Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Sunset (03470024)
Comments:
I like the moon just nudging the edge of the film frame!
There is no reason why a sunset shouldn't be in black and white but one has to ask what is gained by not doing it in colour, apart from avoiding the number one favourite view for most people. My feeling here is that this is verging on being too subtle, although looking at it enough times does let the subject impress with its tones. The skyline cut off is good; the tree, though, is just a little too thin, insubstantial (urban even) and not one of nature's more adventurous specimens. While there is nothing wrong with cutting off the right hand branches per se, in this case it induces visual untidiness.
I like the play on scale. I also like the name, given that you wouldn't guess from just looking at the picture.
The clipping of the right hand branches bothers me a bit, but I think that this is created by the lack of a black border on that edge. I leave the frame to the right.
Urban anywhere. A nice companion to the 'eyelashes' security mirror.
I also like the name for the fun of it, but am struggling to get more. The skyline definitely makes this an "urban" tree and puts it in a place, although as Colin says, it could be "urban anywhere" (I'd probably say "suburban")
Perhaps I should have called this
"Twilight"? And perhaps it suffers from being an attempt to copy something that I saw someone else do. These two shots were working from the same idea. I'd appreciate thoughts on them as well: here and here.
BTW, the half moon is a feature of the Hexar RF: it's on the edge of every frame.
Matt,
The lightbulb shot seems to tell a story (or rather allow me to invent one) in a way that the building horizon shot doesn't.
I could imagine the lightbulb shot with this tree shot in a set which described a place. Sort of a jigsaw picture of a city which would be more revealing than an aerial view which got a lot more in.
I too am in need of more of the right hand branches to make this complete for me. To add to the impact and emphasise the time of day perhaps a roosting tree needs to be located - or hang around this one for long-enough and see if anyone rests a while. That combined with the high-rise back drop would make a stronger image.
I don't buy into 'synchronicity' in this case: given the number of people probably attempting something similar, even coincidence might be pushing it. Otherwise, although my thoughts align fairly closely with Colin's, I see the pictures as being more of a generic town rather than a particular place.
I think the white halo around the branches kills it. The tree should be gracious here it is harsh and looks unnatural, preventing the photo to work for me.
The tree should be gracious here it is harsh and looks unnatural
For me the harshness is the point. This tree is a city kid.
The halo is just an unavoidable outcome of compressing a high contrast image of detailed subject. It wouldn't/shouldn't look that way in a print.
Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I was trying something slightly different, and it doesn't seem to have been completely successful.
Please send me an unsharpened, bigger, lightly compressed jpeg of it . I'm curious if it is unavoidable and it would be a shame the photo did not come as you saw it for mere technical stuff.
Use the contact form on my blog (www.lumieredargent.com) to send me your email address. I'll reply and so you'll have my address.
Instead of sending a 27mb tiff over email, I've loaded it on my website. You can get it here:
http://www.1point4photography.com/images/03470024.tif
If you have success resizing and compressing it, let me know. I'm always looking for ways to improve the process.
I think I did. Well, I managed to get something I prefer, which rather pointless, but anyway. I did this:
1. apply a gaussian blur with a radius of 3.
2. resize to 560 pixel height with the bicubic smoother algorithm.
I don't find it soft that way, but it is definitely smooth. For a tad more crispness you can smart sharpen with 0.25 radius at 400%. It is very subtly crisper but it is there. I prefer it just after the resize.
If this is closer to what you intended, great. If not forgive me and just delete it :-)
I think it's a bit too soft without the sharpening. With the sharpening, I can't tell the difference between yours and mine.
Can't say that I'd ever thought of adding a blur step, but I'll have to play around with it in the future.
I don't think that the halo round the branches is due to JPEG compression, that tends to produce fringes. The halo looks like over-sharpening to me. It is hard to avoid at high contrast edges.
I did get this email having discussed a digitally projected image at our club
"I am pretty sure you are suffering an illusion that is associated with the Craik-O’Brien-Cornsweet effect, which in fact counteracts and fools the edge detection mechanism. (see THIS ) The circular "on centre"-"off surround" retinal detectors in effect do a differential sweep across the edge, generating a dip in signal and then a peak as it sweeps across the edge"
So I am a bit cautious!
Post a Comment
There is no reason why a sunset shouldn't be in black and white but one has to ask what is gained by not doing it in colour, apart from avoiding the number one favourite view for most people. My feeling here is that this is verging on being too subtle, although looking at it enough times does let the subject impress with its tones. The skyline cut off is good; the tree, though, is just a little too thin, insubstantial (urban even) and not one of nature's more adventurous specimens. While there is nothing wrong with cutting off the right hand branches per se, in this case it induces visual untidiness.
The clipping of the right hand branches bothers me a bit, but I think that this is created by the lack of a black border on that edge. I leave the frame to the right.
Urban anywhere. A nice companion to the 'eyelashes' security mirror.
"Twilight"? And perhaps it suffers from being an attempt to copy something that I saw someone else do. These two shots were working from the same idea. I'd appreciate thoughts on them as well: here and here.
BTW, the half moon is a feature of the Hexar RF: it's on the edge of every frame.
The lightbulb shot seems to tell a story (or rather allow me to invent one) in a way that the building horizon shot doesn't.
I could imagine the lightbulb shot with this tree shot in a set which described a place. Sort of a jigsaw picture of a city which would be more revealing than an aerial view which got a lot more in.
For me the harshness is the point. This tree is a city kid.
Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I was trying something slightly different, and it doesn't seem to have been completely successful.
Use the contact form on my blog (www.lumieredargent.com) to send me your email address. I'll reply and so you'll have my address.
http://www.1point4photography.com/images/03470024.tif
If you have success resizing and compressing it, let me know. I'm always looking for ways to improve the process.
1. apply a gaussian blur with a radius of 3.
2. resize to 560 pixel height with the bicubic smoother algorithm.
I don't find it soft that way, but it is definitely smooth. For a tad more crispness you can smart sharpen with 0.25 radius at 400%. It is very subtly crisper but it is there. I prefer it just after the resize.
If this is closer to what you intended, great. If not forgive me and just delete it :-)
Can't say that I'd ever thought of adding a blur step, but I'll have to play around with it in the future.
I did get this email having discussed a digitally projected image at our club
"I am pretty sure you are suffering an illusion that is associated with the Craik-O’Brien-Cornsweet effect, which in fact counteracts and fools the edge detection mechanism. (see THIS ) The circular "on centre"-"off surround" retinal detectors in effect do a differential sweep across the edge, generating a dip in signal and then a peak as it sweeps across the edge"
So I am a bit cautious!