Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Share Your Shots' started by Don Barton, Jan 8, 2017.
Another over processed radically coloured photo from "Mr Colour".
The colour isnt the problem for me here, im getting a dizzy feeling looking at the clouds!
Are they real or fabricated?
Other than that I like the photo.
I like this photo too Don - the color looks great. Perhaps you used a ND filter with that long exposure? or fast moving clouds? The silvery water is splendid.
Suz,I didn't require an ND filter for this shot as there was still enough light in the sky. However, it is a 20 second exposure at f/16 which accounts for the blurred clouds (they were moving quickly under a north easterly wind). I, too would prefer crisp clouds and smooth water, but you can't get both results unless I replaced the sky.
OK, here's the same photo with the sky replaced. I think this works quite well.
Not all that keen on either of them grumble grumble but the first one would be my choice if I had to pick.
New sky is nice! I'm going to learn how to do that soon. I like the way you picked up the same light pink color that is also in the buildings. Maybe consider adjusting the sky color so it is closer to the reflected color in the beautiful water..? Looks like a very nice evening. ;=)
No. Dont like that last one. It looks too dark and moody. I will take number 2.
I like 2and 3 Don
No 3 is colour for the sake of colour. Not to my taste at all.
I think there's too much going on, for my taste. What are those roundish, squigly objects on the bridge?
I like #2 the best so far - more purple than blue?
"Squigly objects" are sculpture. The bridge is sort of an outdoor immigration museum featuring sculptures and plaques that depict the origins of the Australian population.
So I've gone back and had a more objective look at my last rendering of this photo and made some minor changes.
Please understand my objective here is not necessarily to re-create an image identical to what I saw, but an image that is believable when viewed. The camera image is the foundational image where I concentrate on composition. Upon that foundation I apply colour, shade and light, and additional compositional components to meet my objective.
I appreciate that this does not appeal to the purists in our community, although I do get a little chuckle that even they are occasionally not adverse to fiddling with their images to correct, alter, or cover-up components to achieve and alter reality.
First one wasn't bad but I'm not a fan of the last three as they are all more highly coloured than I would prefer. Not horrible or bad photos you understand, not photos I hate, but just ones that I find a little jarring because of the intense colours; photos I would pass by quickly and not go back to for details because I find the intense colours off-putting. Like someone yelling. An effect that would prevent me from enjoying the scene as much as I might have done (or listening to the person who yelled) had they been less intensely coloured/quieter. I don't consider myself a purist at all; I don't like bright red lipstick or red dresses either but admit that on some people they look great; just something that would make me uncomfortable if I had to look at it all day either wearing it myself or being close to someone who was. Does that clarify the like/hate point of view for you, Don?
Yes, Patricia. It does explain your perspective. But as you point out, it's quite different from mine. And I guess trying to persuade you my perspective is better is a counter-productive discussion. (And I wasn't singling you out Patricia - I am obviously defending a minority position here.)
However, it is interesting that we are exposed to bright saturated images on TV all the time. Walk into a TV showroom, and the TV's that sell best and by inference glean the most attention are the ones that are highly saturated in bright colours. We have a four year old Sony Bravia 58" TV. When we purchased it, the vibrant colours were as good as we could get. But compared to what's on offer today, this TV pales (and I use the term intentionally) into insignificance.
Finally, I am posting the original image I used (pre-editing). I find it quite insipid, but no doubt, some will prefer this final version. Or perhaps the black and white rendition is better???
Persuasion, per se, would be counter productive and to intimate that your "perspective is better" smacks bit of chauvinism. Your perspective is "different", no more no less. I am also a bit puzzled about the "purist" reference. In the time I have been on this, and previous, forums I have never encountered even the slightest hint of a purist. The fact that some members shy away from over saturated, and unrealistic, colours just indicates that their perspective is different. "Viva la differance"
Yes, Don. Sorry to be predictable but I do like the original image. The black and white isn't bad either. And yes, persuasion per se usually isn't successful - just ask any capitalist/socialist/fundamentalist religious/atheist and see how far that would get us. I once heard that babies in the womb are exposed to the music their parents like and are thereby conditioned for life - which doesn't say they can't or won't augment/move beyond, just that tastes seem, like paradigm shifts, to move little most of the time and then by leaps and bounds without most of us noticing.