Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Bruce Cox on November 16, 2010, 10:22:24 pm
-
Please critique today's reworking of a photo from April. Bruce
-
It's clear that you planned the composition pretty carefully, with all the intersecting diagonals and geometry in the shot.
I feel like the walker is just a little bit too close to the right edge of the frame - it feels crowded, and the eye tends to stop there instead of returning or circling back through the image again.
A complex shot, probably harder to do than it looks!
David Saffir
GuruShots Photo Critique (http://www.gurushots.com)
-
I'm having a hard time understanding what the image is saying. Is it the jumble of the city (San Antonio?), the play of light and shadows or the isolation of the single individual walking out of frame? It's just all a bit too busy for me and nothing jumped out to say "I'm the story"
The B&W conversion is really grey. There needs to be more contrast and/or deeper blacks. For example, the shadows under the fire escape stairs should be much darker to carry impact.
-
I think there's simply too much going on. It's hard to get an idea of what the shot is about.
Unusually for me, I don't like the b&w version, either: the complexities seem to be more marked without colour to assist in guiding the eye. It might be improved by increasing contrast, as Jennifer suggests, but I'm not really convinced.
Jeremy
-
It seems the clue might be the separation of the various objects, be it by luminance or color. To save this image I'd create various layers, with various tonalities/colors mask them out and paint on them to bring back the objects altered (darker, lighter, etc) to separate them. You could also try to get at the same scene at different light conditions.
-
This would likely be a good place for me to start to learn the uses of layers, but in the interest of our time, if not the continuity of the light, I have gone back into my raw files and retrieved a later frame of the pano. This time I clipped the blacks in the red and blue channels less and used no brighting. Bruce
-
I think the tubes should be brighter and the background darker.
To me in that image the vertical tubes are important and need to stand out.
In the second image you have an interesting truck in the background.
Maybe you could clone the man over?
I see there is room for experiments.
-
I think the tubes should be brighter and the background darker.
To me in that image the vertical tubes are important and need to stand out.
In the second image you have an interesting truck in the background.
Maybe you could clone the man over?
I see there is room for experiments.
I agree about the tubes and like the idea of adding the walking man back in. As I can, I will give it a shot. Thanks Bruce
-
Bruce, I agree with Jennifer (michswiss). Technically it's quite a good picture, but as Jeremy said, there's too much going on and it makes it difficult to see what this picture is about. Since I'm not sure what you were trying to do, I'm not sure this is worthwhile advice, but if you were trying to do what I suspect you were you might want to get one of Lee Friedlander's books and run through his pictures of this kind of thing. They're all a lot simpler, which is one reason they're more effective, but there's something else there that I can't describe. You need to see it for yourself.
-
It seems the clue might be the separation of the various objects, be it by luminance or color.
Cool idea! I hadn't thought of manipulating parts of the image by luminance before!
-
Bruce, I agree with Jennifer (michswiss). Technically it's quite a good picture, but as Jeremy said, there's too much going on and it makes it difficult to see what this picture is about. Since I'm not sure what you were trying to do, I'm not sure this is worthwhile advice, but if you were trying to do what I suspect you were you might want to get one of Lee Friedlander's books and run through his pictures of this kind of thing. They're all a lot simpler, which is one reason they're more effective, but there's something else there that I can't describe. You need to see it for yourself.
Glad for a reason to, I checked and was reminded that I lacked Mr. Friedlander's power to causally aline the stars. It got me back to the files, though. Maybe these earlier frames are more straight froward, if not simpler. Bruce
-
Maybe a bit surreal and not too exact
(quick 'n dirty edit - just to get the idea),
- but what about this edit ?
-
Maybe a bit surreal and not too exact
(quick 'n dirty edit - just to get the idea),
- but what about this edit ?
Might get a leading role as an alien spaceship in disguise? Bruce
-
Might get a leading role as an alien spaceship in disguise? Bruce
Shhhh ... don't tell .... they're listening ....
-
I think it's time to cut bait on this image. The problem is that there's nothing in the image that draws the eye and the context isn't particularly interesting. And the tweaking and cropping isn't really helping.
-
And the tweaking and cropping isn't really helping.
Exactly. It almost never does. Sorry Bruce. Sometimes you just have to let one go. Technically the shot's excellent. You nailed the exposure; depth is excellent; everything's sharp. But, as Gertrude said, there's no there there.
-
Exactly. It almost never does. Sorry Bruce. Sometimes you just have to let one go. Technically the shot's excellent. You nailed the exposure; depth is excellent; everything's sharp. But, as Gertrude said, there's no there there.
I agree, thanks for the comments. Bruce
-
I always find it fascinating, that when photosoaping an image, even if it is an interesting exercise some problems just can't get washed out.
I like trying, but in the same moment find it relieving to fail and see doing it right from the beginning would have been the way to go ...