Critique #7

Discussions on Equipment, Locations and Tips for getting the photograps you want of Vermont scenes.Note: You must be registered in order to post. If you have trouble registering, use the contact us form on Scenes of Vermont's home page.

Moderators: bm, Andy, admin

markm
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:59 pm
Location: Southeast MA

Re: Critique #7

Postby markm » Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:35 pm

Andy wrote:Hi Mark: Reading your comments about what you did to the image, I wonder, what do you mean when you say you "deepened" it?


Most likely a saturation effect as well as a darkening feature to it.
I appologize for mistakenly breaking the rules! :oops:


abby
Moderator
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:01 am
Location: southeast massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Critique #7

Postby abby » Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:32 pm

Hi Mark,
I really like what you did to this. I like the darker background and the buildings seem to pop more than the original. It's great to see you contributing here!! Merry Christmas to both you and "Carol"! :D
Carol

markm
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:59 pm
Location: Southeast MA

Re: Critique #7

Postby markm » Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:01 am

abby wrote:Hi Mark,
I really like what you did to this. I like the darker background and the buildings seem to pop more than the original. It's great to see you contributing here!! Merry Christmas to both you and "Carol"! :D
Carol


Thank you. I was trying to create what I would have envisioned as being there with all that different lighting in a "Las Vegas" fashion.
I'll try to get more time in on this site soon.

Happy Holidays to you and yours, God Bless...

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Critique #7

Postby Andy » Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:31 am

Mark: No problem with the image thing. You will note that I was the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black" myself, as I took a screen capture of Al's shot without specifically asking him first. Most of us who have been participating know each other well here and I don't think its a serious problem. As far as I am personally concerned, critiquers (is that even a word? :) ) can have blanket permission to make changes to my images and re-post them here for the purpose of critique. I think it enhances the learning process.

But some people get really touchy about any unauthorized capture, copy or download of their images and I want to be sure we respect that here so everyone will feel comfortable participating.

Glad you joined us here and hope you will stick around and continue to critique. We are a really friendly bunch who truly enjoy each other's company and each others imagery.

Merry Christmas
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

autzig
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: Critique #7

Postby autzig » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:12 pm

Like Andy, I don't have a problem with anyone downloading my images for the purpose of a critique.

I'm not sure I like Mark's version so well because I think an image should fairly represent reality and in his version the colors are just too saturated and not what I saw. Even for Las Vegas, I think it is a bit much. Now Andy likes saturation, so he probably wouldn't mind even more.

Al

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Critique #7

Postby Andy » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:01 am

Actually, Al, in this case I agree with you :shock: . I think there is a case for saturated images -- in the right circumstances. In most "night" images, I think increasing saturation too much makes them look -- as you suggest -- unreal, and sometimes yields color shifts. The exception might be when there were already some bright colors in the image - I might saturate them then.
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

abby
Moderator
Posts: 1802
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:01 am
Location: southeast massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Critique #7

Postby abby » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:06 pm

I'm in the minority I guess. I really like the deeper black background and the saturated buildings in Mark's version. I understand where Al and Andy are coming from, as it doesn't represent reality, and that is a great point. BUT, I still like that version better.
Carol

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Critique #7

Postby Andy » Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:11 am

Carol: You make a very interesting point here. As I mentioned on the #9 thread, some years back (pre-dating digital -- for me anyway), I took most of the NYIP correspondence course. Having taken a many year hiatus while trying to get through law school, bar exam, job, mortgage, and young family, I finally found some time to get back into it -- and thought the NYIP course would be a good refresher -- it was, IMO. But I digress . . . . .

I took a few "gems" away from the course. One of them was from a comment made by my "mentor" who critiqued my submissions. He said: We don't "take" photographs; we "make them."

Aside from photojournalism, I don't really care if a photograph represents "reality." A once famous aspiring politician from Alaska said something about "lipstick on a pig." That is my only criteria. A year or so back, I blogged about "honesty" in photography. Don't tell me its Heidi Klum, if its a pig with lipstick. As long as you are willing to acknowledge that its the latter, its just fine with me. And some of us even think pigs aren't all that bad :mrgreen: .

Seriously, I try to look at an image and say "could" it be? Or, was that what I saw in my "mind's eye" when I was there. If I can answer the question yes, I don't care that somebody else thinks its "too saturated," or the colors are too intense, or the light is not "believable" (e.g. in a well done HDR blend), etc.

I think we all know by now that every person who observes a scene sees it differently. This is true not only in terms of context and perspective, but also in terms of color, brilliance, contrast, etc. So, I am not saying I have a "problem" with Mark's version at all. It is one of many possible interpretations of the scene. I just prefer -- in this instance -- Al's original, toned-down image (which has got to have Al scratching his head, wondering what he did wrong, since I am agreeing with him on saturation :mrgreen: ).
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .



Return to “Vermont Photography Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests