 | Discussion on: Image 1414 - "Whitby Abbey" |
| Discussion on: Image 1414 - "Whitby Abbey" |
Discussion on: Image 1414 - "Whitby Abbey" | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Discussion, revisions and constructive criticisms of Image 1414 - "Whitby Abbey" | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Msg: #1 September 19th 2007 05:46:49 | Too much torch? Something about this just doesn't feel "real" to me. If it's the effect that you're after, then fine. But if you're trying to portray "reality", then perhaps not. It's a problem that I have with many of these "boosted" shots. There's definitely something grabby about them. But something that I find off putting. But that's subjective. More objective. And just an observation. The main subject, the ruins, feels tilted to the right. I checked it against a grid and found it not to be. Must be a bit of an optical illusion via the tilt of the land in the foreground. That black sign/whatever stands out a bit too much IMO. If you're not a sticker for reality I'd clone it away. It caught my eye soon after opening the image and I asked "why?". Perhaps the ruins fill the frame too much? Have no idea what lies to the right except for interesting sky. And no idea where the water goes on the left/foreground. But if there was room I think pulling back and framing the ruins along the left third might have been better. But perhaps there's a Tesco there.... Overall, very well done. Even if it's not my cup of tea. ;o) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Msg: #2 September 19th 2007 13:41:56 | Here's the original; processing consists of conversion in DPP (sat=0), then resize/sharpening framing in PS. Red channel's toast. On the first version I used a layer mask of a shot -2EV to fix the highlights. The reason the colours look bright here is that the artificial light is very orange (as Sodium lighting tends to be); to tone that down results in the sky going very blue. The more you adjust the building towards reality the more nuclear blue the sky will go. I deliberately shot at this time so I could maximize the colours. As for rotation/skew etc here's the original; I corrected the horizon and the verticals on the ruins, so it's possible I screwed something along the way. The problems from a compositional perspective are three f'ing massive floodlights just out of the frame on the right, on the left English Heritage cleverly built a red brick visitors centre with all the visual appeal of the proverbial brick washroom ;) Interesting point on the sign; hadn't even seen it before you mentioned it! |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Msg: #3 September 19th 2007 13:48:19 | Here's a wider shot, slightly earlier in the evening before the lighting gets interesting. No doubt you'll prefer it. I was composing to avoid the floodlights lamppost and ruined bit on the right on the shot, as they're undoubtedly distracting IMO. To the left of the Abbey you can see the town of Whitby itself, not the sea. Compositional options are heavily limited by the perimeter wall you can see in this shot, it's particularly limiting as you can't see over it ;) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cameron Karsten (cam2yogi) Msg: #4 September 19th 2007 15:49:20 | Hmm, interesting. I prefer the original shot. The contrasts are brilliant with the tone of the sky against the light on the left of the abbey. Beautiful composition, and the mere lamp post in the bottom right is a nice juxaposition for the whole image. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Msg: #5 September 19th 2007 16:54:30 | "The reason the colours look bright here is that the artificial light is very orange (as Sodium lighting tends to be); to tone that down results in the sky going very blue. The more you adjust the building towards reality the more nuclear blue the sky will go. I deliberately shot at this time so I could maximize the colours." Adjust the ruins and sky differently? The sodium light, I don't like. Too unnatural. Adjust the color balance to get something more 'real'? And tone down the front/shadow area just a bit? The "tilt". An optical illusion (that I see, perhaps no one else...). The land starts from the left with a slight rise and then dives in front of the ruins. Makes the ruins seem to tilt until one looks closely. Not a criticism, just an observation. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Msg: #6 September 19th 2007 19:32:00 | Bob; I suppose my point is that the colours are real, the light really is orange. You can see how orange it is in the naturally lit version just to the left of the little ruin on the right. Why make it duller when it isn't? I'd be making the colours match your idea of what reality should look like, rather than what it actually does look like. That sounds a bit strange to me ;) I understand your point about the tilt, and I do see what you mean about the optical illusion. Unfortunately without an earth mover there's not a lot I can do! Cam: Fair enough; I created the first posted version because I knew Bob would find the blown out wall distracting. Thanks for the feedback :D | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Peter A (Peter) Msg: #7 September 22nd 2007 08:29:28 | Nice shot. I really like the darker, more contrasty sky in the original (revision 1) though. Is there any way in PS to preserve that sky whilst still allowing the editing done with regard to lighting on the building? Overall I prefer the finished product, but I'm quite keen on that darker original sky. Just curious how/if it could be preserved in the editing process. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Msg: #8 September 22nd 2007 15:17:21 | Thanks Peter; that's useful feedback :) Yes, it's possible to leave the sky untouched; probably the easiest route would be to use Select/ColorRange to grab the sky, then Invert the selection. As a matter of interest, would you (or anyone else) prefer the ground boosted up a bit, as it is in my first post, or unaltered as per R1? | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Msg: #9 September 24th 2007 03:30:49 | OK; final version? |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Msg: #10 September 24th 2007 22:22:34 | Test | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Peter A (Peter) Msg: #11 September 25th 2007 06:27:51 | Hmm. Hard to decide. I like the light editing done on the ruin itself, but I don't know how it would look with the foreground unboosted. I think that the ruin is already quite strong, and that unboosting the foreground would strengthen it even further. In this case, I dont think it would be necessary, though I would be interested in seeing it if you had the time/inclination to post it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Msg: #12 September 27th 2007 06:05:50 | Comments at this point (on my part) are all subjective. Not stuff like "you're horizon needs straightening...". I like the R3 version best. It's a little closer to 'real'. I recognize that real is a building flooded with sodium light, so I guess you did a good job with that. I'd rather see the ruins in natural light. There's something offputting (to me) about lighting up stuff that is from yesteryear. Framing.... Looks like there might be a nice shot with the headland on the right included. That would let the ruins fade a bit back into the frame. There's not a lot of interesting detail in the ruins that I can see and a wider framing might set a scene of more desolation. Perhaps there will be another nice sunset some day.... | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Number Users: 4 Number of Posts: 12 | To Reply Join Jeber Photo Clubs - you will be required to join this club | |||||||||||||||||||||
Revision: 3 Adrian Warren (AdrianW) |
Revision: 2 Adrian Warren (AdrianW) |
Revision: 1 Adrian Warren (AdrianW) |
