion wasn't really my aim, but the feedback I've received thus far on the matter has been consistent, so I'll give it some thought.

Thanks :)

I'm not convinced its necessary to show the legs, its not been photographed for the chair's own sake and we know they are there.
It's the threatening feel of the image that is the important thing, does it succeed at that level, the answer is yes it certainly does.

Patrick

[Pol]

As I've already said in my previous posting ..... "I like the chair where it is, even without showing the full chair + legs. It's more 'in yer face' and I feel like I'm about to be forced to sit in it and interrogated."

It's the closeness of the *seat* that makes me feel as though I'm there, present and about to be seated (maybe even forcibly) that makes it all the more chilling for me.

Moving back would show a chair in a creepy room, but being so close to the actual seat makes it all the more nerve-wracking for me, more like something is about to happen any second.

To my mind - the picture is about atmosphere, a chilling atmosphere, a 'chamber of horror' for whoever get plonked onto that seat.

Pol

[guymclaren]

VE VILL Make YOU TOK

[Bearface]

VE VILL Make YOU TOK

"Ve haf our vays.......zis bright lamp, for example......!" :D

Reminds me of the dentist scene in Marathon Man.............if you haven't seen the film, just Google "Marathon Man dentist scene" and you'll get the picture... :eek:

[Bearface]

Ah, some support for the more intimate, oppressive, "no-legs" approach. :)

To be honest, I prefer things as they are in the shot I posted, but I can see both sides of the argument. I really wanted the chair to dominate the foreground (which I think it does), and had I included the legs the chair would've been pushed back towards the middle of the scene. That said, some people really have a problem with the cropping of items in images and I respect that point of view.

Seriously, some great feedback folks - thanks ;)

[Pops]

I think this image is terrific. I get a sense of fear from it in that I would be very reluctant to use the urinal with all that space at my back. The chair is a brainstorm for the pic and it just wouldn't look right anywhere else.
Wonder what happend to it's user, he certainly spent a lot of time in it.

[Bearface]

Okay, this one's another version of the shot posted yesterday. It's essentially a similar image, although it's composed slightly off-centre and the chair is placed off to the right. Oh, and there's some graininess in this one, which I added purely for effect. so tell me if it works for you :)

Thanks again.


http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/015x.jpg

[Patrick]

Okay, this one's another version of the shot posted yesterday. It's essentially a similar image, although it's composed slightly off-centre and the chair is placed off to the right. Oh, and there's some graininess in this one, which I added purely for effect. so tell me if it works for you :)

Thanks again.


http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/015x.jpg

The first one is the one; this lacks that feel you engendered in the original.

Patrick

[Bearface]

The first one is the one; this lacks that feel you engendered in the original.

Patrick

Yeah, it certainly isn't as imposing or intimidating, I'll agree. In fact it has quite an unthreatening, almost peaceful feel to it relative to the first. I was just curious how people would see it, so thanks for comment ;)

[Archangel]

Okay, this one's another version of the shot posted yesterday. It's essentially a similar image, although it's composed slightly off-centre and the chair is placed off to the right. Oh, and there's some graininess in this one, which I added purely for effect. so tell me if it works for you :)

Thanks again.


http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/015x.jpg


Tim,

Now the chair is too much on the right and the light doesn't hit her so intense as in the previous version, thus loosing a lot of magic and especially of the ripped part of the seat. A version of the chair being slightly off-center (let's say around 30-50cm left or right of the center, would be enough I think).
To be honest, now that I saw the base of the chair (I don't like this type of base leg connection, I thought it was a classic chair from the initial photo) I prefer it with the legs cut, like in the initial posted version and probably that is the reason that the legs were cut in the initial post.


Regards

George

[Patrick]

Tim,

Now the chair is too much on the right and the light doesn't hit her so intense as in the previous version, thus loosing a lot of magic and especially of the ripped part of the seat. A version of the chair being slightly off-center (let's say around 30-50cm left or right of the center, would be enough I think).
To be honest, now that I saw the base of the chair (I don't like this type of base leg connection, I thought it was a classic chair from the initial photo) I prefer it with the legs cut, like in the initial posted version and probably that is the reason that the legs were cut in the initial post.


Regards

George

I’m not clear why you thought the legs needed to be included in the first place; I think the fact that only the seat was visible added to the impact. On the original picture the chair is the centre of attention but not the reason for the picture simply an important and dominant part, therefore the inclusion of its legs at least in my opinion, irrelevant. As it is it's a strong image with a spooky atmosphere and avoids clichés.

If the chair had been the sole reason for the picture then yes it should have the legs showing.

Patrick

[Andrew Thatcher]

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/015x.jpg

Phwoor look at those legs*inlove

[Andrew Thatcher]

I'll explain my legs v no legs veiw a bit better. The fact that you allmost have all the legs showing is the thing that spoils it (for me that is) The idea the others are saying is sound you can have the chair closer to you and draw you in. But then you must remove the legs alltogether as this crop shows. for me the image is a lot stonger with no legs than half the legs.
http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/medium/x11crop.jpg

[guymclaren]

sorry not even close, This ones just a dingy little room with a trough in.

[Blank Page]

It's the closeness of the *seat* that makes me feel as though I'm there, present and about to be seated (maybe even forcibly) that makes it all the more chilling for me.

Moving back would show a chair in a creepy room, but being so close to the actual seat makes it all the more nerve-wracking for me, more like something is about to happen any second.

To my mind - the picture is about atmosphere, a chilling atmosphere, a 'chamber of horror' for whoever get plonked onto that seat.

Pol's comments echoed almost exactly my feelings. The legs are immaterial; the seat of the chair is the thing. It's not waiting for just anyone, it's waiting for me (shudder). Having it right up front like that makes it feel inescapable.

After I got over the initial impact of it and looked at it photographically, I was puzzled by the composition. The only two objects, chair and the thing in the background, are both centered and in line, which seems out of the ordinary. I don't know why, but it sure works. Really effective image.

[Archangel]

I’m not clear why you thought the legs needed to be included in the first place; I think the fact that only the seat was visible added to the impact. On the original picture the chair is the centre of attention but not the reason for the picture simply an important and dominant part, therefore the inclusion of its legs at least in my opinion, irrelevant. As it is it's a strong image with a spooky atmosphere and avoids clichés.

If the chair had been the sole reason for the picture then yes it should have the legs showing.

Patrick


Hi Patrick,

I'll try to be as clear as I can, though consider that English is not my native language.

Part_1
This is a very nice photo. It is the perspective of a an empty room with 2 objects and light passing through.
The dominant object is the one that is more illuminated regardless of its position inside the room. In this case the most illuminated object is the chair. The dominant object in a photo is always the one that lets the photo stand as a photo even if you remove all the other objects around it. Imagine now the same photo but without the loo in the background. Would it still have a dominant onject? Yes it would, the chair. So the chair would always be the dominant object wherever it is placed on the room.


Part_2
Where exactly the chair should be placed in order to have the best possible effect? It should be placed either close to foreground or either far to the background. In both situations it will do the job. But it will do a better job if the chair is placed closer to the lens (foreground). But in which position exactly in the foreground?
Given that there is some lighting entering the room, the ultimate position of the chair would be to be hit by the light. Though a chair always in the center shows two types of setups: a) the photographer placed his/her camera exactly across form the chair, or b) the photographer placed the chair exactly across from his camera. Both cases include obvious setup though, thus making the entire scene look not so natural captured but setup captured.


Part_3
Observing this photo (both versions) I see that in the 2nd version when the chair is placed against the right wall it reveals more light hitting the floor which is blocked in the first photo by the chair in the center. Also in the first version with the chair in the center there is a step up in the loo which is blocked in its most part.
Since there are only 2 objects in the entire frame, both should very clearly visible. If there were many objects then there probably be (actually it should be in order to trigger further the imagination) some need, to cut parts from some objects. Now that there are only 2 objects in the frame any partial cut of parts of an object(s) is irrelevant, unless there is a good reason for that. By observing the 2nd photo, I see a good reason for cutting the bottom part of the chair legs (in the base). The chair in its base is not a classic chair and the connection used to connect the legs does not give the chair the old classic traditional look in order to be included in the photo.
So, I think it was correctly cut by Tim, but I didn't know that until I saw the 2nd version of the photo where the entire chair is visible.


Part_4
My personal view of the entire scene is the following:
The chair should be placed slightly off-center (around 30-50cm) on the left in order to cover some of the intense lighting hitting the floor (making that part look slightly blown out) and slightly turned inwards around 15-25 degrees angle. That way it will reveal most part of the step-up in the loo and leave the center and right part of the floor to be slightly more illuminated and look more like an abandoned chair in a non arranged position in the room.
That way the floor will be more even illuminated and not very intense on left and much weaker on the right.
In other words and as final theme conclusion the frame will look as follows:

A perspective of a room, with an abandoned chair hit by the light and which not blocks partially background objects (loo step-up), in a more evenly light distributing floor. In this case there might not be needed to cut partially the chair's legs, even though this is not a classic chair, since from slightly turning the chair the base of the chair might look differently or even attractive.


Part_5
As always I'm expressing my personal opinion which does not necessarilly fits some standards or stereotypes.
I think also that this is a great picture that Tim took and with some slight adjustments would be perfect for entering competitions.
I don't find it spooky as some other users do. For me spooky would be if the room was dark, if the chair was not hit by any light but was visible as just some shadow in a room and if only a slight ray of light was entering the room somewhere in the background and not in the foreground.
I also think that the noise level in the photo would be ideal if it was the average of both posted versions.
This picture is fully artistic as taken, excels in B&W photography and should only be in B&W as Tim chose to be.



Regards

George

[coupekid]

:D

No, haven't seen "Saw", although it sounds brilliant.
Thanks :)


You must have a watch.....youll see why the connection was made! :D

[Patrick]

Hi Patrick,

I'll try to be as clear as I can, though consider that English is not my native language.

Part_1
This is a very nice photo. It is the perspective of a an empty room with 2 objects and light passing through.
The dominant object is the one that is more illuminated regardless of its position inside the room. In this case the most illuminated object is the chair. The dominant object in a photo is always the one that lets the photo stand as a photo even if you remove all the other objects around it. Imagine now the same photo but without the loo in the background. Would it still have a dominant onject? Yes it would, the chair. So the chair would always be the dominant object wherever it is placed on the room.


Part_2
Where exactly the chair should be placed in order to have the best possible effect? It should be placed either close to foreground or either far to the background. In both situations it will do the job. But it will do a better job if the chair is placed closer to the lens (foreground). But in which position exactly in the foreground?
Given that there is some lighting entering the room, the ultimate position of the chair would be to be hit by the light. Though a chair always in the center shows two types of setups: a) the photographer placed his/her camera exactly across form the chair, or b) the photographer placed the chair exactly across from his camera. Both cases include obvious setup though, thus making the entire scene look not so natural captured but setup captured.


Part_3
Observing this photo (both versions) I see that in the 2nd version when the chair is placed against the right wall it reveals more light hitting the floor which is blocked in the first photo by the chair in the center. Also in the first version with the chair in the center there is a step up in the loo which is blocked in its most part.
Since there are only 2 objects in the entire frame, both should very clearly visible. If there were many objects then there probably be (actually it should be in order to trigger further the imagination) some need, to cut parts from some objects. Now that there are only 2 objects in the frame any partial cut of parts of an object(s) is irrelevant, unless there is a good reason for that. By observing the 2nd photo, I see a good reason for cutting the bottom part of the chair legs (in the base). The chair in its base is not a classic chair and the connection used to connect the legs does not give the chair the old classic traditional look in order to be included in the photo.
So, I think it was correctly cut by Tim, but I didn't know that until I saw the 2nd version of the photo where the entire chair is visible.


Part_4
My personal view of the entire scene is the following:
The chair should be placed slightly off-center (around 30-50cm) on the left in order to cover some of the intense lighting hitting the floor (making that part look slightly blown out) and slightly turned inwards around 15-25 degrees angle. That way it will reveal most part of the step-up in the loo and leave the center and right part of the floor to be slightly more illuminated and look more like an abandoned chair in a non arranged position in the room.
That way the floor will be more even illuminated and not very intense on left and much weaker on the right.
In other words and as final theme conclusion the frame will look as follows:

A perspective of a room, with an abandoned chair hit by the light and which not blocks partially background objects (loo step-up), in a more evenly light distributing floor. In this case there might not be needed to cut partially the chair's legs, even though this is not a classic chair, since from slightly turning the chair the base of the chair might look differently or even attractive.


Part_5
As always I'm expressing my personal opinion which does not necessarilly fits some standards or stereotypes.
I think also that this is a great picture that Tim took and with some slight adjustments would be perfect for entering competitions.
I don't find it spooky as some other users do. For me spooky would be if the room was dark, if the chair was not hit by any light but was visible as just some shadow in a room and if only a slight ray of light was entering the room somewhere in the background and not in the foreground.
I also think that the noise level in the photo would be ideal if it was the average of both posted versions.
This picture is fully artistic as taken, excels in B&W photography and should only be in B&W as Tim chose to be.



Regards

George

Wow, a lot to read here.

If I could speak any Greek at all, let alone express myself as clearly as you do in English I would be well pleased.

First of all we are both agreed it’s a very good image.

Now when it comes to viewing a picture I go with my gut reaction to it, not whether it would be better if this or that, those considerations may come later if appropriate.

The chair is obviously key to the picture this has been shown by the second picture, moved to the side the image looses all its strength.

I think one thing that may have or be bothering you is the rule of thirds, the chair is dead centre be it at the bottom halve of the image, the urinals are also central at the top of the image. It’s the breaking of these rules that gives some of the strength to the image along with the gritty B/W.
To start moving that chair would be to change the feel, moving to one side or the other and turning it at angles I think would be counter productive. It may satisfy rules of composition, but there are times and this is one to throw the rule book away.

Returning to the chair legs, Andrew on his post has cropped them totally and lost something in the process, the small amount of leg showing on the original allows the viewer, indeed encourages the viewer to fill that area in with their imagination. In fact the image is about imagination. Break it down and all you have is a filthy room with a urinal and an old chair, no it’s the presentation the positioning of the chair so close and square on the camera coupled with the B/W that makes this the image it is.

The more I look the more I can see and the better I think the image is, the imagination starts to work overtime. Its just right as originally presented the viewer fills in his or her own gaps, making the mind work like a good picture should.
I’m beginning to wish it were mine.:\

Excellent debate on a excellent image.:)

Patrick

[Pops]

Any other combination other than the original is just not going to work. IMO

[Archangel]

Wow, a lot to read here.

If I could speak any Greek at all, let alone express myself as clearly as you do in English I would be well pleased.

First of all we are both agreed it’s a very good image.

Now when it comes to viewing a picture I go with my gut reaction to it, not whether it would be better if this or that, those considerations may come later if appropriate.

The chair is obviously key to the picture this has been shown by the second picture, moved to the side the image looses all its strength.

I think one thing that may have or be bothering you is the rule of thirds, the chair is dead centre be it at the bottom halve of the image, the urinals are also central at the top of the image. It’s the breaking of these rules that gives some of the strength to the image along with the gritty B/W.
To start moving that chair would be to change the feel, moving to one side or the other and turning it at angles I think would be counter productive. It may satisfy rules of composition, but there are times and this is one to throw the rule book away.

Returning to the chair legs, Andrew on his post has cropped them totally and lost something in the process, the small amount of leg showing on the original allows the viewer, indeed encourages the viewer to fill that area in with their imagination. In fact the image is about imagination. Break it down and all you have is a filthy room with a urinal and an old chair, no it’s the presentation the positioning of the chair so close and square on the camera coupled with the B/W that makes this the image it is.

The more I look the more I can see and the better I think the image is, the imagination starts to work overtime. Its just right as originally presented the viewer fills in his or her own gaps, making the mind work like a good picture should.
I’m beginning to wish it were mine.:\

Excellent debate on a excellent image.:)

Patrick


Hi Patrick,

We seem to come closer in our personal individual opinions :)
A few last comments indeed on a very good image, though I need to clarify that this "debate" is based on minor details since the photo stands on its own without any further adjustments.

I'm always against stereotypes or specific rules in photography. I believe that photography can be ruined if someone follows stereotypes, since following stereotypes limits imagination which is the most neccessary feature for creation like in any art.

Now in terms of the photo:
It is not the rule of thirds that bother me. This is a rule that I have in my mind but not following it most of the times. If we were talking about a landscape photo that includes different intense light variations like land, sky or sea, then I would probably adopt the rule of thirds to have the picture somewhat balanced.
In this photo, personally I disregard the rule of thirds, simply because the entire theme is a dark room without intense light variations and without intense theme variation.
What slightly "bothers" me is that having the chair exactly in the center the photo looks like more of a setup than natural. A slight misplacement of a chair would look, of course according to my opinion, more natural.

Looking at the initial photo with the legs slightly cut, I really wanted the entire chair to be visible for the following reason:

It was stated that partially cut legs of the chair can trigger imagination, because we know it is chair. If this is the case we can still trigger our imagination by including only the back part or an arm rest of the chair simply because we know that is a chair.
I find this completely wrong. This photo for me, is not about imagination, it is about feeling of the scene. And since the objects are very limited, all of them should be included as a whole in order to record the feeling better.
Let me put it this way: Is the photo initially posted what we will exactly see if anyone of us walks in, in that room? Are we gonna see the chair with partially cut legs if we walk in the room? So, this photo is about feeling of the scene and I think everything should be included in order to have exactly the feeling as if we were in that room.

After viewing the initial photo, I would like the entire chair to be visible. After viewing the 2nd version Tim posted, I found the base of the chair not to be of the classic type of chair and the chair to be completely against the right wall and not slight off-center placed, thus not so attractive, so I would stick with the initial version.

Just a slight repositioning (really just a slight, not an intense one) of the chair as I suggested in my previous post, I think will do the job perfectly, even with partially cut legs.
I also don't agree with the complete cropping of the legs, for the reason I mentioned above in terms of "feeling" and not because of "imagination".

Anyway, I personally like very much to "debate" over a very nice photo and exchange opinions and personal views. It is interesting for me to hear other peoples opinions for a few good reasons I keep inside my mind :)


Regards

George