Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on July 12, 2013, 01:50:14 pm
-
Comments?
Jeremy
-
The graphics are good, Jeremy, but I think I'd have blurred that view through the hole. It's distracting. You still can do it with a selection and lens blur.
-
I agree that the graphics are great. I'm not sure the background needs blurring, but since Russ says it does, it probably does.
If you can give it a try without bending yourself out of shape too much, I'd like to see it.
Eric M.
-
Good idea/seeing.
I would experiment with a much more graphical approach (i.e., stronger contrast) and would go perhaps with a total obliteration (overexposure) of the view through the hole. The way it is, it is too realistic, which distracts from the inherent geometric and graphical components.
-
Here's another possibility, though I didn't take time to get the selection exact.
-
The graphics are good, Jeremy, but I think I'd have blurred that view through the hole. It's distracting. You still can do it with a selection and lens blur.
I don't usually like to rearrange another's images, but this time I felt Russ was onto something: so I kept the general form, did the blur and added some colour in Photoshop 6.
What do you think? Or have I taken the adjustments too far from the original intent?
;-)
Rob C
-
I don't usually like to rearrange another's images, but this time I felt Russ was onto something: so I kept the general form, did the blur and added some colour in Photoshop 6.
What do you think? I have I taken the adjustments too far from the original intent?
;-)
Rob C
That's just what Russ was talking about. ;D
-
I don't usually like to rearrange another's images, but this time I felt Russ was onto something: so I kept the general form, did the blur and added some colour in Photoshop 6.
What do you think? Or have I taken the adjustments too far from the original intent?
It's an interesting take on my original, Rob, but I can't help feeling that the fundamentally land-based ethos which prompted me to take it has been, if not wholly lost, at least obscured; and nautical elements have started to intrude. There's an irony too in your reintroduction of colour, which I'd so painstakingly removed.
Good idea/seeing.
I would experiment with a much more graphical approach (i.e., stronger contrast) and would go perhaps with a total obliteration (overexposure) of the view through the hole. The way it is, it is too realistic, which distracts from the inherent geometric and graphical components.
Obliteration gave a rather strong white streak, which didn't appeal to me.
I've tried a simple, strong blur with a curves adjustment, which produced the first result below. I've also tried your suggestion of much increased contrast and strong clarity in LR; that produced the second result, which I rather like. Is it what you had in mind?
Jeremy
-
I like what you are doing in these last two versions, and I think part of what you have done with contrast and clarity helps, but I think II-2 goes just a bit too far. I'd try for about 2/3 of the way between the next-to-last variant and the last variant.
Eric M. (picky, picky, ...)
-
Last version gets my favor indeed!
By processing that way you obliterate the distraction of the far background and give the image a vintage-y, fineart-sy look that marries well with the B&W and the square crop.
I would stick with the II-2 processing with this kind of shots which (my last 2 bits) I like.
-
I'm okay with blurring out the background a bit, but I don't find it too distracting. What catches me are all of the straight lines and angles within the circle - a wonderful collaboration.
Mike.