retinax
Well-known
Thank you all for the critique! Nearly all constructive and useful. I'm glad a few more positive comments have come up later on, some understand where I was going with this.
I'll reply to some points that have been brought up all in one post:
I'm a bit baffled by the judgmental wording some employ. You may not want your yard to look like this, but that doesn't make these things "junk". Does your home look like pictures from a furniture catalog by any chance? I expected otherwise from a forum where many enjoy using old cameras that are "junk" to the general public. I believe this place and the things in it are in use.
This was a quick snap, I didn't spend enough time composing it and it shows. I can't go back soon unfortunately, it's on a different continent.
I realized a didn't mention that I very much like to see this and most of my pictures as an abstract picture even though it's representational as well. Or think of it as an architectural - still life hybrid. So the lack of a central object of interest or a person doesn't bother me per se, but I understand where these comments come from.
Some have suggested removing the wooden door thing on the right, I've tried and it doesn't work for me. That adds a lot of what interests me in this scene.
The exposure is optimal actually, this was digital and it's exposed to the right. The scene just has huge DR and that camera doesn't. Anyway if I bring up the shadows more, there will be even less contrast in important parts. I don't like to use much local contrast enhancement (clarity), it looks very bad to me.
Soooo. To make the best of what I have, I've tried to go a different way and burned quite a bit of the foreground digitally to get a cleaner composition, and cropped a bit differently. I've also tried some tighter crops that also work alright. I think this version is a better image than the first post, and shows more what I like about the scene.
Thank you all for working on that with me. Please continue the critique on this draft version at better post processing:
I'll reply to some points that have been brought up all in one post:
I'm a bit baffled by the judgmental wording some employ. You may not want your yard to look like this, but that doesn't make these things "junk". Does your home look like pictures from a furniture catalog by any chance? I expected otherwise from a forum where many enjoy using old cameras that are "junk" to the general public. I believe this place and the things in it are in use.
This was a quick snap, I didn't spend enough time composing it and it shows. I can't go back soon unfortunately, it's on a different continent.
I realized a didn't mention that I very much like to see this and most of my pictures as an abstract picture even though it's representational as well. Or think of it as an architectural - still life hybrid. So the lack of a central object of interest or a person doesn't bother me per se, but I understand where these comments come from.
Some have suggested removing the wooden door thing on the right, I've tried and it doesn't work for me. That adds a lot of what interests me in this scene.
The exposure is optimal actually, this was digital and it's exposed to the right. The scene just has huge DR and that camera doesn't. Anyway if I bring up the shadows more, there will be even less contrast in important parts. I don't like to use much local contrast enhancement (clarity), it looks very bad to me.
Soooo. To make the best of what I have, I've tried to go a different way and burned quite a bit of the foreground digitally to get a cleaner composition, and cropped a bit differently. I've also tried some tighter crops that also work alright. I think this version is a better image than the first post, and shows more what I like about the scene.
Thank you all for working on that with me. Please continue the critique on this draft version at better post processing:
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I rate the original as an interesting well taken photo and the clutter for me is what makes it interesting. I pick through it visually in the same I would if I was there. I also like the texture of the bricks and see them as the main feature ... not the lit area because there is nothing really there that interests or draws me.
Your remake has no appeal for me because it removes what made the photo interesting for me in the first place and it suffers from the effect of having seen the original ... "what is seen can't be unseen."
Overall I like it and like the tones and exposure ... it's the sort of photo I would take myself of such a scene.
I hope my comments have been helpful.
Your remake has no appeal for me because it removes what made the photo interesting for me in the first place and it suffers from the effect of having seen the original ... "what is seen can't be unseen."
Overall I like it and like the tones and exposure ... it's the sort of photo I would take myself of such a scene.
I hope my comments have been helpful.
froyd
Veteran
Great photo. I like your reworked image better. What worked for me in the first image is further reinforced in the second: I like the division of the scene in three zones -dark tones in the foreground, spot-on exposure in the middle area, and slight overexposure after the last gate. Should be used as a test subject for DR
I cannot tell where the area of sharpest focus fall. I wish it were at the brick wall of the inner courtyard, but it does not seem to be.
I cannot tell where the area of sharpest focus fall. I wish it were at the brick wall of the inner courtyard, but it does not seem to be.
Pioneer
Veteran
Thank you for your critique of the critiques. I think it is worthwhile for the commenters to gets some feedback on how there own critique came across.
retinax
Well-known
Ok, just because it might be interesting to look at, here come a few more ways to crop it. I still prefer the previous crop I think, which one do you like?
I might also attempt burning out only a few foreground objects I don't like but leaving most in place... later.
I might also attempt burning out only a few foreground objects I don't like but leaving most in place... later.
Attachments
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
retinax
Well-known
LOL
[and a couple more characters]
[and a couple more characters]
Carriage
Established
Of the new ones, I like the middle crop (with the light vertical beam in the middle) the best. The third one I think suffers the most from not having a figure of interest in the light. The other two seem to be aiming for having the interest of all the arches (left and right) as well as the change in light. To me they both feel a bit unbalanced given the dual "points of interest" and I'd probably go for something in between, maybe more like below.
I think the original image could work too but due to the foreground detail I don't think that cropping it so would work as well and you'd want to change the framing or field of view to get a similar balance (if you could easily get back there of course). Also, it may be stronger in a group of images about interesting openings.
I think the original image could work too but due to the foreground detail I don't think that cropping it so would work as well and you'd want to change the framing or field of view to get a similar balance (if you could easily get back there of course). Also, it may be stronger in a group of images about interesting openings.
Big Ursus
Well-known
Retinax, I want to thank you very much for opening up a thread specifically for critiques.
However, I have a problem, right now, finding the time to provide useful responses. That's because, a) I have toooo many assignments and exams to mark!
And b) I'm still so excited about finally being able to post my pix on RFF, tho' putting a second one in The Gallery is driving me nuts - a wee .jpeg is taking very long.
However, I have a problem, right now, finding the time to provide useful responses. That's because, a) I have toooo many assignments and exams to mark!
And b) I'm still so excited about finally being able to post my pix on RFF, tho' putting a second one in The Gallery is driving me nuts - a wee .jpeg is taking very long.