Reworked an old photo!

lightpainter · 30-10-2007, 12:01 AM

First job with CS3.
Was it worth it?
C&C Welcome.

lightpainter · 30-10-2007, 11:13 PM

Look at that, over 100 views but not one comment or criticism!
You must all either think it’s bloody marvellous or deem it not worthy of reply.
Go on I have broad shoulders, I can take it. Lol, and I would value some input.

ttdriver · 30-10-2007, 11:15 PM

I like it but not the borders, I seem to remember this being in black and white am I correct?

I think it would look great in black in white, more atmosphere maybe?

I do like it though

allymac123 · 30-10-2007, 11:17 PM

TBH it doesn't really do anything for me. The light is flat and grey and there just isn't really anything dynamic or exciting about the photo.

I can see you've tried to make the bike the subject but I don't think it's really strong enough in the scene to make it as such.

I don't like the way that stuff protudes out of the picture either.

(you said you wanted brutally honest

)

StevieDvd · 31-10-2007, 5:18 PM

I think the theme is a bit tyred

**senu** · 31-10-2007, 8:31 PM

Ill be perhaps more objective and say that in parts it looks great but the whole of it seems not to gel as well

And Im normally partial to borders but not this one

I do like it and the tyre jutting out is perhaps striking ( to me) but i imagine others may not like it quite as much

Tobers · 31-10-2007, 10:08 PM

Dont know how I missed this one. I think the sticky-out wheel & rock are very effective making it a much more interesting pic. Well worth it

.

mg-paul · 01-11-2007, 1:06 AM

I liked the tyre and rocks that works for me, but overall I am not sure.

In fact having looked at it again I think what is trowing me is that the sky reflected in the pond is brighter than the sky you can see (which looks a bit darkened and processed).

lightpainter · 01-11-2007, 3:22 PM

Yes Paul, I concur with your opinion about the reflection of the water being to light for the sky, the picture is a combination of two exposures as I always bracket my shots that way I never get burnt out sky’s for even with RAW you can’t do anything about it once it’s burnt out.
Also I think I got a bit carried away with working on cutting the wheel onto the border that I took my eye off the ball as to the whole picture.
I don’t know why it is but I seem to get a bit obsessed with buggering my shots around in Photoshop, I can get a reasonable shot like the one underneath, a picture of a country lane running up to a tree, sun shining left to right, but no foreground interest, so I import the tomb stone, with sun shining right to left, flip country lane horizontally so the sun shines the same way and you can read the text on the stone, (shirt label Tobers) He He.
Do most of you manipulate you photos’ or is it just me?

allymac123 · 01-11-2007, 3:46 PM

Lightpainter, as long as you enjoy what your doing then keep doing it.

I never really use photoshop to alter the image by adding objects etc. (I do remove dust spots if need be and correct for distortion occasionally aswell. Usually the majority of my PP is centered around colours and mainly, the dynamic range. Weather that be brightening or darkening part of the image or introducing a darker/lighter exposure to part of the image. My aim with landscape PP is to try and make it the best I can using only the image (or bracketed images) I captured at that time. I usually concentrate quite heavily on making it look as natural as I can.

For the record I don't think your 2nd photo needs that grave-stone, although it doesn't look photoshoppped in at all.

lightpainter · 01-11-2007, 3:52 PM

But Ally, what about the photographer’s creed, Rule of thirds, Lead in lines and Foreground interest?

allymac123 · 01-11-2007, 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightpainter

But Ally, what about the photographer’s creed, Rule of thirds, Lead in lines and Foreground interest?

I don't understand

Do you mean do I not sort them out in photoshop?

Rule of thirds, Lead in lines and Foreground interest are all pre photoshop things to me. There's no reason in landscape photography why you shouldn't have all those things correct before even pressing the shutter.

lightpainter · 01-11-2007, 4:28 PM

No mate, you said that the picture did not need the grave stone, but without it there would be no foreground interest!

allymac123 · 01-11-2007, 4:58 PM

oright!

Yes I agree but in this case because of the lead in line of the fence and its shadow I don't think foreground interest is needed. It would be a nice simple photo without the stone.

I'd probably crop out the L/h side of the picture to give the image a square crop. Either that or at the time I would have placed the tree on the L/H 3rd by pointing the camera more to the right.

These are just my own thoughts.

lightpainter · 01-11-2007, 5:40 PM

Your thought are appreciated as are all the advice and tips I glean from this forum Ally, looking at your Flikr it’s obvious that you have a eye for what constitutes a good photo, whereas unfortunately it doesn’t come naturally to me, as I’ve said before the last 40 years I have been taking SNAPS and its only since I joined this forum that I have been thinking about composition!

**senu** · 01-11-2007, 6:34 PM

Useful tips all. I think it is Horses for courses though.

Sometimes the time and opportunity to take a Photo might mean that the "rule of thirds" , foreground interest ect give way to the expediency of simply taking the Photo. It takes a lot of discipline ( and constant "hands on") to get these things right "on your feet" and need PS less and less.
In the end it is results that count , If an (initially) poorly framed photo can be made great by creative cropping ( an art in itself) then so be it.

It is very important to have fun as well as a sense achievement whether the picture was taken as is .. or with some PS "magic"