| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2005 04:10:20 PM · #1 |
Please don̢۪t take this as a thread where I am upset because I̢۪m not, I just want to get to the next level. I would like to hear from anyone that could give me some insight on what brought the score down. Was it the toning, composition, sharpness, focus, etc. Was it the water being so bright [blown out] at the base of the dam? I wanted it to be that way to show separation. I got some good comments on how they liked the photograph during the challenge and I want to thank the users that commented. What is your take on this photograph? Be honest, I stuck in the 5̢۪s no matter what I do and fell like the middle child here, overlooked. :(
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:18:07 PM · #2 |
my $.02...
More contrast in colors between the roof and the trees, they almost blend right now. Also, maybe a little more sepia and a little less B&W, and then to give it an older/abandoned look, ease up on the sharpening.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:24:52 PM · #3 |
Your image is absolutely crammed with unfulfilled potential. IMO your score is less a reflection upon your "vision" (The seeing, and the framing, of the shot) and more a comment upon your "technique" (the presentation of your vision in terms of a strong, visually compelling canvas of tones).
My overall impression of the picture is that it's "muddy". My secondary impression is that it's "flat". The flatteness is particularly disturbing because there are such strong visual depth cues contained wihtin the image, but the flat tonalities from truss to roof to trees are compressing the 3 separate planes of the image into one.
I'll take a poke at it in PS to see what i can do, but I'm sure it would be easier to work from the color original if you care to provide it. I'm 100% positive there's a FINE picture lurking in this particular image.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:29:19 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Your image is absolutely crammed with unfulfilled potential. IMO your score is less a reflection upon your "vision" (The seeing, and the framing, of the shot) and more a comment upon your "technique" (the presentation of your vision in terms of a strong, visually compelling canvas of tones).
My overall impression of the picture is that it's "muddy". My secondary impression is that it's "flat". The flatteness is particularly disturbing because there are such strong visual depth cues contained wihtin the image, but the flat tonalities from truss to roof to trees are compressing the 3 separate planes of the image into one.
I'll take a poke at it in PS to see what i can do, but I'm sure it would be easier to work from the color original if you care to provide it. I'm 100% positive there's a FINE picture lurking in this particular image.
Robt. |
Thanks Robert for offering. I will be glad to send you the original color version. Just pm me and let me know where to email it. I guess I err on the side of caution to much when its a basic editing challenge.
Louddog: Thank you for your comment as well. |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:29:40 PM · #5 |
I tried to show what i would have liked to see more of...
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:31:24 PM · #6 |
Hmmm, it wasn't hard at ALL to make a significant improvement in 30 seconds or so...
I'll look forward to the color version. PMing you.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:33:52 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
I tried to show what i would have liked to see more of...
|
What did you do and would it fit in the Basic Rules? LOOKS GOOD! |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:37:47 PM · #8 |
Robert its on its way to your email.
Thanks,
Scott W. |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 06:29:29 PM · #9 |
Working from the original, here's a quick go at it under basic editing rules. It's not an easy image to deal with under those rules because the bright water is so blocked up (an exposure problem) and I can't select various areas to treat differently. Nevertheless, this one is wide open tonally and has more depth to it:
Note that I have cropped foreground a fairish amount, and left the sky in as well, choosing to ignore the wires and poles in the sky; the full roof helps a lot compositionally.
This was converted to B/W in channel mixer, favoring the green channel heavily; this lightened the foliage and darkened the reds, lightened the foreground water a bit also. This is because the conversion uses more of the green light and yellow light and less of the red and blue. Then I Tri-toned it with one of the photoshop profiles to a medium sepia that had some punch.
Next I went to selective color and adjusted the color mix in the whites, neutrals and blacks to provide even more richness to the sepia tritone. Then I took it to color balance and pulled some yellow out of the light tones and some red out of the dark tones (not very much).
When I had all that the way I liked it I flattened the image, renamed it, and used a bunch of USM; oversharpened it, and faded that so it was just a notch oversharp, then went to gaussian blur and added a hint of that at a small radius to smooth out the harshness of the sharpening. All this was done at full size.
Then I reduced to 640 pixels and applied a touch of USM to gain back the sharpness I had lost. Saved for web, and here it is.
Took less time to 'splain it than it did to do it. It isn't perfect, but it's a lot more detailed now, and it does have a real sense of depth. If I could have used layer masking and layer modes, I could have done more with it. Either way, it was fun to play with, a difficult image to work on.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 06:46:44 PM · #10 |
i feel your pain, as I see you have a lot of potential.
what I see is an interesting image, but no real focal point. I find images with a main point of interest tend to do well.. look at the winners. they have interesting backdrops, however the buildings draw your eye to them. in your image, your eye goes all over the place, which may not be suited to this challenge.
also, as a side note, the image seems a little dark and jagged on my screen. |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 07:50:21 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Working from the original, here's a quick go at it under basic editing rules. It's not an easy image to deal with under those rules because the bright water is so blocked up (an exposure problem) and I can't select various areas to treat differently. Nevertheless, this one is wide open tonally and has more depth to it:
Note that I have cropped foreground a fairish amount, and left the sky in as well, choosing to ignore the wires and poles in the sky; the full roof helps a lot compositionally.
This was converted to B/W in channel mixer, favoring the green channel heavily; this lightened the foliage and darkened the reds, lightened the foreground water a bit also. This is because the conversion uses more of the green light and yellow light and less of the red and blue. Then I Tri-toned it with one of the photoshop profiles to a medium sepia that had some punch.
Next I went to selective color and adjusted the color mix in the whites, neutrals and blacks to provide even more richness to the sepia tritone. Then I took it to color balance and pulled some yellow out of the light tones and some red out of the dark tones (not very much).
When I had all that the way I liked it I flattened the image, renamed it, and used a bunch of USM; oversharpened it, and faded that so it was just a notch oversharp, then went to gaussian blur and added a hint of that at a small radius to smooth out the harshness of the sharpening. All this was done at full size.
Then I reduced to 640 pixels and applied a touch of USM to gain back the sharpness I had lost. Saved for web, and here it is.
Took less time to 'splain it than it did to do it. It isn't perfect, but it's a lot more detailed now, and it does have a real sense of depth. If I could have used layer masking and layer modes, I could have done more with it. Either way, it was fun to play with, a difficult image to work on.
Robt. |
Thanks Robert. I see what you mean about more tonal range and detail. I am going to try to work it without editing limits and hope I can come up with a good picture as well.
Thanks for the help visually and in you detailed explanation.
Scott W.
EDIT: BTW it think this is what is needed here at DPC with people stuck in the 5's. Some good critiques to help them maybe step to the next level.
To everyone that commented, Thank you!
Message edited by author 2005-04-20 19:52:13. |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 07:58:03 PM · #12 |
Robert's edit looks much better (sorry, Scott) because of the much wider tonal range, right?
Wouldn't it then stand to reason that the color version would look even better?
We are looking at so many different components (for want of a better word) at so many different levels, that seeing them all in the same color range just seems to add to the confusion.
Scott, could you please post the color version of it, too? |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:04:24 PM · #13 |
Hey sdw ... I'm right there with you. Now, I'm pretty new (a member now for 2 weeks), and I know I need a lot of work. The challenges I have now are about mid-range 5's so far, and I don't understand why. I think I'm going to do the same thing as you as soon as they're over and get some advice. It can be frustrating, because some people just say, "I don't like this or this." Or other's just say, "Wow, I like that!" I really like it when I'm told how to make it better. One of the comments I have received, I don't understand, because I don't see what they see.
Anyway ... enough complaining. :) I've been reading up on just about everything, and playing with Photoshop, which I am very new at, and hopefully the editing part will get easier with time.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:16:12 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Robert's edit looks much better (sorry, Scott) because of the much wider tonal range, right?
Wouldn't it then stand to reason that the color version would look even better?
We are looking at so many different components (for want of a better word) at so many different levels, that seeing them all in the same color range just seems to add to the confusion.
Scott, could you please post the color version of it, too? |
Sure here is the Color version. With a bit of color enhancement and contrast adjustment along with levels.
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:18:47 PM · #15 |
Here's the original original, only resized:
Herte's the color version "creatively" stepped on (not legal for basic editing) in a very hasty manner,l just to show some extremes it might head towards:
I'm wella ware this is sloppy work, btw. Just stepped on it for 2 or 3 minutes then slammed it up here. Enjoy!
(robt)
Message edited by author 2005-04-20 20:19:56.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:23:39 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Here's the original original, only resized:
Herte's the color version "creatively" stepped on (not legal for basic editing) in a very hasty manner,l just to show some extremes it might head towards:
I'm wella ware this is sloppy work, btw. Just stepped on it for 2 or 3 minutes then slammed it up here. Enjoy!
(robt) |
Nice job Robert.
The colored one above that I did a little editing on, What do you think of it? I would fall within the basic editing challenge.
BTW I just want to let everyone know this has been the most helpful thread for me because of everyones input, THANKS!
Message edited by author 2005-04-20 20:26:32. |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:28:39 PM · #17 |
I expect honest answers when I ask questions and I give them too.. so please don't take offense to my critique. I feel like the subject is unimpressive. It doesn't have that WoW factor. Its also a dull brown color. To me it doesnt have a point of interest of one subject that sticks out from the rest of the image. You know how to do it, your autumn photo has amazing color, your october free study has a main subject and is nicely done, just give it time.. Good Luck
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:30:55 PM · #18 |
SDW,
Your enhanced color version is better than the original color image, and better than the B/W image you entered as well, but I'm not sure it works better than the full-tone B/W image as I posted it. Why not try taking your color version, greatly exaggerating the saturation of the reds and greens on a hue/stauration layer, then opening a new hue/saturation layer and desaturating all until the only colors really popping are red and green? Adjust the relative opacity of those two layers 'til it looks right. That might be interesting...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:32:34 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I expect honest answers when I ask questions and I give them too.. so please don't take offense to my critique. I feel like the subject is unimpressive. It doesn't have that WoW factor. Its also a dull brown color. To me it doesnt have a point of interest of one subject that sticks out from the rest of the image. You know how to do it, your autumn photo has amazing color, your october free study has a main subject and is nicely done, just give it time.. Good Luck |
That's a perfectly valid response, and a pretty accurate one. But sometimes, after the fact, we can learn more from trying to rescue failed images than we can from trying to perfect excellent images. That's what we're doing here.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:36:59 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
That's a perfectly valid response, and a pretty accurate one. But sometimes, after the fact, we can learn more from trying to rescue failed images than we can from trying to perfect excellent images. That's what we're doing here.
Robt. |
and a fine job you guys are doing too :) but I am sooo not a PS person.. I try to take a photo that needs little ps. Its easier to take a good photo and tweak it than to take a bad one and try tricky effects to make it stand out :)
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:38:56 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
I tried to show what i would have liked to see more of...
|
What did you do and would it fit in the Basic Rules? LOOKS GOOD! |
As it is it would not fit the basic editing rules, because I remember doing a soft light + guassian blur layer at some point.
Basically the key things I did was to add a warmer brown using a combo of filter and hue/sat... then broaden the tonal range of your lights, neutrals and darks using levels, curves and selective color, then applied a usm.
I dont really like the current compotision and tried to crop it in different ways but still couldnt get something I liked.
While the shot fit the challenge I find it wasnt really an interesting/exciting shot.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:39:23 PM · #22 |
It's hard to say why some shots just don't do well.????? There are many in the archives.
In this case I think the angle was a bit awkward and of course as has been stated the dull color tone. Ahh, all this hindsight! Where is it when we need it~?
It's a cool old place and would be worthy of returning and doing a series of shots from there. |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:39:25 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
Originally posted by bear_music:
That's a perfectly valid response, and a pretty accurate one. But sometimes, after the fact, we can learn more from trying to rescue failed images than we can from trying to perfect excellent images. That's what we're doing here.
Robt. |
and a fine job you guys are doing too :) but I am sooo not a PS person.. I try to take a photo that needs little ps. Its easier to take a good photo and tweak it than to take a bad one and try tricky effects to make it stand out :) |
Yes, but if we learn how to rescue faile dimages, we are learning a broad spectrum of things that allow us to fine-tune excellent images to a high pitch of perfection. This was going on in the chemical darkroom LONG before the digital darkroom came on the scene.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:47:27 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by aerogurl:
Originally posted by bear_music:
That's a perfectly valid response, and a pretty accurate one. But sometimes, after the fact, we can learn more from trying to rescue failed images than we can from trying to perfect excellent images. That's what we're doing here.
Robt. |
and a fine job you guys are doing too :) but I am sooo not a PS person.. I try to take a photo that needs little ps. Its easier to take a good photo and tweak it than to take a bad one and try tricky effects to make it stand out :) |
Yes, but if we learn how to rescue faile dimages, we are learning a broad spectrum of things that allow us to fine-tune excellent images to a high pitch of perfection. This was going on in the chemical darkroom LONG before the digital darkroom came on the scene.
Robt. |
I agree with you Robert and respect aerogurl comment as well. I think both are valid points. Robert I agree with you because of you explanation, it will help in the good pictures you take.
The main reason I don't get the exact POV to make an image POP some times is because of limitations due to my illness. But I can't let that be a Caine to lean on. I have to learn to accommodate for my limitations. |
|
