|
|
Post by robnaylor on Sept 29, 2011 16:52:32 GMT
Today, on the way back from a shopping trip to Montlucon, we dropped into Huriel for a bit of refreshment and a look around. It is so hot at the moment 34 deg C !! Anyway, I took two shots of the same church, only about 10 metres apart, but enough to give a different framing to the church itself. I also played with the lighting on the colour version (tried to emphasis the heat of the day), whereas the other is straight BW conversion. Finally the format Landscape or Portrait? Both taken with Panasonic Lumix Bridge camera as straight JPG (and it shows ;D noisy and blocky shadows - but please ignore that...) What aspects of each image do you "like/not like" and why? I'm really interested in your thoughts (whatever they are) - and please be brutal if you must! Click images for Flickr version... #1 Warm Full Colour  #2 Cool Black and White  |
|
|
|
Post by katynoelle on Sept 29, 2011 17:41:16 GMT
Fascinating, Rob! It has that sense of fairytale...almost (and, forgive me because I don't really mean this, I'm just trying to get near the feeling)... it almost feels like Disneyland or something. (eep - hope you know what I mean. :  but that's not quite it. It looks too real for that - just, very, very charming. What part of France are you in, again? Actually, I'll go look it up - you mentioned it in your post. So! I'm no help at all.  Actually, I just wanted to share my first impression. heh. heh. I do like both - they're both so different. I love the sense of the maze of houses and the warmth in the first. I love the simple statement of the second - the shadows are working very well for you in this one and I'm drawn right to the church. and, I have to confess, I'm starting to fall in love with B&W photography (that may just be a phase of life that I'm in, though! : I've only looked quickly, though. I look forward to what the others think.  |
|
|
|
Post by rasbury on Sept 29, 2011 23:42:01 GMT
I'm liking #1 Rob.The colors are warm and beautiful and there is great detail through-out the whole image.#2 is a very good photo,I'm just not to sure about the antenna on the roof of the one building.All-in all a job well done.
I also like your avatar. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by manthos on Sept 30, 2011 0:18:21 GMT
I have to choose the second. I like it much more. I'm always more attracted to a b&w, but apart from that, I feel it has a stronger composition. Even though the church gets only a small portion in the frame it dominates it thanks to the lines and the way it is lit. I feel that you were shooting this from a lower point of view and I like the perspective. the only thing that bothers me (just a little) is that the church has little room to 'breathe'. Perhaps if you framed with more space on the left or if you took a few steps on the right would be better? Anyway, that's minor...
About the first now, I do like it. I agree with Ron and Katy and the points they've made about it but I feel it a bit 'ordinary'. I think it's the perspective you chose.
Just my thoughts. I hope I've been helpful! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit on Sept 30, 2011 1:31:19 GMT
In this case, I think I prefer the colour version overall. I like the composition of the b & w more, as it makes for a simpler, more straightforward image. It also makes me feel I'd like to wander down the lane and go around to the left, where-as the colour one kind of stops me in my tracks. The aerial in the b & w doesn't bother me too much as it gives us a "then and now" viewpoint, but for me, the whites need to be clipped a little and the blacks a little more. Having said that, there is a great range of very good mid-tones.
Hmmm. Just read what I said, and maybe I do prefer the b & w. I think the colour initially took more interest because we are just coming out of winter/early spring and the warm tones are so welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by robnaylor on Sept 30, 2011 8:11:23 GMT
Thanks for the comments, all very valid!
I love the way each of us sees things through different eyes - this is good to remember when giving/receiving C&C, we are all different and all have something to bring to the party.
I guess I should try to C&C myself... ha ha...
I prefer the composition of #2 - two reasons, the stronger lead-in lines takes my focus to the church and give more depth, and the church is better lit against the shadows of the foreground, adding the the focal point.
I am torn between colour or BW, but I feel that #1 would not convert so well to BW as #2 would to colour.
#1 IMO is quite flat - no depth, had I stood further back and to the right I could have made better use of the wall lines on the left to give a better sense of depth.
The focal point is fighting between the church and the little house.
Perhaps, the TV aerial should be removed from #2, it does draw the eye away from the focal point. (I did remove it from #1 - rather clumsily.)
Finally, my preference would be portrait format, again for the depth it gives to a tight shot.
Only my thoughts...
|
|
|
|
Post by jiro on Sept 30, 2011 14:29:30 GMT
My choice would be #2 or the b&w one. But I would like to share my opinion why I did not choose #1 and selected #2.
On #1, without analyzing the image, the first that caught my attention was the play of colors. Yellow, Orange, and Blue are strong colors and that is really attention grabbing. Looking deeper, knowing that our eyes immediately scans the brightest areas of an image, I noticed that the brightest part of the image is the yellow wall on the right. What puzzles me is why is it only occupying a small portion of the frame and why is it too cramped on the right side? Then, I noticed that the house on the left has more frame space though it is darker in tonality. Another comparison is that both its window and main door is too black without much detail in it. For me it would mean that someone doesn't like me to go there for the idea that I am not welcome to it. That concept is also supported by the closed metal gate on the foreground. Looking at the foreground, there is a leading line (the water canal) going straight to the building on the background but I don't see anything special on that building to hold my attention much. I think the colors are the only thing holding this image together and the subjects does not complement each other.
For #2, this image tells a story to me. There are rich details on the house on the left and it is inviting to look at (and probably to visit, too.) It is also a friendlier place to see because of the added plants and flowers. Maybe, the owner of the house is a happy and jolly person who enjoys nature. Then scanning the frame, I noticed the same water canal but this time its presence and its tone really directs me to the brightest area of the image and that is the church. Symbolically, the building being a church and also brighter than the rest symbolizes hope, salvation, freedom, or a sense of strong belief. The subjects inside the frame tells the story in a congruent way. I guess that's why I stayed longer looking at it because there are a lot of symbols and ideas coming to my mind when I look at it. I don't mind the antenna. For me, it also adds opposite to the image. The church which can symbolize something old, and the antenna which can show that the date is something more recent. The good thing about it is that my reaction to the image was not affected by colors and that made the image stronger for me. In short, I think you did a pretty good job on both but I do love #2, Rob. Thanks for sharing your work and giving us the chance to react on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robnaylor on Sept 30, 2011 19:18:42 GMT
Thanks Jiro
A very considered C&C - much appreciated.
You have opened my eyes to a "psychological" way of viewing an image, quite deep in thought and meaning.
Interesting...I will need to re-read a few times to gleen all the points and detail you have raised.
|
|
|
|
Post by jiro on Sept 30, 2011 19:38:47 GMT
Thanks Jiro A very considered C&C - much appreciated. You have opened my eyes to a "psychological" way of viewing an image, quite deep in thought and meaning. Interesting...I will need to re-read a few times to gleen all the points and detail you have raised. Hey, Rob. I just noticed it now that these two are actually the same area but shot on a different angle and perspective. I love it when I see succinct changes on the camera position and it shows a stronger composition. I like it when the photographer doesn't get tired looking and looking for a stronger shot. I also learned a lot from these two images of yours. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by The Wirefox on Sept 30, 2011 19:53:09 GMT
Rob For me the first one is two images. There is such a strong delineation of the side wall of the foremost building that it splits the image. The bridge camera (as you have said) in these conditions creates a very hard outline and shadows that tends to make the image look like a compilation of cutouts. I would loose the L/H eighth of the image because the far left looks a little messy compared to the strong geometries of the rest of the image. On the whole the image seems a unreal and too bold to capture the lazy heat of the environment. It reminds me of one of those holiday brochure images from Landmark Trust. that is not necessarily a bad thing if you wanted to make money that way. the landscape aspect foreshortens the perspective and gives a claustrophobic feel. It also creates a reverse accented subject. The main subject is undoubtably the church but that is turned on its head by the Tardis like apparition that is the cottage in the foreground The second image is a different kettle of fish. The portrait orientation and the focal length of the lens make me feel as if I am walking up the hill toward the church. The monochrome conversion makes best use of the features that were negative points in the first image (high contrast). personally I think a good quality bridge camera is a fine tool for images that will be converted to black and white. Again I would crop a fifth of the left of the image but this time to get rid of the distraction of the chimney and to give an even more accentuated feeling of height within the frame. You may need to correct some distortion for this to work well. I would also do a little low opacity dodging in the lower left of the image. (and clone out the electricity meter box whilst you are at it  They are both contrasty images but whilst colour can be suited to high contrast photography it does not work for me in the first image. B/W needs contrast to be effective (in most cases) and the second image makes good use of the natural contrasts. The portrait aspect gives a feeling eminence to the church (a beautiful piece of Romanesque by the way) and makes the viewer work to enjoy the journey's end. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit on Sept 30, 2011 23:56:03 GMT
Hi Rob. I am re-viewing this today with the calibration profile loaded and have to retract my comment about the second image needing it's black & white clipping. Because it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by robnaylor on Oct 1, 2011 6:44:39 GMT
Thanks Steve (Wirefox) Yes, that 1st image is a strange one, When I first saw it, it looked like the little house on the left had been "cut and pasted", it's lines being so clean cut (and, no I didn't cut it in  ), I agree with you comments on the composition and landscape format - something is just not right there! Kit - thanks for the review on the clipping, I checked out the histogram and all seemed to be OK, but nice to have confirmation from a calibrated monitor.  The peak on the jet black "0" is the 2-pixel black border I use. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit on Oct 2, 2011 0:08:54 GMT
Just out of interest, why do you use a 2 pixel boarder, as it isn't visible to the eye?
|
|
|
|
Post by robnaylor on Oct 2, 2011 7:27:15 GMT
Just out of interest, why do you use a 2 pixel boarder, as it isn't visible to the eye? Good question Kit - the border cannot be seen as a border but it does clean up the edges of the image and in an odd way helps definition. It is very subtle, as the 2 pixel border is added to an image either 1366pixels high or wide (I make all my images for web display with a max edge length of 1370pixels (inc the border) Here is an example of the same image (original size 1370 but here scaled to 640 wide) I hope you can see a very subtle difference between the two. I also hope the more "pleasing" of the two is the one with a border  . It makes no difference at all when viewed in lightbox ;D... With Border  Without Border  |
|
|
|
Post by Kit on Oct 3, 2011 2:41:06 GMT
Oh, yeah, I can see it alright in the top one. At the lower res, it is quite visible to the eye. |
|
but that's not quite it. It looks too real for that - just, very, very charming.
