Lawrence, Massachusetts

sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
edited November 2, 2009 in Street and Documentary
I had an hour to kill yesterday, between my teaching gig in the morning and a friend's birthday party in the afternoon, both north of Boston, so did a little exploring in Leonard Bernstein's home town, and what is billed as the first intentional industrial town in the US.
A quiet Sunday - not much going on, but, as an exercise to see what I can pull out of an hour in a strange town, here are three I kind of like. (The whole series is here)

1.
700176115_pCJab-M.jpg

2.
700177901_beFVU-M.jpg

3.
700181732_Q8SRB-M.jpg

That's it!

Comments

  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    Interesting compositions in 1 and 2 with strong diagonals. I'd like to see into the plugged shadows of 1; might be an interesting expression. 2 isn't working for me; can't exactly say why.

    3 does work even though he's giving you a dirty look. He's an interesting looking character. Maybe try to get better blacks without plugging?
    If not now, when?
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,961 moderator
    edited November 2, 2009
    rutt wrote:
    Interesting compositions in 1 and 2 with strong diagonals. I'd like to see into the plugged shadows of 1; might be an interesting expression.
    #1 is just the sort of thing I love. I agree with Rutt about the shadows but only on the cyclist. I don't much care about the building shadows and in fact, it might only be distracting to see what's in there. Here's a very quick and dirty edit. Hope that's OK, but if not, just send me a PM and I'll take it down.
    700739804_4P4yA-M.jpg
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    rutt wrote:
    Interesting compositions in 1 and 2 with strong diagonals. I'd like to see into the plugged shadows of 1; might be an interesting expression. 2 isn't working for me; can't exactly say why.

    3 does work even though he's giving you a dirty look. He's an interesting looking character. Maybe try to get better blacks without plugging?

    Rutt - thanks for your comments.
    How do I pull out the shadows without blowing the lights?

    I agree RE 2 - kind of a cliche. This woman saw me eying her (had the 40D with me this time) and actually asked me to take her picture, so the whole thing is staged - that's part of its problem, that and it's a bit pedestrian and boring. I was a little interested in her colors, the clothing store and the church in the BG - as a slice of life in this town, it kind of works.

    as for #3 - this was our initial contact - I liked his looks - he actually turned out to be a nice guy. Joseph Darling is his name.

    again - how to unplug the shadows? I tend to increase the blacks in my BW conversions, maybe I overdo it.
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    Richard wrote:
    #1 is just the sort of thing I love. I agree with Rutt about the shadows but only on the cyclist. I don't much care about the building shadows and in fact, it might only be distracting to see what's in there. Here's a very quick and dirty edit. Hope that's OK, but if not, just send me a PM and I'll take it down.
    700739804_4P4yA-M.jpg

    No, I don't mind the edit. I'm not sure I even mind the shadows, either. But I think I prefer the mystery of not seeing the bicyclist's face.

    Kind of a shadowy town - in fact, at one point, walking along the river, I didn't feel exactly safe - some of the cat calls from passing cars concerned me a bit.
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    sara505 wrote:
    again - how to unplug the shadows? I tend to increase the blacks in my BW conversions, maybe I overdo it.

    There are lots of reasons to do this and it's kind of a big topic. Here are a few simple suggestions:
    1. Fill light in Adobe Camera Raw.
    2. Explore shadow/highlight in PS; see my tutorial
    3. Dodge. Instead of using the burn/dodge PS tool, I like a different technique:
      1. Make a duplicate layer
      2. Set the blending mode to screen (for dodging) or multiply (for burning)
      3. Add a layer mask
      4. Invert the layer mask (so it's black)
      5. Paint white on the layer mask in low opacity (maybe 10%) with a big soft brush.
    If not now, when?
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    rutt wrote:
    There are lots of reasons to do this and it's kind of a big topic. Here are a few simple suggestions:
    1. Fill light in Adobe Camera Raw.
    2. Explore shadow/highlight in PS; see my tutorial
    3. Dodge. Instead of using the burn/dodge PS tool, I like a different technique:
      1. Make a duplicate layer
      2. Set the blending mode to screen (for dodging) or multiply (for burning)
      3. Add a layer mask
      4. Invert the layer mask (so it's black)
      5. Paint white on the layer mask in low opacity (maybe 10%) with a big soft brush.

    I will give this a try - thanks!
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    Oops. I meant there are lots of "ways" to do this, not "reasons."
    If not now, when?
  • black mambablack mamba Registered Users Posts: 8,323 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    Hi Sara,

    I'm with you....I rather prefer not to see the man's face in #1. The whole picture to me is a play with shadows and lines. It's fitting that his face remains a mystery.

    Tom
    I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    Hi Sara,

    I'm with you....I rather prefer not to see the man's face in #1. The whole picture to me is a play with shadows and lines. It's fitting that his face remains a mystery.

    Tom

    Great minds think alike :D
  • bdcolenbdcolen Registered Users Posts: 3,804 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    sara505 wrote:
    No, I don't mind the edit. I'm not sure I even mind the shadows, either. But I think I prefer the mystery of not seeing the bicyclist's face.

    Kind of a shadowy town - in fact, at one point, walking along the river, I didn't feel exactly safe - some of the cat calls from passing cars concerned me a bit.

    I like # one, Sara - with the bicyclist visible - but I don't want to see what's in the rest of the shadows - the dark/black verticals make this one.

    Two doesn't do anything for me. Nor does three, though he's interesting looking and I like the light. I think this is one that had potential, but would have required working the situation more. But that first one is very nice.
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • bdcolenbdcolen Registered Users Posts: 3,804 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    rutt wrote:
    There are lots of reasons to do this and it's kind of a big topic. Here are a few simple suggestions:
    1. Fill light in Adobe Camera Raw.
    2. Explore shadow/highlight in PS; see my tutorial
    3. Dodge. Instead of using the burn/dodge PS tool, I like a different technique:
      1. Make a duplicate layer
      2. Set the blending mode to screen (for dodging) or multiply (for burning)
      3. Add a layer mask
      4. Invert the layer mask (so it's black)
      5. Paint white on the layer mask in low opacity (maybe 10%) with a big soft brush.

    Or -
    Set background color to white
    Open an adjustment layer - either levels or curves - doesn't matter.
    Set mode to screen.
    Hit OK
    Cnt I - invert.
    Then paint with Rutt's big soft brush @ 10-15% per pass over the area.
    Flatten image.
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    bdcolen wrote:
    I like # one, Sara - with the bicyclist visible - but I don't want to see what's in the rest of the shadows - the dark/black verticals make this one.

    Two doesn't do anything for me. Nor does three, though he's interesting looking and I like the light. I think this is one that had potential, but would have required working the situation more. But that first one is very nice.

    BD, thanks for commenting.
    One of the reasons I like #3 is, besides the light, is this was a little edgy for me - I kind of like a dirty look for a change.:D

    I stand by my earlier comment RE #1 - prefer w/o face.
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    bdcolen wrote:
    Or -
    Set background color to white
    Open an adjustment layer - either levels or curves - doesn't matter.
    Set mode to screen.
    Hit OK
    Cnt I - invert.
    Then paint with Rutt's big soft brush @ 10-15% per pass over the area.
    Flatten image.

    I'm looking fwd to trying this, and Rutt's.
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited November 2, 2009
    sara505 wrote:
    I'm looking fwd to trying this, and Rutt's.

    My #3 and B.D.'s are really the same. There is really just one mouse click difference. The idea is to get a layer with a black layer mask and a particular blending option. It's really just a question of which way to do that you find the most convenient.
    If not now, when?
Sign In or Register to comment.