Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Storm clouds  (Read 552 times)
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1292


« on: February 15, 2013, 09:30:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Being on the edge of a storm at sunset, I looked up into the clouds and this is what I saw...

But what I saw when I looked at them on my computer was different: there was no up or down, or left or right.

Whilst there are some rotations that appeal more to the eye than others, without the ground or anything attached to it being present, there isn't really a right way up.

So the result is somewhat abstract and I'm unconvinced of this as either a technique or style.

Too simple?

Thoughts?
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8309



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2013, 10:42:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I like the forms, and I think you have chosen orientations for each that feel quite right to me.
I do find the colors a bit hard to believe, and I would be tempted to increase the contrast some so that the light areas are lighter. Perhaps try them in B&W.

I think they are well worth playing around with a variety of interpretations.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1292


« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2013, 01:11:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I like the forms, and I think you have chosen orientations for each that feel quite right to me.
I do find the colors a bit hard to believe, and I would be tempted to increase the contrast some so that the light areas are lighter.

On the topic of colors...
   
1st picture - "Auto Tone" with LR 4.3 and exposure reset back down to the default for my camera (+0 EV, spot metered at the centre)
2nd picture - "Auto Tone" with LR 4.3 and exposure reset back down to the default for my camera (+0 EV, spot metered at the centre)
3rd picture - "Auto Tone" required a bit more work to pull in the highlights (+0 EV, centre weighted metering)

... so for those three, blame Lightroom  (;-) for the colours as it moved the highlights/shadow/whites/blacks sliders but for the last ...

4th picture (bottom) is "out of camera", with no adjustments from Lightroom (+0 EV, partial metering). So if the colours don't seem real, well, you'll need to take that up with Canon or God or Adobe ...

If I apply the same treatment from (1) and (2) to (4) then I get the attached... to get something meaningful with that photo in B&W is going to require PS. I"ve also attached an attempt to #2 in B&W... for some reason, B&W just doesn't seem to be working for me with these images...
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2925


« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2013, 03:30:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote dreed.

Quote dreed.

... so for those three, blame Lightroom  (;-) for the colours as it moved the highlights/shadow/whites/blacks sliders but for the last ...

unquote.

It was you that decided to use auto tone so I don't think you can blame Lightroom? Your workflow seems a bit strange to me but everyone is entitled to his workflow methodology. Would it not be better starting from a position of near as you can get it to zero settings and building up rather than auto tone and changing those values?
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1292


« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2013, 05:33:24 AM »
ReplyReply

It was you that decided to use auto tone so I don't think you can blame Lightroom? Your workflow seems a bit strange to me but everyone is entitled to his workflow methodology. Would it not be better starting from a position of near as you can get it to zero settings and building up rather than auto tone and changing those values?

I didn't intend to blame Lightroom, rather to say that I hadn't sat there trying to boost saturation, etc, to bring the colours out that way.

I find "Auto Tone" a very quick way to "normalize" the picture when I use ETR but on this occasion, it presented me with a look that was almost supernatural.

Whilst I can find more "normal" looking colour sets, I can't seem to find anything in B&W that has the same feel as colour.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4123



« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2013, 05:48:54 AM »
ReplyReply

They're all good to look at but the first is a fantastic (in both senses of the word) abstract. I'm not convinced that losing the colour is a good idea and I don't really think the whether the colours reflect reality is particularly important.

Jeremy
Logged
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2013, 08:26:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Being on the edge of a storm at sunset, I looked up into the clouds and this is what I saw...

But what I saw when I looked at them on my computer was different: there was no up or down, or left or right.

Whilst there are some rotations that appeal more to the eye than others, without the ground or anything attached to it being present, there isn't really a right way up.

So the result is somewhat abstract and I'm unconvinced of this as either a technique or style.

Too simple?

Thoughts?
You had the right intuition here - they are too simple. It's a good idea to do this kind of exploration. And if you want to fiddle to create some abstract, there might be something here. But there isn't enough here to make a meaningful photograph that's anything but clouds, which will have minimal impact, because if there is one thing the world has seen too much of, it is "sunset clouds." It's been over worked to death.

Nor would I suggest sitting at the computer controls for hours twisting levers and knobs on the busy box. Yes, you can twist them into a million different ways and each time the picture will look a bit different, but it won't be better, really. That's not photography, that's computer graphics. You'd be so much better served to say, "wow that was cool, now what else can I do with this thing?" Take some new, more interesting photographs - you obviously have the eye for it. Consider these experiments and move on! Sitting at the computer controls is never going to make you a better photographer. You need to take and look at more of your photographs. Shoot some new stuff and post it!
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2925


« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2013, 08:45:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Imo 99% of images have to be processed assuming you are shooting raw. An image that comes out of a camera should not be the final version of what you shot.

<Shoot some new stuff and post it!>

You have to process an image before posting it otherwise the image will not look it's best. How you process it depends on your expertise and the vision you had when you took the image. I agree too much is wrong but some processing is necessary. Smiley
Logged

RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2013, 08:59:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Imo 99% of images have to be processed assuming you are shooting raw. An image that comes out of a camera should not be the final version of what you shot.

<Shoot some new stuff and post it!>

You have to process an image before posting it otherwise the image will not look it's best. How you process it depends on your expertise and the vision you had when you took the image. I agree too much is wrong but some processing is necessary. Smiley
I didn't see any mention of raw by the O/P, but of course the digital image has to be "developed" by a raw converter. I take it as a given that digital photographers know that.  A lot of people still shoot JPG.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad