Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: orca  (Read 991 times)

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: orca
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2020, 03:53:08 am »

I prefer the Black and White but feel the colour could work if it was slightly desaturated so there was just enough colour to make it not look black and white. I am also not fond of the magenta cast on the bottom left. Desaturating might calm that down a bit as well.

On the sharpening debate. If you say you did nothing extra with sharpening Jeremy then I assume that’s not the issue. It does look a bit crunchy though, and while it may be, as you have suggested, perfectly natural, it is a bit distracting which is all that matters in a photo. These effects can come from a bit too much clarity or texture in LR or the equivalent process in another image editor. Reversing that or if that wasn't used, applying those effects in a negative direction might remove what I certainly see as a distraction from the main subject which is obviously the orca. The eye obviously always gets pulled the the sharpest most contrast are of the image and I feel that this is happening here.

Use it or not you asked for input and that is mine.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Ivo_B

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1066
    • www.ivophoto.be
Re: orca
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2020, 07:18:04 am »

I apologize to have interrupted this discussion about an university level image with my toddler skills.
It will never, never happen again. How can ‘I’ be so arrogant. ....

 ;D ;D
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: orca
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2020, 07:56:55 am »

How can ‘I’ be so arrogant. ....

That's really the question. I hope you figure it out.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Re: orca
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2020, 08:53:25 am »

I'm looking at a photograph by Edward Weston, China Cove - Point Lobos and the effect in the water seems similar to me.
I don't think that Weston had photoshopped it
Logged

Ivo_B

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1066
    • www.ivophoto.be
Re: orca
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2020, 09:15:15 am »

That's really the question. I hope you figure it out.

Ha, here is the second university level photographer of Lula.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: orca
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2020, 09:55:00 am »

It doesn't matter if it looks like some other famous print, the OP asked for critique and a few here thinks it's over sharpened ( at least looks like it ) and that distracts from the image. My eyes are totally focused on the crunchy water rather than the real subject in the image.
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5540
    • Photos
Re: orca
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2020, 09:57:48 am »

I don’t think they look particularly unnatural but, in this Weston photo those reflections seem to be the subject while in Jeremy’s shot they distract at some extent from the subject. My suggestion was to try to tame them at some extent and see where that leads, it might make the subject pop more or it might look unnatural.

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Re: orca
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2020, 10:48:52 am »

It doesn't matter if it looks like some other famous print, the OP asked for critique and a few here thinks it's over sharpened ( at least looks like it ) and that distracts from the image. My eyes are totally focused on the crunchy water rather than the real subject in the image.
My point is not if it looks like a famous print but to show that under similar conditions if you take a photo of that, you are likely to get that. No extra-sharpening involved.
It is just a print everybody can have access to - ergo valid as an example
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 10:54:17 am by rabanito »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: orca
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2020, 11:14:17 am »

Ha, here is the second university level photographer of Lula.

Absolutely, Ivo, and if you work hard and pay attention, one of these days you may be able to get beyond the gradeschool level of photography and approach that kind of perfection.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: orca
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2020, 11:19:04 am »

My point is not if it looks like a famous print but to show that under similar conditions if you take a photo of that, you are likely to get that. No extra-sharpening involved.
It is just a print everybody can have access to - ergo valid as an example

My point is no matter if it's natural or not or not caused by over sharpening...it is distracting in this image...which is what a critique is all about.
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: orca
« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2020, 11:36:24 am »

My point is no matter if it's natural or not or not caused by over sharpening...it is distracting in this image...which is what a critique is all about.

Thank you. Exactly.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Re: orca
« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2020, 11:39:06 am »

My point is no matter if it's natural or not or not caused by over sharpening...it is distracting in this image...which is what a critique is all about.

It is not "ALL" about. The issue of oversharpening was also raised and discussed.
The OP just asked "color or B&W", You said "crunchy". Then we discussed "crunchiness"

Of course it's OK to add an opinion on crunchiness too, don't take me wrong .

But I associate "oversharpening" with accentuating the contrast along the edges of objects or subjects to the point of introducing artifacts (such as haloing) or noise-like textures in an image.
Just read the answers of other participants on that.

Hope this helps
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: orca
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2020, 04:44:42 am »

I apologize to have interrupted this discussion about an university level image with my toddler skills.

You are confusing a "university level" image, which this snap (in common with the vast majority of photographs posted here) plainly isn't, with "university level" critique and discussion, which we, collectively, aim for and often (well, sometimes) manage to achieve.

My point is no matter if it's natural or not or not caused by over sharpening...it is distracting in this image...which is what a critique is all about.

That is a perfectly fair point. Perhaps the thread demonstrates the dangers of leaping from observation of result to conclusion of cause.

The appearance of the water in the photograph accurately reflects (no pun intended) the appearance of the water as I remember it. I can see what people are getting at, but it's due to the weather conditions at the time the shot was taken, the sun reflected in the fine ripples around the beast. The effect may, as Slobodan suggested, be due to downsizing a very high-resolution image; certainly, it seems marginally more pronounced as posted here than it does in the original. I'll investigate.

Jeremy
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up