Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on June 18, 2017, 07:50:32 am
-
Thoughts?
Jeremy
-
Well done.
I hope you spent some hours wandering around finding detail shots, too. It looks like a goldmine of possible images.
-
A fine shot, Jeremy. Somebody's sure to tell you it's over-processed. Don't pay any attention. Whoever tells you that will be the kind of shooter whose pictures tell you: "This is what I saw." The pictures that really matter are the ones that tell you: "This is what I felt." This picture fits that description. It's good wabi sabi by the way.
-
Brilliant. Those old stones deserved that dramatic sky and. The processing is very appropriate.
Bravo!
-
Very nice. Being able to count the stones is a bonus.
-
With apologies to Russ, I see halos. And the problem with halos is, once you see them it is impossible to unsee them.
-
I agree that once you see them you can't unsee them, Rajan, but I'm looking at a top of the line Dell monitor, carefully calibrated, and I don't see them. At first I thought there might be one along the top of the left extension of the wall, but it's just brightness in the sky below a darker cloud.
Where do you you see the halos?
-
Russ - along several of the edges of the structure against the sky.
-
Thanks, all.
I hope you spent some hours wandering around finding detail shots, too. It looks like a goldmine of possible images.
I did, but sadly it's less of a goldmine than you might think. The area inside is still used as a graveyard by locals with some kind of hereditary right, and it has a selection of gaudy, mawkish, overblown memorials which are wholly out of keeping with the stones.
A fine shot, Jeremy. Somebody's sure to tell you it's over-processed. Don't pay any attention. Whoever tells you that will be the kind of shooter whose pictures tell you: "This is what I saw." The pictures that really matter are the ones that tell you: "This is what I felt." This picture fits that description. It's good wabi sabi by the way.
I agree entirely: but that must surely be true of all b&w shots. Nobody sees in only greyscale (well, there might be a very rare form of blindness to all colour, I suppose), so all monochrome images are a representation of "what I felt".
With apologies to Russ, I see halos. And the problem with halos is, once you see them it is impossible to unsee them.
Sadly, you're right, but I compliment you on your eyesight! There are some halos, in particular a quite noticeable one to the right of the main tower which, contrary to my expectation, does show up on a print. It's very unusual for SFX Pro to leave a halo like that. I'll rework it a bit: I think it's worth some effort.
Jeremy
-
Okay. I downloaded it and expanded it, and I can see a halo on both sides of the tower -- barely. Guess my 87-year-old eyes aren't quite what they once were. Of course, now that I've seen it I can't unsee it.
-
Well, I tried with MacPhun's Tonality and it gave me huge, wide light areas on either side of the tower, rather spoiling the effect. Here's a modified version, using clone stamp to get rid of the halos.
Jeremy
[edit: matched crop and toning of the original]
-
And here's another.
Jeremy
-
Jeremy, this last image is a beauty.
PS: Depending on what you're trying to achieve, Tony Kuyper's Luminosity Masks actions can be very useful. His latest release, the V5 panel, is extremely powerful. Since LM are self-feathering the incidence of halos is eliminated or greatly minimized.
-
... Somebody's sure to tell you it's over-processed....
Count me in :)
Actually, the sky is fine. It's the crunchy walls.
-
Count me in :)
Actually, the sky is fine. It the crunchy walls.
What I see are wonderfully dynamic clouds with plenty of ready-made ("natural") three dimensionality. Gorgeous.
But the stone of the buildings have an edge and contrast to them that do not match the lack of directional lighting. Does this make sense? Perhaps not. Directional lighting would bring out the kind of texture we see in the stone, but the lighting on the stone is flat, so there is an incongruity that makes the photo appear over-processed.
Bottom line, though, if it works for you, Jeremy, then go for it, no matter what anyone says, pro or con.
-
Jeremy, this last image is a beauty.
PS: Depending on what you're trying to achieve, Tony Kuyper's Luminosity Masks actions can be very useful. His latest release, the V5 panel, is extremely powerful. Since LM are self-feathering the incidence of halos is eliminated or greatly minimized.
Thanks, Rajan: I think I've looked at them in the past, but I'll check again.
Jeremy