No title...

rainbowrainbow Registered Users Posts: 2,765 Major grins
edited September 26, 2010 in Street and Documentary
1001811995_pPELG-XL.jpg

Comments

  • MarkRMarkR Registered Users Posts: 2,099 Major grins
    edited September 11, 2010
    Nice. The bright background is a little distracting tho.
  • rainbowrainbow Registered Users Posts: 2,765 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2010
    MarkR wrote: »
    Nice. The bright background is a little distracting tho.

    Bingo! (and thanks for commenting)

    The background, for the first time in my PP, is deliberately brightened by pushing the contrast slider way up. I did this to REMOVE distractions as the boy is so interesting a subject (note that he has socks, but no shoes on). The following version is how I would normally process this shot:

    1009803808_xeuLT-XL.jpg

    The vehicle is distracting, and the DOF when shooting at 19mm does not give background blur.

    I would like to hear comments from anyone on preference between the two processing results.

    (slightly off topic: Liz, I told you I would pass you on the contrast slider... I take your silence as envyrolleyes1.gif)
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,961 moderator
    edited September 16, 2010
    rainbow wrote: »

    I would like to hear comments from anyone on preference between the two processing results.

    I think I would like to see something in between these two. The second looks flat, while the first is just a little too bright. But if forced to choose, I would take the first, as I would rather be distracted than bored. mwink.gif
    My Pics
  • lizzard_nyclizzard_nyc Registered Users Posts: 4,056 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2010
    rainbow wrote: »
    Bingo! (and thanks for commenting)

    The background, for the first time in my PP, is deliberately brightened by pushing the contrast slider way up. I did this to REMOVE distractions as the boy is so interesting a subject (note that he has socks, but no shoes on). The following version is how I would normally process this shot:

    1009803808_xeuLT-XL.jpg

    The vehicle is distracting, and the DOF when shooting at 19mm does not give background blur.

    I would like to hear comments from anyone on preference between the two processing results.

    (slightly off topic: Liz, I told you I would pass you on the contrast slider... I take your silence as envyrolleyes1.gif)


    lol--Stay out of my turf.
    I think lately you have been playing with higher contrast processing and I'm digging it, it's just so much more pleasing to MY eye.

    I didn't comment because this image was so so to me. I like the processing and I like the composition, but the image, not so much.
    Liz A.
    _________
  • misterbmisterb Banned Posts: 601 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2010
    I didn't like the brightness either.

    I would have approached this different and cropped the guitar player and center it.. like how the eye would naturally see it.
  • M38A1M38A1 Registered Users Posts: 1,317 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2010
    An interesting shot, yet I think I would have given thought to cropping out the foot/shoe in the lower right corner. To me, having it there doesn't add and sort of draws me away to ponder who it belongs to.
  • indiegirlindiegirl Registered Users Posts: 930 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2010
    See, it sounds like you dig the guy and not the motion around him. So shoot the guy and not the street.

    If you wanted the story to be the guy amid the city and tell THAT story, this isn't the shot that nails it. If the socks grab your attention, tell that story. If his crusty fingers strumming the guitar are what pulled you in, go for that shot. I think he has a story to tell but putting him against a backdrop of mediocre Seattle (this is in Seattle, right?) doesn't thrill me.
    main | recent work |
  • rainbowrainbow Registered Users Posts: 2,765 Major grins
    edited September 22, 2010
    Richard wrote: »
    I think I would like to see something in between these two. The second looks flat, while the first is just a little too bright. But if forced to choose, I would take the first, as I would rather be distracted than bored. mwink.gif

    Yeah, boring is bad... but dazzling you with brightness may not work that well either (and you know this is REALLY extreme for memwink.gif). I had everything I wanted in the shot. Unfortunately, I had one item too many, the SUV...

    Thanks!
  • rainbowrainbow Registered Users Posts: 2,765 Major grins
    edited September 22, 2010
    lizzard_nyc wrote: »
    lol--Stay out of my turf.
    I think lately you have been playing with higher contrast processing and I'm digging it, it's just so much more pleasing to MY eye.

    I didn't comment because this image was so so to me. I like the processing and I like the composition, but the image, not so much.

    Thanks -- I thought of you when I kept the bar sliding...
  • rainbowrainbow Registered Users Posts: 2,765 Major grins
    edited September 22, 2010
    misterb wrote: »
    I didn't like the brightness either.

    I would have approached this different and cropped the guitar player and center it.. like how the eye would naturally see it.
    M38A1 wrote: »
    An interesting shot, yet I think I would have given thought to cropping out the foot/shoe in the lower right corner. To me, having it there doesn't add and sort of draws me away to ponder who it belongs to.
    indiegirl wrote: »
    See, it sounds like you dig the guy and not the motion around him. So shoot the guy and not the street.

    If you wanted the story to be the guy amid the city and tell THAT story, this isn't the shot that nails it. If the socks grab your attention, tell that story. If his crusty fingers strumming the guitar are what pulled you in, go for that shot. I think he has a story to tell but putting him against a backdrop of mediocre Seattle (this is in Seattle, right?) doesn't thrill me.

    Ah, this shows how each of us would have approached this scene, which is good for learning. But this is exactly the shot I wanted (except for that darn gas guzzler). Centering it would have focused on the kid, but lose the environment. The foot is there for a purpose, whether it worked or not is another matter. And it is a shot of the guy, AND the socks, AND the strumming of the guitar, AND, especially, with the backdrop of mediocre Seattle. Losing any of these would make me (perhaps not you or others, which is fine with me) less satisfied with the results.

    Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it, do digest the comments (even though it seems as if I am just defending it). Best statement (from indiegirl) is that this is not the shot that nails it.
  • indiegirlindiegirl Registered Users Posts: 930 Major grins
    edited September 24, 2010
    rainbow wrote: »
    with the backdrop of mediocre Seattle. Losing any of these would make me (perhaps not you or others, which is fine with me) less satisfied with the results.

    Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it, do digest the comments (even though it seems as if I am just defending it). Best statement (from indiegirl) is that this is not the shot that nails it.

    Let's shoot together sometime ;) I know mediocre Seattle when I see it.
    main | recent work |
  • rainbowrainbow Registered Users Posts: 2,765 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2010
    indiegirl wrote: »
    Let's shoot together sometime ;) I know mediocre Seattle when I see it.

    I would love a photo outing together. This was a week long trip to Seattle and Vancouver. My recent and near future posts are from this trip. I developed a comfort and excitement using the 17-40 on a 5D. The ultra wide is plain fun to shoot with.
  • teamracephotosteamracephotos Registered Users Posts: 492 Major grins
    edited September 26, 2010
    indiegirl wrote: »
    See, it sounds like you dig the guy and not the motion around him. So shoot the guy and not the street.

    If you wanted the story to be the guy amid the city and tell THAT story, this isn't the shot that nails it. If the socks grab your attention, tell that story. If his crusty fingers strumming the guitar are what pulled you in, go for that shot. I think he has a story to tell but putting him against a backdrop of mediocre Seattle (this is in Seattle, right?) doesn't thrill me.

    I agree. I would get closer and lower. Maybe try to show how small the guy is compared to the city. I like the image minus the brightness.
    “I love not man the less, but Nature more.”
    — Lord Byron
Sign In or Register to comment.