Page 2 of 4
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:47 pm
Good question. I posted as a means to put them out. I often correct and sit on an image. After reopening, I make further corrections, often reducing the saturation. Sometimes I go "Ouch, who did that?" and start over. The most interesting thing will be to go back to pre CM and redo some images. That would make an interesting comparison.
Yes, I would like a critique. I think it best to focus. Which one needs the most?
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:36 pm
Out of them all the one I am most concerned about would be #15
The vegetation is quite blue and overall it looks flat to me...
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:47 am
Good call, Greg. It was blue. Shadows were blue,who would have thought. Here is the original and an update version. This stresses the image, so noise becomes a factor. I would probably start over in a few days and compare versions.
I printed the group and have noticed other problems. The other arichoke is overdone and a little (or a lot) oversaturated. I will make another pass.
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:29 pm
Steve, this is a great idea. You are talking about "old" images, so I suppose some of them were shot in jpeg format and that's why you're limited, cannot really use a sledgehammer on them.
I like the image of the cathedral (church) most; the atmosphere, quietness and the feeling of awesomeness.
Last night I listened to a critique from Trey Ratcliff and he mentioned that one must be able to see the "master" in an image. What is most important and how do you lead the eye to it. I'm talking more to myself here, because I the least qualified to critique, but keen to learn.
Kind regards, Ganna (Martin)
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:49 pm
Hope you don't mind if I add my two cents. I've been thinking about the cityscape image which is an interesting challenge. The "square" -- piazza? -- which predominates spatially in the image, has a polygon shape as photographed, which tends to get lost in the color version where it's an unremarkable grey (with some chroma noise maybe?) competing with the very colorful houses and sky. It loses, which tends to neutralize it visually.
One possibility: How about a vintage/Atget version, which, I think, makes the square's polygon shape the basic foundation for the image?
Of course, this version loses color and is tending to blow the sky and plug the shadows, but such sacrifices may have to be made for form!
Or maybe not...
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:11 pm
Ganna, thanks for the kind words. Re: the cathedral image, my most recent thoughts were to desaturate the red ceiling.
re: the imaging the shot. Good idea, but you have to take what is given you. Some of my best shots were grab. When photographing a sunrise/ sunset you do not have a lot of time to plan. You need the proper skills and equipment.
Off topic alert!!!
I have a shot that I have been working on for two years. No, it will not be a cover shot for Nat Geo or win awards. I have a road that is 12 feet above a field. Behind the field (about a mile) is a building I own. Further back is a hill that is sometimes green and radar domes. Further back is a mountain and blue sky. There is a 180 degree field of crop. I drive that road daily with camera and tripod. My conclusion is this yield two photos. One, is the wide angle with little focus or detail on the background. That would be 180 degree with wide angle. The other would be a medium telephoto and little focus on the foreground. I have tried both at least 15 times. No joy so far.
Interesting. The square (polygon) photographed from third story dominated the photo, but is like a black hole of interest. BW takes the focus from the pastels. I do have other takes of this location. I will try the duotone on those. Background, this is the center square of Quito, Ecuador. It is important to the country. We spent three nights at this very fancy hotel. But no days, just one late afternoon. I really wanted to tour, but thanks to American Airlines, that was not to be.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:01 pm
Steve how about something like this for #15
From your original. I used a L channel mask blurred to about 8 Pixels to work on the foreground...then an inverted mask of the same thing for the sky. Later I used the skin mask...I don't exactly know why it worked but it did...to fix the magenta bulbs.
I worked to get the data back towards the center of the histogram a bit first through the masks. I was able to expand pixel range but it but not move it too far.
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:47 am
Thanks, that opened my eyes. The sky was toooooo bright and distracting. I lightened up the foreground artichokes most. The others I saturated a little. I wanted three levels. The foreground is the star.
Update: I printed and the banding in the sky is still a problem.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:01 am
I took another crack at the square. It was too dark, and the square itself sort of drained attention. So I cropped and brightened the foreground. I thought about making the cathedral brigher than the rest of the town, but that did not work for me. If this is a real printer, I will probably start over and take fewer and better steps.
I have been working on old panos. I had a problem that has slowed me up. The image seemed to want an HDR treatment. I finally found a tool that worked, but there was a problem. Although I took it on a tripod with manual exposure, the foreground went back and forth and subtle blotches. Oh well, I went back and pushed the normal images and they worked okay.
Image 1 is the "fixed" Quito photo.
Image 2 is the problem hdr photo.
Image 3 is the pano, a work in progress. To do right, I need to restart and take care to prevent the burned out sun. There is some other hand tweeks to be done.
Also, I toned down the last artichoke. It still was too hot.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:11 am
Steve, image1 is leaning over to the left. It looks better when you straighten it.