St. Augustine, Florida, Backstreets
black mamba
Registered Users Posts: 8,323 Major grins
I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
0
Comments
The second one has something more: there's a lot going on. The interplay of signs, dog, and man is interesting enough. Cut back on the saturation and notch up the contrast and the picture is about a moment in an interesting place on a sunny afternoon instead of just photoshop fauvism.
Thanks for taking a look and for your observations. There's only one major flaw in your critique.....these two shots render the buildings correctly in their " for real " color. Your suggested " improvement " photo presents the building color far more washed out than it actually is. The man with the dog, in your rendering, has a very pale skin appearance....this is Florida, people run around with pronounced tans.
Whether the pictures have merit otherwise can certainly be debated. In this case, the color is the star and that's why I presented it that way. And I wouldn't know how to use photoshop if you put a gun to my head.
Tom
If color is the story, then it has to be a story - and unfortunately, I don't see one here. Bright, yes. But eye catching, captivating, stimulating? Not to me. Maybe if you'd worked with the red around the hot stuff store, and a bit of the black window frame, and the pink on the wall, but there's just too much going on here.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Ahem! In the first shot, what color do you think the white in the "Ty" sign should be? Or the white board? The white chairs? How about the black in the "Inn" sign? Or the concrete, for that matter?
I measured them all and they all read strongly blue. It would make sense for one of the whites to be a little blueish. But all of them? And what about that pavement?
Look, I don't mind that these have a blue cast. I wouldn't have even brought it up if you hadn't invoked
"reality" of color. But honestly, you didn't check use a spectroscope to check the color when you shot and after you processed, did you? And even if you had, you'd probably tell me that it wasn't how it looked. The fact that a lot of things that should be neutral or near neutral strongly suggests a cast in this image. Perhaps that agrees with your memory of the scene, but "reality" is on the side of neutral whites and blacks.
I'll accept that you remember brighter colors and that you wanted to show that. Then I agree with BD.
I thank you for your input. I must advise you, however, that every picture I post is not intended to chase an Academy Award or an Emmy. They're not all going to be the epitome of a captivating or stimulating scene. Like in this case, they may be just a simple street scene that you either like or you don't. I respect your opinion, however, so don't ever hesitate to express yourself.
Rutt,
I apologize for not having whipped out my trusty spectroscope when reviewing this set of photos. Thankfully for you, I also didn't apply its use when looking at your submitted rendition. Not only did you butcher the true color of the building, take away the gent's true skin tone, but you also took away all the color of the sign above and to the right of his head and blew it out to boot. I would just as soon you refrain from commenting on my stuff and keep your snide remarks to yourself.
I understand that when your photographs are critiqued it hurts a little bit, but Rutt and BD are two of the best shooters on DGrin with tons of experience. It would behoove you to swallow your pride and listen to them. Or you can continue to sound foolish...your call.
If you were half as savvy as you think you are, you would have picked up on the literary license I took in referrencing the Academy Awards and the Emmy.
As I told bdcolen, I respect his opinion and he's always welcome to comment on my works. I may not agree with him all the time but I do believe he is knowledgeable and sincerely means to be helpful. I appreciate someone like that.
I would make two points here, and then I'll shut up -
First, presumably most people post photos here for criticism and advice from their fellow photographers. If that['s the case, it doesn't make a lot of sense to argue with the advice. Lord knows no one has to take any advice, but...
And secon d - and I know this is tough - but none of us should be posting throw away shots. If we think they're mediocre snaps, why would we possibly think anyone else would want to look at them? It's one thing for us to post a half dozen shots and ask the help of our fellow photographers in deciding which is the 'keeper,' but it's another to just throw up a throw away and expect people to appreciate it.
Also - for what it's worth - If Rutt told me that black was white and white was black, I'd believe him.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Yes, you are absolutely correct. I am a sorry typist. Thanks for catching that.
I think #2 has value in the relationship between the dog & his owner. A tighter crop of that, even a try at B&W might make an interesting image. I don't think the color as conceived as the subject works, its very busy. But an old sunburned wrinkled man/woman sitting in front of a house in (large blocks of) those colors would work for me.
It wouldn't be the first time some content in the image changes the photogs original concept. Happens to me all the time in moto racing events.
Keep shooting you're developing a good eye
I appreciate your comments. Is this rendering more of what you had in mind?
Claims that there is some sort of objective truth about color rendition push a button with me. I've put a lot of time into this and have a deeply held but complicated opinion. Really, it's not that relevant to critique of these two shots.
I like the closer crop of the second shot better. I'm pretty sure it does have a blue cast. Use the eye-dropper in PS to measure the pavement, the white parts of the signs, even the dog's hair at the top of his head between his ears. All measure distinctly blue but it's unlikely that all these are really blue, especially the dog. If you use photoshop and shot in raw, try color balancing on one of the white things in the window. I found the paper next to the star in the lower left corner a good target. It gets a lot of the blue out of the pavement, all the blue out of the dog, keeps the high saturation that you like. I suspect you'll think it's too yellow compared to your version. So I'm not claiming this is the end point for this image, rather that it points to an area of refinement if you think it deserves the work.
I do appreciate this discourse here about the issues. Thank you for taking the time to do it.
Tom
P.S.
To further stretch the discussion at this time, I would like your opinion about this situation: the sidewalks are actually blue tinted. Refer to my other post about two best friends for an explanation. These streets are very narrow....often with two blue sidewalks, one on each side. You have light bouncing all over the place within these narrow confines and, since the sidewalks are fairly reflective, this bouncing light is dominantly bluish. If you try and take the blue out of the sidewalk and you seek to really diminish all the blue light in the scene, I don't know how you can avoid distorting the accuracy of the entire scene. And why would you want to take the blue out of the sidewalks: they are blue. In other parts of the old town, I'd have the same issue....only the sidewalks there are reddish. I'm truly curious as to your take on this. I'm of the opinion that I just have to live with things as they are in the interest of presenting the scene as it really is.
I relate to the shot, since I have sat outside many times waiting for my bride to finish shopping..