Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: eosef on March 18, 2013, 01:39:37 pm
-
Saint Joseph's Oratory of Mount Royal
-
I like the image, but I am struggling with the "over" saturated blue of the sky. IMHO, I would want to tone that down, how far would be a matter of taste, but I thinks it's intensity takes away from the nicely lit building.
-
I like the image, but I am struggling with the "over" saturated blue of the sky. IMHO, I would want to tone that down, how far would be a matter of taste, but I thinks it's intensity takes away from the nicely lit building.
I agree. I'd reduce the blue saturation overall, including the foreground, although you could keep it in the two windows if you want.
Mike.
-
Pete Turner would never make it today.
Rob C
-
I think that this photo has been taken at night and this might explain the blue saturation of the sky.
I like it very much!
-
Here's the solution to over saturation:
-
I like the image, but I am struggling with the "over" saturated blue of the sky. IMHO, I would want to tone that down, how far would be a matter of taste, but I thinks it's intensity takes away from the nicely lit building.
Actually, that shade/intensity of blue is most likely from the lighting around the church.
I've shot the Korean/American Friendship Bell in Long Beach on NYE, lit up for the occasion by the same type of lights, and the skies are identical.
-
I agree that we're talking esthetics and taste.
RSL-LOL. That did indeed take care of the saturation!
-
I read Russ's comment as suggesting that all colors except black, gray, and white be "cropped out." ;D
-
Right, Eric. In this case that kind of "cropping" converts a standard tourist shot with over-saturated colors into a mysterious and gripping night scene.
-
I think that this photo has been taken at night and this might explain the blue saturation of the sky...
My guess is it was the so-called blue hour, i.e., the time after dusk, but before the sky turns pitch black, and the sky then can turn very intensive blue. Not sure if this is the case here, or the saturation was jacked up a bit too much, but slight adjustments to hue (perhaps a tad more magenta?) and saturation might turn it into a rather convincing shot. Otherwise, a fine composition, and yes, Pete Turner colors.
Not sure about the highlights around the cross... where does that come from?
-
…
Not sure about the highlights around the cross... where does that come from?
I've seen crosses illuminated by cross-shaped neon lights. It might be the case here.
-
My guess is that back then we'd have heard similar comments in the photography clubs :-)
Plus ça change...
;-)
Rob C
-
Actually, it's neither, Isaac. It's that the picture is much better in grayscale than in color regardless of struggles.
-
I do think its over-saturated, but so what? Over-saturated,under-saturated or dead-on-saturated the picture's better in grayscale. That's a personal opinion of course and it's pretty obvious that opinions will vary.
-
So
- you might think it's over-saturated because you don't like the color
- you might think it's over-saturated because you don't believe the sky was that color
- ...
and eosef will have more chance to learn something from your "critique" when you say what you mean.
-
What's your point, Isaac? Here are your "critiques" so far.
I'm sure eosef learned a great deal from these.
My guess is that back then we'd have heard similar comments in the photography clubs :-)
David Eckels made clear that his struggle with the "over" saturated blue of the sky was a matter of "esthetics and taste".
Is it that you don't like the color?
Is it that you don't believe the sky was that color?
Mea culpa, when I read your words - "with over-saturated colors" - I mistakenly understood them to mean you thought the colors were over-saturated.
So
- you might think it's over-saturated because you don't like the color
- you might think it's over-saturated because you don't believe the sky was that color
- ...
and eosef will have more chance to learn something from your "critique" when you say what you mean.
If your intention somehow is to critique the photograph, it strikes me you're having a lot of trouble saying what you mean.
-
Russ, ignore Isaac (not that you need me to advise you, of course). Conversion to b&w turns an interesting shot into a great one.
Jeremy
-
... it strikes me you're having a lot of trouble saying what you mean.
Naahhh... just busy looking for the next quote to express it ;)
-
... Conversion to b&w turns an interesting shot into a great one...
While I prefer Pete Turner colors (done right), if one is to go for the b&w, I think the wall and stairs would need a bit more of detail/light. What works well in color (deep color shadows) does not necessarily work so in b&w.
-
I agree that what works well in color doesn't necessarily work well in grayscale, Slobodan, but I don't agree about this one. I think the level of the wall and stairs is the right graphic balance for the sky in this case. There's enough detail there. It's not hard to bring up the wall and the stairs, and I've tried it. Give it a shot yourself. You may see what I mean. I think the color version misses the point entirely.
-
The photo was taken on July 2, 2011 at 9:50 p.m.
At first, when I started to walk up the stairs I couldn’t see the church. All there was was a dark stair way and tree silhouettes in the dusk. As I kept going up and turning with the stairs, slowly an impressive view of the church opened up. It was that transition that I photographed, not the actual building. If I would like to show a tourist attraction, I would post some other shot that better describes the structure. There are plenty of those.
As for the oversaturated colours, I see your point I’ll give it a try.
Thank you
-
Just to be clear, I think both the color and the RSL B/W images work in different ways. I like very much the subtle leading lines of the staircase emphasizing the façade of the church in Russ' version and the sky is not a distraction for me. I think the OP color version has a much different feel, incorporates the leading lines, but that sky seemed unbelievably blue and I thought it needed to be toned down somewhat; I was trying to find a subtler way to say it since, to me, it would be an esthetic choice. I don't know Pete Turner's work but I am googling him now!
-
I think the most important point about this picture is that eosef was at the right vantage point and framed his picture for powerful graphic balance. To me the graphics are the picture. The color's meaningless. But as I said, that's a personal opinion. Yes, the color version is a completely different picture.
-
I don't know Pete Turner's work but I am googling him now!
http://www.peteturner.com/ (http://www.peteturner.com/)
-
I think it's all about spring. Easter is coming early this year, but much of everything else seems to have decided to freeze.
Rob C
-
eosef was at the right vantage point and framed his picture for powerful graphic balance.
Absolutely.http://www.peteturner.com/ (http://www.peteturner.com/)
Yes. I found his site. I understand the comparison now. Don't agree with it, but I understand it.