Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 09, 2014, 05:27:46 pm
-
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5455/13960774240_720a79651b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ngEBN9)
Louvre at Sunset (https://flic.kr/p/ngEBN9) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/people/20843597@N05/), on Flickr
-
Spectacular!
Tony Jay
-
Great lines. Would be a great spot for a long exposure.
-
Lovely light and composition, Slobodan. The buildings on the right seem to me to be leaning backwards, which is a little disconcerting.
Jeremy
-
Lovely indeed, SB.
Is that the same sunset you've been carrying around in your gadget bag? ;)
-
Perfect everything!
-
Very nice, Slobodan. Can't even call it a tourist picture. It speaks to me.
-
Very nice, Slobodan. Can't even call it a tourist picture. It speaks to me.
Me too.
-
NICE!!!
-
I really like the composition. The slightly tilted building on the right doesn't disturb me at all. Perhaps it has to lean back a little bit to balance the heavy weight of the pyramid.
Harald
-
One that I wish I'd taken
-
Hmmm... tilted building... I do not know, I am often correcting verticals, but somehow, in this case, it does not bother me that much. Perhaps because there are so many diagonals and geometric and perspective distortions in the image that it blends in better?
On the other hand, if corrected, as below, I am losing a bit at the edges, and it makes the image a bit cramped, without room to breathe. What say you?
-
I say "Leave it alone."
-
I say "Leave it alone."
Me too.
-
Or, you could straighten up that glass structure at the left. Then nobody would know it was from the Louvre. :D
I like the original just fine.
-
When I wrote my first comment I wasn't sure. Now I am. For me the first one works better.
Harald
-
Great shot - dynamic, dramatic and colourful. Nicely seen and executed (oh, right, that was at the Place de la Concorde :)).
-
Beautifully shot.
-
Hmmm... tilted building... I do not know, I am often correcting verticals, but somehow, in this case, it does not bother me that much. Perhaps because there are so many diagonals and geometric and perspective distortions in the image that it blends in better?
On the other hand, if corrected, as below, I am losing a bit at the edges, and it makes the image a bit cramped, without room to breathe. What say you?
The original is better. I apologise for setting that hare running: the tilt bothered me but not to the extent of spoiling the shot.
Jeremy
-
There isn't anything set in stone that says an image has to be "perfect". In this case the original is a fine image that doesn't need "perfecting". One that I would be proud of. :)
-
Hmmm... tilted building... I do not know, I am often correcting verticals, but somehow, in this case, it does not bother me that much. Perhaps because there are so many diagonals and geometric and perspective distortions in the image that it blends in better?
On the other hand, if corrected, as below, I am losing a bit at the edges, and it makes the image a bit cramped, without room to breathe. What say you?
I would definitely correct for verticals.
Not doing it makes the image way more snapshotyy than it deserves.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... snapshotyy...
Ouch! ;)
-
I'd vote for the original, loosing edges is not worth having perfect geometry. It's a very pleasant shot, I love it.
-
I prefer the original. The photograph is more about the light and being economically inclusive compositionally than it is about the buildings. The dramatic tree line reflected at the bottom of the glass is good for the scene in general, but bad for the architecture because it emphasizes the gutter.
-
Sorry, but I couldn't resist ;)
Dave
-
Thanks, Dave. It seems to be losing less in real estate than LR auto correction. What did you do?
-
Thanks, Dave. It seems to be losing less in real estate than LR auto correction. What did you do?
Ah, that would be a secret..!
No of course it isn’t ;D All I did in PS, was to first try using puppet warp, but that just seemed to smear the detail, so I Ctr;+Alt+z’ed my way back out of that, then I duplicated the background layer (Ctrl+j), put a selection over the part of the shot that seemed to be effected by lens distortion on the main part of the building to the right, but that also included the top right and all way down to the bottom of the shot, to end up with a selection for about a third of the shot on the right. I then used Ctrl+t for transform and skewed the selection on the upper layer to the left (Ctrl+shift+ top middle transform handle) until the building edge to the left looked straight, then using the bottom right corner handle with Ctrl+shift to pull the right side of the building straight from the bottom. I then applied a mask to the corrected upper layer and blended it back into the background layer in a way that kept the best of the detail form both layers. I then cropped out your sig from the background layer, as it had now moved and distorted a little on the upper layer and pasted it onto the upper layer after doing a selection and content aware fill over the old distorted sig first to remove it. I then flattened the image, selected all (ctrl+a) and levelled out the horizon by pulling the top left hand handle with Ctrl+shift to the left a little and then stretching the bottom left corner down a little to square everything back up.
Not a great explanation I know, sorry! But I suppose it does go to show that the old 'do it yourself' methods can still beat the 'auto' methods some of the time ;)
Dave
-
I knew it would take a major reconstructive surgery!
Thanks again, Dr. Hickey!
-
A simper method is to convert the background layer to a smart object and duplicate the background layer. Then go to Edit>Transform>Skew and pull at the corners till everything is OK. This is non destructive - visually - and no cropping is necessary. :)
-
A simper method is to convert the background layer to a smart object and duplicate the background layer. Then go to Edit>Transform>Skew and pull at the corners till everything is OK. This is non destructive - visually - and no cropping is necessary. :)
Robert, I don't really get what you mean, not the use of a smart object etc, but the fact that you say you can transform and skew the image without any need to crop into it - I think the exercise this is now turning into, is to see how well the lens distortion in the original image, can be repaired whilst still keeping as many of the pixels as possible from the original frame - any chance you could have a go with your method using smart objects etc and upload it here to show me/us what you mean, thanks.
If there is a better way, I really am keen to learn more :)
Dave
-
Dave, I don't think that smart objects work on a jpeg? Besides I am not into downloading other photographer's work and editing it. You are obviously skilled enough in PS to try the method. What happens when you use the method is that interpolation takes place which will technically degrade the image but not visually. I use it regularly to straighten up the awkward images without the need to crop any of the image.
-
Dave, I don't think that smart objects work on a jpeg? Besides I am not into downloading other photographer's work and editing it. You are obviously skilled enough in PS to try the method. What happens when you use the method is that interpolation takes place which will technically degrade the image but not visually. I use it regularly to straighten up the awkward images without the need to crop any of the image.
No probs Robert. It wasn't a challenge BTW, it's just that I am genuinely interested in learning any tricks or tweaks that may have passed me by ;)
Dave