|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Reply |
I need to dig the film out and try to look at it carefully on the light table, but I think the greenish glow is an artifact of scanning and processing vs. flare on the film. This is the sort of image that would benefit from a drum scanner vs my flatbed. In fact, still learning my flatbed, I scanned this particular image mainly to see how badly it would come out. Then I was pleasantly surprised it wasn't too bad.
In any case I fixed the greenish cast. But I am thinking about your comments that the black hole doesn't work and the lower tails of light lead you out of the frame. On the later, I am wondering if I can't fade them more to help prevent the tendency to leave the frame. Maybe I will try and let you tell me what you think. Don't know what to do with the black hole. Putting stuff on top of it is a nice idea, perhaps I will play with that more.
Agree there is a lot to play with in something this abstract.
|
Jul 21st |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Reply |
Bob, I had an hour or so, and went ahead and tried some stuff. I went back to a version without the rotated multi-exposure, since that didn't seem to be working for folks (and I agreed with everyone looking at it again). But then I went with a more low key version which tries to fade and darken the elements reaching out from the center. I am hoping this both simplifies things as well as holds the viewer interest in the frame better. I still did not address the "black hole". I am hoping that it works in a more believable understandable way as the obscuring piece of rock now that the multi-exposure that overlaid part of it is gone. Thoughts welcome. |
Jul 20th |
 |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Reply |
I need to dig the film out and try to look at it carefully on the light table, but I think the greenish glow is an artifact of scanning and processing vs. flare on the film. This is the sort of image that would benefit from a drum scanner vs my flatbed. In fact, still learning my flatbed, I scanned this particular image mainly to see how badly it would come out. Then I was pleasantly surprised it wasn't too bad.
In any case I fixed the greenish cast. But I am thinking about your comments that the black hole doesn't work and the lower tails of light lead you out of the frame. On the later, I am wondering if I can't fade them more to help prevent the tendency to leave the frame. Maybe I will try and let you tell me what you think. Don't know what to do with the black hole. Putting stuff on top of it is a nice idea, perhaps I will play with that more.
Agree there is a lot to play with in something this abstract.
|
Jul 20th |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Reply |
Bob, I like the added drama you have brought by darkening things overall and then more so at the edges (edges maybe a tad overdone). I particularly like how in your version how the sloped symmetry of the magenta clouds and right end of the Saddledome are emphasized further. It simplifies the whole image. |
Jul 18th |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Reply |
Thanks Cheryl. I did not think the multiple exposure was as obvious as you and Dan are pointing out. I did spend some time trying to blend (and somehow this was frustratingly harder than expected) but I clearly need to work at it some more. Not sure what you mean by the comment "would have to be at the same angle".
I'm not discouraged. I do think the question of how much to follow thoughts from others vs. one's own path is one which could be worthy of a deep discussion. For example, maybe here it is not important to disguise the multiple copies but embrace them as part of the "motion" which somehow this image invokes for me and which is further echoed in the title "Dancer". Even before we get to others, I'm not sure of my own opinion on this. |
Jul 18th |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Reply |
Thanks Bob. Yes, the biggest challenge with this is that the composition was not stellar - hence the big black hole (which when posted btw looked to have a green cast vs black - I've since fixed that) as well as a general imbalance. The "multi-exposure" was my shot at trying to fix that, but your crop is an interesting alternative. Makes it a completely different image - I don't know if I like it more or less, it is just very different to me. I will let it set and come back a few times - my usual approach. Appreciate the suggestion in any case. |
Jul 18th |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Comment |
Bob, this is a very artistic image - from a humble original, you've produced something quite interesting. The cool monotonic colors definitely are a key element of the artistry, and I like the somewhat high key washed out moon which appropriately gives it a sense of distance despite its size.
You mentioned concern over a directional light issue - that is the one significant issue I see. The illumination of the right side rock clearly can not come from the moon which is behind the rock. So where is it coming from? I think your options are to hope no one notices or cares, to move the moon to the left (out from behind the rock), or to add a second moon to the left (either up near where the sun was in the original or perhaps somewhere in between there and the current moon position. I'd start by trying to move the moon. I suspect it will not work because where it is now gives you the visual balance you need, but I'd try that first. Then I'd consider a second moon. That destroys Dan's rule of three (both as he stated it above and because you only have 2 moons). I suppose you could add two other moons for a total of three. I think the image would be too complicated at that point, but there might be a subtle way to do it (maybe one of them is very small and distant).
In any case, I'd play with it further and see if something works. These are interesting problems to try to solve. Perhaps others will also have additional ideas.
|
Jul 10th |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Comment |
Hi Cheryl, very nice grand city scape. Your processing has brought the city alive, both in terms of the brilliance of the lights and the more interesting sky which complements everything else. I would say the new sky is an improvement. I think you could crop the original about 2/3 up from the bottom where the blue starts to come in (creating more of a pano), but otherwise for me there is not enough interest in the sky despite the strong colors. I also think the clouds help "frame" the subject below. I particularly like how the slope of the clouds matches that of the dominant right end of the Saddledome, which for me is the subject. I think it subtly makes the Saddledome standout further from the buildings. The one thought on the new sky might be to try sliding it left just a bit. The upper left corner is conspicuously bare of clouds and my eye wants to go there because it is different. If that bare spot was a little smaller, I don't think that would happen.
Otherwise, agree with Dan, you should sell this to the Calgary tourism board! |
Jul 10th |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Comment |
Hi Dan. I enjoyed the your description of setting up the shot as it really conveyed the work involved in arranging the composition. My experience is that these sorts of small scenes require even more work than larger scenes. Small, seemingly inconsequential changes can actually have large effects, so it can be a struggle to get things to come together. I've worked scenes for an hour only to give up. So I appreciate the work you put in to make this image happen.
You asked about the ferns and whether they are still too bright. I'd say maybe yes but because their brightness and coloring for me has tremendous visual weight. To my eye, the purple clovers can't compete, and so the balance in the image is driven by the ferns - and it doesn't feel quite balanced. I am often wrong about these things though which is why I probably struggle for hours and give up. In continuing to work this in post, the other consideration for me would be that the outer half of the bottom right fern doesn't look sharp to me. Did you focus stack this or is it a single exposure?
I played with the image for at least an hour. Cropping, rotating, even some puppet warp in PS. I played with the tonality and color of the ferns, and played with the lighting. I tried editing out a few of the purple clovers. I didn't come up with anything I liked better, and finally gave up. I concluded the problem for me is that I feel the ferns and purple clovers both need visual balance independently. I couldn't get one to balance the other. After all of that I came back to your original and found it had grown on me. It is a beautiful shot. And it is a very interesting one to play with. I need to find another hour.
|
Jul 10th |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Reply |
Thanks Dan. I'm glad to get feedback that I didn't go too far with the color & saturation. I'm always nervous showing a dull before shot. I'm noticing that the pro landscape photographers are generally unwilling to share the originals of their portfolio images. I don't think they want people knowing how far they have journeyed from the literal interpretation, or at least that is my thesis.
I'm going to keep trying the creative stuff - flare, double exposure, etc. - since part of my goal here is to expand creatively, but in ways that work. So far, it seems I've not found ones that work, but I'm not discouraged yet. I hesitated to describe the multiple exposure, wondering how obvious it is without me pointing it out. Sounds like for you at least it is pretty obvious. Also good feedback, and good suggestions about how to make it a little less obvious. |
Jul 10th |
| 96 |
Jul 21 |
Comment |
Hi Emily. For me the strength in this photo is the vanishing point back near the Brooklyn skyline with the platform, track, lights, and roof lines all leading you back there. It occurred to me that the sun coming through the grating on the left cuts across this - made me wonder if there was a day/time the sun aligns low on the horizon back at the vanishing point. That might be really dramatic!
I also wondered if there couldn't be more visual drama by getting low (I'm guessing this was shot at eye level standing) and having more of a foreground in the platform cement. Might there be an interesting section of that which could further enhance the front to back feel?
You've developed the image well - I wouldn't make many changes there. Maybe boost the shadows on the track just a little further so some of the detail there becomes more apparent. I might also darken the lamps - particularly the nearest one - a little bit. That one is bright and for me competes a little in allowing one to follow the flow back to the vanishing point. Just some thoughts. |
Jul 10th |
4 comments - 7 replies for Group 96
|
4 comments - 7 replies Total
|
