Still there

bdcolen

bfjr

Yes it is

lensmole

I come across these shoe mysteries from time to time and haven't solved one of them.
Interesting shot, but I am very curious as to what the round cream colored object above the shoe is ?

teedee

artistic, nice composition.

RSL

What's that globe of yellow light directly behind the shoe BD? I'm assuming the blue color cast is intentional -- to give the picture a cold feeling.

jhefti

The blue-magenta shift in WB highlights the hue of the shoe, but the strong casts--especially in the background--compete for attention and lessen the presence of the shoe. IMHO shifting the WB more toward the yellow-green range just a smidge will make the shoe stand out much better. Just my $0.02's worth...

bdcolen

Thanks for the comments. I suspect that anyone who looks at the image a bit more closely can figure out what the bright spot is - it really is pretty obvious - as is the reason for the color cast, which accurately reflects what I and the camera saw. I could, of course, have 'warmed up' the light and the photo. But a., that hardly would have reflected what was there in deep shadow around 5 pm on a late Feb. evening in the Boston area, nor would I be appropriate for an image of a child's shoe that has lain abandoned throughout the winter.

RSL

Sorry, BD, I even pulled down the picture, opened it in Photoshop CS5, and blew it up. I still don't know what the bright spot is. It could be a streetlight; it could be a yellow balloon; or maybe a periscope from the yellow submarine. My first thought, way back at first glimpse, was a lens flare, but obviously that's not correct. I agree with your decision to leave the blue color cast. Things get way too cheery and bright when you balance the color. On the other hand, there's a way to get rid of the cast and keep the mood. I'd demonstrate if the Dgrin rules permitted. It's an interesting shot, though the shoe seems in awfully good shape to have gone through a snowy winter.

bdcolen

Look at the house in the upper middle of the frame, particularly the portion to the right of the tree. ;-)

RSL

I see what look like a bunch of balloons in one yard. Or they could be lights in a patio. But they're too far out of focus to tell -- a necessary condition for what you did here. But I don't see how a balloon or a patio light drifted behind the image of the shoe. Maybe that patio is the pen for the yellow submarine. By the way, if you give me permission to post on your thread I'll show you how to get rid of the color cast but maintain the mood in this shot.

bdcolen

RSL wrote: »

I see what look like a bunch of balloons in one yard. Or they could be lights in a patio. But they're too far out of focus to tell -- a necessary condition for what you did here. But I don't see how a balloon or a patio light drifted behind the image of the shoe. Maybe that patio is the pen for the yellow submarine. By the way, if you give me permission to post on your thread I'll show you how to get rid of the color cast but maintain the mood in this shot.

The last glints of the sun reflecting off a window. And no, thank you, I have no interest in changing the color balance. But thank you.

RSL

Okay. Now I know, though the overall brightness of the picture doesn't suggest that the sun's that low. But the problem with it is that your eye jumps to it when you want eyes to jump to the shoe. I usually don't like cloning stuff out of my pictures, but this is one place where I'd have done it. Too bad it's directly behind the shoe. I see John's bothered by the color cast too.

bdcolen

RSL wrote: »

Okay. Now I know, though the overall brightness of the picture doesn't suggest that the sun's that low. But the problem with it is that your eye jumps to it when you want eyes to jump to the shoe. I usually don't like cloning stuff out of my pictures, but this is one place where I'd have done it. Too bad it's directly behind the shoe. I see John's bothered by the color cast too.

I don't clone thing out of images unless I am doing commercial work.
And as to the color cast, we'll have to agree to disagree. And I fully realize we are our own worst editors.

RSL

[QUOTE=bdcolen;1746066... I fully realize we are our own worst editors.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, that's true. I've found that a waiting period before I make a judgment helps, but it's no panacea.

RSL

bdcolen wrote: »

I have no interest in changing the color balance. But thank you.

Forgot to mention that I found this a fascinating response.

bdcolen

Why, Russ? I thanked you for your offer. As to the color balance, not having been with me at the time the photo was taken, you have not a clue what the color balance should be. Nor do you have a clue what was in my mind when I saw the scene and shot the photo. So while it makes perfect sense for you, or anyone, to say that you think the photo is a waste of my pixels and Dgrin's display space, or, for that matter, to say it's the worst thing I've ever shown, it makes no sense what so ever for me to have any interest in your reinterpreting the color balance for me.

bfjr

I was going to comment on this again a few days ago, and B.D. kinda hit on it above.

What's up with this Pixel Peeping ?

When 1st viewed I got a smile/smirk and commented as I did.
Did not notice Orb, color cast etc etc., just thought about the story behind it and
the impedance for B.D. to capture it.

lizzard_nyc

I see this and wonder where the other shoe is--then I wonder where the kid is, then the freakout mother in me starts thinking of the news stories and serial killer/rapists and the mood goes very dark and cold. I didn't comment earlier because it sounded like a psychotic reaction to the shot--but that's where my mind went.

RSL

Hi, BD. Sorry my criticism bothered you so much. From the beginning I've thought you were a very good teacher, whatever our differences on certain specifics. Now I find that you don't want a second opinion on color balance -- a visual demonstration that could spark discussion and maybe even learning. I was under the impression that one of the things Street & PJ tries to do is teach.

No, you're right. I wasn't with you when you shot that picture, but I don't need to have been there to be able to see the blue color cast. Now, it's true that maybe you're not bothered by that kind of defect. If not, it's your picture and nothing more need be said about it. But to object to even seeing an alternative seems a strange thing for a good teacher to do.

I'm not sure who said they think the photo is a waste of your pixels or Dgrin's display space, or that it's the worst thing you've ever shown. Looking back over the thread it's clear it wasn't anyone in the thread. Matter of fact, I think it's quite an interesting picture, though (1) I'd have gotten rid of the distracting yellow bubble in the background, (2) I'd have corrected the blue color cast, which is a perennial problem with digital sensors in late afternoon light, and (3) I'd have lowered the brightness to make it obvious that it's late afternoon. Those are all technical differences, which aren't nearly as important as seeing, and this is a case where your seeing was right on.

Again, please accept my apologies for what you took to be unreasonable criticism, but I still think there's something to be learned from this picture.

Richard

RSL

Yes, Richard. Sometimes blue is very effective in an abstract painting.

rainbow

RSL wrote: »

Hi, BD. Sorry my criticism bothered you so much. From the beginning I've thought you were a very good teacher, whatever our differences on certain specifics. Now I find that you don't want a second opinion on color balance -- a visual demonstration that could spark discussion and maybe even learning. I was under the impression that one of the things Street & PJ tries to do is teach.

No, you're right. I wasn't with you when you shot that picture, but I don't need to have been there to be able to see the blue color cast. Now, it's true that maybe you're not bothered by that kind of defect. If not, it's your picture and nothing more need be said about it. But to object to even seeing an alternative seems a strange thing for a good teacher to do.

I'm not sure who said they think the photo is a waste of your pixels or Dgrin's display space, or that it's the worst thing you've ever shown. Looking back over the thread it's clear it wasn't anyone in the thread. Matter of fact, I think it's quite an interesting picture, though (1) I'd have gotten rid of the distracting yellow bubble in the background, (2) I'd have corrected the blue color cast, which is a perennial problem with digital sensors in late afternoon light, and (3) I'd have lowered the brightness to make it obvious that it's late afternoon. Those are all technical differences, which aren't nearly as important as seeing, and this is a case where your seeing was right on.

Again, please accept my apologies for what you took to be unreasonable criticism, but I still think there's something to be learned from this picture.

Problem I have is that I don't see this as an apology... and before I took you as a "straight-shooter" (a positive) in your critiques and abruptness.

RSL

Dave, It's a bit more complicated than that. I really am sorry BD got upset about the situation. From what I've seen from some of his earlier posts I see BD as a really good teacher. But good teachers usually aren't afraid of controversy and they don't reject a chance to look at an alternative point of view and discuss it. I have a hard time understanding why anyone, BD or anybody else, who's willing to post a picture on a forum, can be sensitive about criticism. One of the things I like about Luminous Landscape is that there's no restriction on putting up an alternative version of someone's picture so the differences can be discussed. That's how on-line teaching takes place. I've never said that I have a version of this picture that's better than BD's. I've pointed out what I consider to be ways to improve the picture, but we'll never know whether or not others agree because they'll never get a chance to look at the differences. As I said, I think BD was seeing when he made the shot, and he got what he was after, but I also think the picture can be improved in post-processing. I still don't understand why that's controversial. After all this fuss it's pretty clear nobody's going to agree even if they agree, so at this point I guess it doesn't matter.

torags

Well Russ it looks like you're not getting much support.

I think even bd acknowledged it was an accurate criticism, but it was what he wanted.

You are a straight shooter and your honesty is; many times unappreciated

I appreciate it and I appreciate your work

black mamba

Russ, you speak with a huge forked tongue. Above, you say that you don't see how anyone who willingly posts a shot on a forum can be sensitive to criticism. I clearly remember when several forum members here took difference with you as to whether two people in a scene you shot were actually looking at each other....as you claimed they were. You practically went berserk in telling us how wrong we were and you went so far as to tell, in a not very friendly manner, a couple of us that we needed to see an optometrist. I would swear that such a reaction constitutes being sensitive to criticism.

I've never put anyone on the ignore list before, but there's a first time for everything.

Tom

Richard

:beatwax:duel

Calm down, please, and let's talk about color casts, OK?

FWIW, here's my take: A color cast is not inherently a defect in an image--that was my point in posting the Picasso. I certainly wouldn't want my daughter's wedding pictures to have a blue cast, but in a mood shot like this one, I don't see it as a problem. Abandonment, loneliness, maybe even something evil (as Liz said) all come to mind, and a blue cast goes perfectly well with those themes. Out of curiosity, I played around with the color balance and while it was easy enough to change the look, I don't think doing so improved the image. If BD considers the cast a feature, not a bug, that's certainly his prerogative. YMMV, as always. We had a good discussion a couple of years ago with Rutt about color casts in one of rainbow's night shots: check it out here.

bdcolen

RSL wrote: »

Hi, BD. Sorry my criticism bothered you so much. From the beginning I've thought you were a very good teacher, whatever our differences on certain specifics. Now I find that you don't want a second opinion on color balance -- a visual demonstration that could spark discussion and maybe even learning. I was under the impression that one of the things Street & PJ tries to do is teach.

No, you're right. I wasn't with you when you shot that picture, but I don't need to have been there to be able to see the blue color cast. Now, it's true that maybe you're not bothered by that kind of defect. If not, it's your picture and nothing more need be said about it. But to object to even seeing an alternative seems a strange thing for a good teacher to do.

I'm not sure who said they think the photo is a waste of your pixels or Dgrin's display space, or that it's the worst thing you've ever shown. Looking back over the thread it's clear it wasn't anyone in the thread. Matter of fact, I think it's quite an interesting picture, though (1) I'd have gotten rid of the distracting yellow bubble in the background, (2) I'd have corrected the blue color cast, which is a perennial problem with digital sensors in late afternoon light, and (3) I'd have lowered the brightness to make it obvious that it's late afternoon. Those are all technical differences, which aren't nearly as important as seeing, and this is a case where your seeing was right on.

Again, please accept my apologies for what you took to be unreasonable criticism, but I still think there's something to be learned from this picture.

Discretion would dictate that I not respond, but unfortunately I often am not nearly as discrete as I should be. I never said that anyone suggested this was the worst image I've ever shown, or that anyone has said it's a waste of pixels, or of Dgrin's space. What I said was that people were entitled to think that if they wanted to. As to the fact that you would remove the orange reflection, I don't believe that that kind of alteration has any place in street photography, documentary photography, or photo journalism - three forms of photography that require honesty on the part of the photographer, an implied statement that 'this is what was there,' rather than 'this is what I wished was there.'

I said I had no interest in your 'correcting' the color balance of my image because, as I said, you have no idea what I saw, and therefore what the color balance should be, and, more important, because I really have no interest in your criticism, much of which I consider to be way off base, and some of which I know to be factually inaccurate. End of story.

RSL

black mamba wrote: »

Russ, you speak with a huge forked tongue. Above, you say that you don't see how anyone who willingly posts a shot on a forum can be sensitive to criticism. I clearly remember when several forum members here took difference with you as to whether two people in a scene you shot were actually looking at each other....as you claimed they were. You practically went berserk in telling us how wrong we were and you went so far as to tell, in a not very friendly manner, a couple of us that we needed to see an optometrist. I would swear that such a reaction constitutes being sensitive to criticism.

I've never put anyone on the ignore list before, but there's a first time for everything.

Tom

Tom, you're confusing a question of fact with a question of esthetics. Whether or not the girl is looking at the boy is a question of fact. Whether or not a picture with a color cast is its most effective presentation is a question of esthetics. There's a right and a wrong answer to a question of fact, but there's no right or wrong answer to a question of esthetics.

Though I don't want to reopen the argument, you're right: I was really frustrated about the picture of the girl and boy looking at each other. In even a 5 x 7 print it's clear that's what's going on, but I found that Dgrin's ability to hold resolution in an upload is almost nil. After that fiasco I switched to linking pictures from one of my webs. But even a good link won't do the job for that picture. To be sure where the girl's looking you have to be able to resolve a little bit of the right side of the whites of her eyes, and it seems a normal computer monitor at 72ppi isn't sharp enough to do the job, even with a good link. So I had to give up. I can't prove the fact on the web. But esthetic questions are different because there's no fact to prove.

Now, BD claims that what he saw when he shot this picture was a kid's shoe on a post next to a blue sidewalk, in front of a row of houses with blue siding, and with a yellow ball hovering in the background. There's no doubt that's what the camera saw, but it's not what BD saw because the human eye adjusts automatically for the color cast that's usually there under a clear sky. On the other hand, BD has an emotional investment in this picture, so he gets a kind of response to it, as is, that people who weren't there don't necessarily get.

So, the question becomes, who is this picture for? If it's strictly for BD, then the blue sidewalk, the blue siding, and the yellow globe are fine, because BD gets a satisfying emotional response from the picture. But artists don't normally post a picture on a forum for their own viewing. Normally they post because they're trying to transmit a sensation to others who see their work, hoping viewers will get an emotional response similar to the one the artist got.

Twice in the past few months I've had people post modifications on Luminous Landscape to my landscapes that showed me an alternative way, and, in the long run, a more effective way to get my point across. As things stand now, on Dgrin that would be impossible. When you see an alternative version of a picture you can agree or disagree about its effectiveness, but you can't agree or disagree if you can't see what you're agreeing or disagreeing about.

RSL

bdcolen wrote: »

...and some of which I know to be factually inaccurate. End of story.

You may be right, BD, but an unsupported assertion like that calls for specifics.

lensmole

RSL wrote: »

You may be right, BD, but an unsupported assertion like that calls for specifics.

Russ, on a bit of a different note ! I have ordered the book Bystander I am hoping this book will answer some of the questions raised here. For example B.D. is saying he only alters commercial images not Street or P/J images . This makes some sense to me I am sure their is a big difference between personal professional ethics and commercial photography.I am only trying to understand this thread and learn something from it.

RSL

Hi Mole. I'd certainly agree with BD about not altering things in street photography, and even more emphatically about not altering things in photojournalism. I could explain why I don't think that applies in this case, but we wouldn't be able to avoid the question of what a street photograph is, and, as they say, I don't think we want to go there. I think you'll really enjoy Bystander. Let me know.