Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: jng on March 19, 2016, 10:58:14 pm
-
I've been reading some very thoughtful critiques here so I thought I'd seek input on an image I've been noodling with recently. This is my first time posting images for feedback on LuLa, so here goes...
The first file shows the image at full bleed in the horizontal dimension (the original file was only cropped along the vertical axis to remove some foreground blackness). One reason I like this version is that it accentuates the long sweep of the bridge's span toward the tower and the main density of buildings in the city behind it, a sweep that my eye tends to follow from the left. However I wonder whether the "central" elements - i.e., the brightly lit tower, the island that the span connects to and the city behind it - are pushed a bit too far to the right of center, making the final rendering feel a bit unbalanced.
In the second image, I've cropped from the left, squaring off the aspect ratio a bit and placing the bridge tower, city etc. more toward the center of the field. To me this feels more balanced (or rather, less unbalanced) but at the expense of the long sweeping flow from the left. And maybe it's just a little more boring than the first version as a result. If I can make the image work, I'm thinking of making a large-ish print (30-36" on the long dimension).
Thoughts and comments would be appreciated!
John
-
I'd be more inclined to crop off some on the right side. The left side is more interesting. I think the color in the sky is off, especially where the orange fades into the greenish hue. With a bit more tweaking, I think this will be a fine photograph.
-
Thanks for the input. I have in fact been struggling with the color in this and other images shot at dusk. Your comment gives me something specific to focus on. Will continue to work on this...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Hi,
I prefer the horisontally cropped one. Not because it is better balanced but more like I feel that the bridge leads the eye naturally in the picture and that works better on the cropped image.
I have an issue with the artificial softness on the mountains on the horizon, I would also think that the gradient in the sky doesn't look very credible to me.
A great image, thanks for posting!
Best regards
Erik
I've been reading some very thoughtful critiques here so I thought I'd seek input on an image I've been noodling with recently. This is my first time posting images for feedback on LuLa, so here goes...
The first file shows the image at full bleed in the horizontal dimension (the original file was only cropped along the vertical axis to remove some foreground blackness). One reason I like this version is that it accentuates the long sweep of the bridge's span toward the tower and the main density of buildings in the city behind it, a sweep that my eye tends to follow from the left. However I wonder whether the "central" elements - i.e., the brightly lit tower, the island that the span connects to and the city behind it - are pushed a bit too far to the right of center, making the final rendering feel a bit unbalanced.
In the second image, I've cropped from the left, squaring off the aspect ratio a bit and placing the bridge tower, city etc. more toward the center of the field. To me this feels more balanced (or rather, less unbalanced) but at the expense of the long sweeping flow from the left. And maybe it's just a little more boring than the first version as a result. If I can make the image work, I'm thinking of making a large-ish print (30-36" on the long dimension).
Thoughts and comments would be appreciated!
John
-
Erik,
Thanks for your comments. I'll take a closer look at the hills but I think the softness may be due to the fog and general atmospheric conditions, and perhaps also because the files was bumped down to 1200 pixels across for this post. I may have overdone it on the saturation in the sky as well...
John
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Erik,
I just took another look (sorry it's late here). The "soft" mountains you referred to aren't mountains but the tops of the fog itself. This was a 16 sec exposure, which gave the fog a wave-like appearance.
John
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It's a good image. I'd take the original and crop from the right, emphasising the sweep of the bridge: there's nothing much of interest at the right-hand side anyway.
I'd also clone out the ugly structure in the middle of the skyline, which is distracting.
Jeremy
-
It's a good image. I'd take the original and crop from the right, emphasising the sweep of the bridge: there's nothing much of interest at the right-hand side anyway.
I'd also clone out the ugly structure in the middle of the skyline, which is distracting.
Jeremy
I'm in agreement with this.
-
I'm in agreement with this.
I am too.
-
Interesting that some of the recommendations to crop the right side follow the rule of thirds, negative space rules and/or other "rules".
-
Interesting that some of the recommendations to crop the right side follow the rule of thirds, negative space rules and/or other "rules".
These so called "rules" are plain common sense. If you think of them as "rules" then you are putting a photographic straight jacket into your thinking and your photographic progress will be impeded. :(
-
The first crop makes more sense. However...however...I don't know how to say this, other than outright: the color is...atrocious.
-
It's a good image. I'd take the original and crop from the right, emphasising the sweep of the bridge: there's nothing much of interest at the right-hand side anyway.
I'd also clone out the ugly structure in the middle of the skyline, which is distracting.
Jeremy
Jeremy (and others),
Thanks for the suggestion to crop from the right. To be honest I hadn't considered this before so I'm glad that I made this post. Will give it a go...
Re: that ugly structure on the horizon - this is Sutro Tower, erected in the 1970's to broadcast TV signals in a very hilly city. At 977 ft (1811 ft above sea level as it sits on a hill) it is the tallest structure in San Francisco. Sutro Tower is indeed a hideous monstrosity (even more so up close) but unfortunately it's an iconic and indelible part of the San Francisco skyline. I guess it's like a mole on otherwise beautiful face (think: Cindy Crawford?), one that I can't bring myself to remove and feel at all honest about the image. Not that I haven't cloned distracting elements out of other images, but this would be beyond my limit. Now that you've pointed out the "ugly structure," I'll probably never look at the SF skyline in the same way again. Alas...
John
-
The first crop makes more sense. However...however...I don't know how to say this, other than outright: the color is...atrocious.
Slobodan,
Thanks for your honesty! As I mentioned previously I have been struggling with the color in this and other images taken at dusk. Sometimes when I feel I can't manage the color I convert to black and white, but I'm trying not to cop out yet. In the meantime, suggestions are welcome.
John
-
The first crop makes more sense. However...however...I don't know how to say this, other than outright: the color is...atrocious.
That's the way to say it.
-
These so called "rules" are plain common sense. If you think of them as "rules" then you are putting a photographic straight jacket into your thinking and your photographic progress will be impeded. :(
My point is what the brain already finds pleasurable or aesthetic, has been converted into what's called "rules" or what I call insights on how the brain works. The "rule" or insight reflects what the brain enjoys hence the recommendation looks like a rule.
Here's another "rule". Never oversaturate the sunset so the colors look like nothing you've ever seen before otherwise the viewer will think the picture is false and ugly. Will your photographic progress be impeded by following that rule?
-
This one comes easy to me. Consider a 3x1 aspect ratio.
What I recommend…
From near the bottom of your widest version, crop to a 3x1 ratio eliminating the blue sky. When the blue sky is gone, the image still retains the feeling of an impressive, colorful cityscape at sunset and there is still plenty of complimentary blue color from the water.
Keep the tower. Everyone in the bay area already know it’s there. It is what it is. If you take it out, Godzilla will be confused as it is on his bucket list and the entire bay area will just peg you as another photoshop hack.
Determine a believable but vivid color.
Because you have an uncommon, hi-fi camera and you’ve cropped to an uncommon (but standard) 3x1 aspect ratio, go ahead and make an uncommonly good, large print at 60x20 inches on Fujiflex face-mounted to acrylic and show it to prospects on the east side of the bay. This is a product that can be a point of differentiation from all the other paper inkjet prints that so many already have made from their phone. (The sun sets there every day and there are a lot of eyeballs gazing through those bay windows who hit “command - P.”)
Also know, the “balance” looks very comfortable to me when I project it at 3x1 / 60x20.
A beautiful shot. I’ve lived there. That’s what it looks like. Respect!
-
This one comes easy to me. Consider a 3x1 aspect ratio.
What I recommend…
From near the bottom of your widest version, crop to a 3x1 ratio eliminating the blue sky. When the blue sky is gone, the image still retains the feeling of an impressive, colorful cityscape at sunset and there is still plenty of complimentary blue color from the water.
Keep the tower. Everyone in the bay area already know it’s there. It is what it is. If you take it out, Godzilla will be confused as it is on his bucket list and the entire bay area will just peg you as another photoshop hack.
Determine a believable but vivid color.
Because you have an uncommon, hi-fi camera and you’ve cropped to an uncommon (but standard) 3x1 aspect ratio, go ahead and make an uncommonly good, large print at 60x20 inches on Fujiflex face-mounted to acrylic and show it to prospects on the east side of the bay. This is a product that can be a point of differentiation from all the other paper inkjet prints that so many already have made from their phone. (The sun sets there every day and there are a lot of eyeballs gazing through those bay windows who hit “command - P.”)
Also know, the “balance” looks very comfortable to me when I project it at 3x1 / 60x20.
A beautiful shot. I’ve lived there. That’s what it looks like. Respect!
Well I definitely don't want Godzilla to cross the bay and come looking to ask me what I did with the tower!
Thanks for the suggestion for the 3:1 aspect ratio crop. This hadn't occurred to me but I can see how it could work.
I appreciate all the comments made so far and will post something again if I can come up with a more respectable image. Thanks again to all for the input.
John
-
My advice: put the photo/file away for a month and then come back to it fresh.
-
My advice: put the photo/file away for a month and then come back to it fresh.
Yes.
-
My point is what the brain already finds pleasurable or aesthetic, has been converted into what's called "rules" or what I call insights on how the brain works. The "rule" or insight reflects what the brain enjoys hence the recommendation looks like a rule.
Here's another "rule". Never oversaturate the sunset so the colors look like nothing you've ever seen before otherwise the viewer will think the picture is false and ugly. Will your photographic progress be impeded by following that rule?
Everybody's brain is different so trying to straight jacket them with a set of rules is silly. My liking/disliking for an image is instinctive and isn't hampered by a set of rules. Ask me what I like/dislike about an image then I would struggle to find the words. Some people like "false and ugly" over saturation and even pay a lot of money to own an image that is "false and ugly" Look up subjective in your dictionary.
-
My advice: put the photo/file away for a month and then come back to it fresh.
Ditto.
Before going any further, consider carefully what your end game is. What will the photo be used for? Who will be looking at the photo. The answer should help determine some of your direction with the photograph.
For example, the "tower" to anyone not familiar with SF is an eyesore in an otherwise compelling photograph.
The colours, to anyone not concerned about reality (photographers tend to be more concerned than the average Joe/Jill), maybe just fine. To many, their surrealism is a detriment.
If it's for a stock agency then the more compelling the better.
If it's for your wall only, well, anything goes.
Lots of "ifs" that only you can answer. There is no "right" way only ways that may be more or less acceptable to one group or another.
Do you want to play it safe? Follow the "rules". If you prefer to be more avante garde, then do whatever satisfies your original compulsion to make the photograph.
BTW, try raising the values of the fog so it looks less like a desert wind storm/mountains, unless, of course that's the way you envision it. :)
-
My advice: put the photo/file away for a month and then come back to it fresh.
I'd change Bob's advice to: Put the photo/file away for the rest of your life and try again.
-
Ditto.
Before going any further, consider carefully what your end game is. What will the photo be used for? Who will be looking at the photo. The answer should help determine some of your direction with the photograph.
For example, the "tower" to anyone not familiar with SF is an eyesore in an otherwise compelling photograph.
The colours, to anyone not concerned about reality (photographers tend to be more concerned than the average Joe/Jill), maybe just fine. To many, their surrealism is a detriment.
If it's for a stock agency then the more compelling the better.
If it's for your wall only, well, anything goes.
Lots of "ifs" that only you can answer. There is no "right" way only ways that may be more or less acceptable to one group or another.
Do you want to play it safe? Follow the "rules". If you prefer to be more avante garde, then do whatever satisfies your original compulsion to make the photograph.
BTW, try raising the values of the fog so it looks less like a desert wind storm/mountains, unless, of course that's the way you envision it. :)
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. More - and very useful - grist for the mill...
John
-
What did you pick to set the white point and white balance curve ?
I think there are two light sources in the image - the sunset itself and the mixture of city lights that are very different.
For a sun that had set behind the coastal range, the city side fog looks like it has the wrong color cast for city lights. What about masking and working on the two halves separately ?
I've seen that orange glow in the sky after Pinitubo popped in the Philipines years ago, but that was at 35,000 ft over the Pacific.
Frank
-
What did you pick to set the white point and white balance curve ?
I think there are two light sources in the image - the sunset itself and the mixture of city lights that are very different.
For a sun that had set behind the coastal range, the city side fog looks like it has the wrong color cast for city lights. What about masking and working on the two halves separately ?
I've seen that orange glow in the sky after Pinitubo popped in the Philipines years ago, but that was at 35,000 ft over the Pacific.
Frank
Frank,
Given the very different sources of light on the two halves of the image as you note, setting the color balance was (and still is) the main challenge here. There wasn't a reasonable or obvious area to pick as neutral grey; the overall color balance was set on somewhere between daylight and tungsten. I did in fact use a layer mask to handle these areas separately, but as you may surmise it's still a work in progress. And yes, in retrospect I guess I also overdid it on the saturation (mea culpa).
In any case, the SF bay can give some pretty wild colors at dusk, especially when a low fog rolls in. The photo was taken ~40 minutes after the sun passed below the horizon. Twenty minutes prior, the colors were quite different. Whether this particular image ultimately works for me or not, I'm interested in learning how to tame these effects.
Thanks.
John