Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would you do this?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How would you do this?

    This is pretty much the SOOC image, bit of Lightroom to correct the exposure. I'm not trying to be lazy I'm just interested in other's choices. How would you make this pic better?
    Crops, conversions to B&W, something magical with the crappy sky?!
    Please move me if I'm in the wrong place mods.
    1/60
    F8
    ISO200
    26mm

  • #2
    different angle, different composition, I'd do a mild HDR to get the details back in the sky.

    Show us something that we can see by just driving by. Your shot just looks like you walked down the street, turned and snapped. Show us this in a way that we wouldn't expect, or wouldn't see without taking the time.
    So Much To Learn....
    D90
    18-200 VRII, 105mm DC f2, 35mm 1.8G
    2x SB-700
    055CXPRO3 with 468MGRC2 with "M" Plate

    Comment


    • #3
      Crop it for staters.
      Flickr stream.
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/34094515@N00/

      Comment


      • #4
        That's what I'm talking about.
        One person says 'Crop it for staters'. (Sic)
        The other says 'different angle, different composition'. You looked at the picture? I'm not God, I can only shoot what I see!
        Okay, a crop would be good...

        Comment


        • #5
          What does (Sic) mean? And I'm guessing SOOC stands for shot out of camera? I'm new to all this so I really dont know what alot of these abbreviations are, but I'm learning. And I'm not sure anyone was implying that your God, I'm not sure where that came from. And thats not true you can shoot things that you dont see. Many times I've taken a picture and when I previewed it on the computer I noticed things in it that I did not see when I took the shot.As far as your shot I have to agree with the others. A different angle maybe. Or even if a cat had walked into the shot it might have given it that little extra some thing.
          Rick
          JustMe
          Canon EOS 40D

          Comment


          • #6
            'sic' means that the spelling error in the quote he used was in the original, not his spelling mistake.

            I agree witht he comment to show something that you cant see just by driving past. Just another brick house otherwise. I'd be inclided to get up close with a wideangle lens and get some distortion. Id also probably pick a different subject but thats just me.
            Bodies: Canon 30D, Canon D60
            auto lenses: 50mm f/1.8, 28-80mm f/4.5-5.6, 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
            manual lenses: 18-28mm f/4, 135mm f/2.8

            This work by Nathan Barlow is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No-Derivative Works 3.0 New Zealand License. Please ask before posting modified images, unless otherwise stated.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi not a bad subject but buildings and walls shot straight on tend to look very flat, if you had moved to the left which will show more of the angles of the building it would have come out better and given more life to the shot.
              It is always easy to criticise others work but please take this as constructive help.
              if you look at our website you ail see what i mean about shooting head on, iMedia Namibia | Photography and Videography Namibia
              Cheers Aj

              Comment


              • #8
                distracting elements

                What you have here is an old building in the Cottage Gothic style. A close cousin to American Gothic and if your thinking of that famous painting of the same name, your right, it was named after the architecture style. The clues were the roof trim, arched windows and the turret on the right. You also have a lot of distracting elements in the photo, like the gratify on the left and right, rusty fence, yellow traffic cone and excessive signage. Cropping off the gratify would help the composition and A circular polarizing filter would help the sky.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks for ALL your comments! I agree with pretty much all of them except those about composition. I know there are downsides to the square-on shot but going in close would've made the complexity of the building into just architectural details (& possibly got me run over by a car ).
                  What I was hoping was that other people would give thoughts on possible PP, cropping,etc. My main aim in taking shots like this is to record these neglected gems before they're demolished, I should've made that clear
                  This is what I got to with the shot after a bit of PP. I'd hoped there was some humour in a paint supply shop not having been painted since about 1978, maybe not...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    you can still make them something that's interesting to look at while maintaining your aim to record these buildings. No one is going to be interested in a bunch of shots of buildings that are a very boring weak composition. You still have to make it something that's interesting to look at. Be creative! Get off the sidewalk, look around the corner, get close to the building, get further away from the building, anything to make it a more interesting shot. The subject is a cool one, now show us why it is.
                    So Much To Learn....
                    D90
                    18-200 VRII, 105mm DC f2, 35mm 1.8G
                    2x SB-700
                    055CXPRO3 with 468MGRC2 with "M" Plate

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I assume that if all you wanted to do was document that building, you wouldn't be asking for a critique, right? So, you must be going for something more artistic. That's when the comments about changing your perspective apply. Any tourist can take a snapshot by centering the composition and snapping away at eye level. So, I agree that if you want something more than a snapshot, you'll have to get down low or at more of an angle.

                      You have a lot of distractions on the sides that I would crop out and I would think about PPing in a better sky since it adds nothing to the image now.
                      GREG - Canon 60D with 10-22, 18-55 & 55-250.
                      flickr
                      flickriver
                      My 500px
                      "You can't be young forever, but you can always be immature." - Larry Andersen.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi Krusty, I think that may be where I expressed myself badly. I wasn't looking for crit, I just wondered what other's would do to improve THAT shot. Believe it or not, the square composition was exactly what I had in mind before I put the camera to my eye. Call me a train spotter but I really like recording these old buildings like this. I don't want to impose my 'Artistic vision' on them. Just to record them as I see them & pp to a good final print.
                        You're right about PPing a sky, I've not done that before but I'm working on it in terms of PP technique & having a file of a good range of skies. If you know of any really good tutorials on PPing in skies I'd be really grateful though I only have Photoshop 7.
                        It's been a fascinating thread though! Maybe a topic for elsewhere but I've been wondering whether the creative consensus on this site & others, that you should get novel angles, compos, etc. Is all that photography is about? There are a lot of esteemed photographers from history whose work would not be met with many plaudits if they were put up for crit now?
                        Not that I'm putting myself anywhere near them.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Cropping out the post to the left be a good start
                          Carl Lea - Wedding Photographer Wellington
                          Carl Lea - Photographer Wellington

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Do you mean the white post? Or does my monitor need re-calibrating.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm sure you can find tutorials on PPing the sky if you search on YouTube or Google. Photography is so subjective, but in order to stand out from the hordes, you have to try a different angle or approach. I know I've seen a lot of award-winning images that would get ripped apart if they were submitted for a critique. So, I try not to speak in absolutes since this is such a subjective topic.
                              GREG - Canon 60D with 10-22, 18-55 & 55-250.
                              flickr
                              flickriver
                              My 500px
                              "You can't be young forever, but you can always be immature." - Larry Andersen.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X