Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ferry from Vancouver to Nanaimo British Columbia  (Read 3001 times)
PSA DC-9-30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200



« on: July 02, 2007, 05:49:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm trying to improve my self-critiquing skills, and am having a difficult time deciding among these images. I would like to hear your opinion on which one of these you like best and why.

Any thought on my copyright notice (i.e., how it could be improved in appearance, effectiveness) would be helpful as well. I will replace it with a web page url as soon as I have that set up.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2007, 05:51:42 PM by PSA DC-9-30 » Logged

PSA DC-9-30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200



« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2007, 01:35:59 PM »
ReplyReply

101 views and not a single reply?  

Perhaps the task I have laid out is too daunting? Perhaps the images at hand are immensely boring, technically flawed, and / or otherwise unworthy of comment?

I will now rephrase my original post to:

"Hey, whatta ya think of these photos!?"
« Last Edit: July 04, 2007, 01:47:15 PM by PSA DC-9-30 » Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2007, 01:57:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I kinda like the 4th one.  It has a point of interest that I'm not sure the others do.  And the sky looks better to me than in the others.  The water is less interesting.  I'd process the bejesus out of it.  I do find them dull which is why I didn't bother picking between them before.

Oh, as to your copyright thing, you might want to read some of the recent kerfuffle on the subject at the online photographer.  

http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html

Scroll down to the On the Wisdom of Copyright Notices post and work your way up.  Lots of info yay and nay about such things.  (Lots of comments so budget some time.)

If you have to have one I'd suggest making it large enough to convey the information you need conveyed and no larger.  (IOW it's too big.)

The 4th photo is growing on me.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2007, 01:58:04 PM »
ReplyReply

In my opinion, none of these pictures have anything to catch the eye. There are no subjectively interesting patterns, no particular features, nothing that stands out. There must be something to distinguish the image from a run-of-the-mill yet-another-boring-grey-day-with-sunlight-coming-through look. I don't see any of that in any of the images, sorry.
Logged

Jan
PSA DC-9-30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200



« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2007, 02:13:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the comments. This is one thing I am trying to figure out--what is the difference between yet another pretty landscape / seascape photo and a great photograph and / or work of art (or whatever terminology you may like)? If anything, I like these photos as the former, if not the latter.

I do think there is a sense of drama and motion in these photos, which is why I selected them

I don't know what is meant by processing "the bejeesus out of them".  When you say dull, do you mean lacking in contrast, too dark, or just lacking in a point of interest? I did adjust levels, saturation, sharpness, etc. slightly in PS CS2, but my goal is to recreate the scene as I remember it. I felt that any further alterations to levels would start blowing out too many highlights.

Thanks, again!
Logged

HickersonJasonC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2007, 04:26:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Kevin, I downloaded your image #4 and took a look at it. While you are right about your highlights starting to blow, your shadows were way too light (for conventional processing). Ansel Adams said that every image should have something black and something white in it. While I don't like rules in art, it's true for most images.

I've "corrected" your image to have a maximum black (alt-click and drag the shadow tab in the Levels . . . window until you see black somewhere). I also added an adjustment curve to separate the foreground and background hills a little and to brighten the image back towards your original somewhat. Then I dodged the highlight on the water and tinted the entire water to match the horizon. Finally, I boosted the local contrast by using unsharp mask at 10% and 50 pixels. All in Photoshop CS2.

I suspect that this is what DarkPenguin was talking about when he said he would process  "the bejesus" out of it. Of course, tastes may vary, and this is probably not what you saw that day.

[attachment=2745:attachment]
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2007, 05:08:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I suspect that this is what DarkPenguin was talking about when he said he would process  "the bejesus" out of it. Of course, tastes may vary, and this is probably not what you saw that day.
But it is a lot closer to actually working.

Perhaps the changes should be a bit more subtle, but the point about having more contrast in the image helps.

Kevin: you might consider using the technique called "local contrast adjustment" (peruse the fine article on this site, or Google for it); that way, you can adjust contrast without blowing highlights more.
Logged

Jan
PSA DC-9-30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200



« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2007, 07:18:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Kevin, I downloaded your image #4 and took a look at it. While you are right about your highlights starting to blow, your shadows were way too light (for conventional processing). Ansel Adams said that every image should have something black and something white in it. While I don't like rules in art, it's true for most images.

I've "corrected" your image to have a maximum black (alt-click and drag the shadow tab in the Levels . . . window until you see black somewhere). I also added an adjustment curve to separate the foreground and background hills a little and to brighten the image back towards your original somewhat. Then I dodged the highlight on the water and tinted the entire water to match the horizon. Finally, I boosted the local contrast by using unsharp mask at 10% and 50 pixels. All in Photoshop CS2.

I suspect that this is what DarkPenguin was talking about when he said he would process  "the bejesus" out of it. Of course, tastes may vary, and this is probably not what you saw that day.

[attachment=2745:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126504\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting. I think I should have taken a closer look at this one, but after dealing with a number of much more contrasty images (e.g., the other four), I became a bit too cautious, I guess. I haven't used burn and dodge very much but I need to start playing around with those options.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2007, 11:15:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I suspect that this is what DarkPenguin was talking about when he said he would process  "the bejesus" out of it. Of course, tastes may vary, and this is probably not what you saw that day.

[attachment=2745:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126504\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Something like that.  Anything to add some drama to it.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad