Which do you like better? Lend me your pixel peeping skills!

Hi Everyone,

I took a couple of quick RAW shots in the 'hood today, just so that I could practice processing the images at home this evening.

Unsurprisingly, on my very first image, I can't tell which of 2 processed versions I like more -- and the central problem, in my mind, is the appropriate degree of contrast. (Note: I tend to like photos that others describe as having good "tonal range balance" or "tonal range control" -- and for some reason I associate that with contrast, but I don't know why!)

So I'm hoping that you'll weight in with a vote, and perhaps some further processing suggestions. (the composition is what it is)

Because the 2 images have relatively subtle differences, I have overlaid them in such a way that mousing onto / off the image switches the view.

Here's the link: http://ulivewhe.startlogic.com/raw.html

WARNING: BROADBAND USERS ONLY!
ALLOW A FULL 25 SECONDS TOTAL FOR BOTH IMAGES TO LOAD!

Remember to move your mouse onto, then off the central image

Cheers,

Jay

I like 2 better. a polarizer would have brought that sky up. but the contrast in the rest of the scene is better on 2. You ight be able to bring the detail back inthe clouds still.

--
http://www.fotosource.com/downloads/flyer/eye_cancer_en_CA.pdf

No. 2 for me... I like the darker w/bright tones... no. 1 washes out... No. 2 seems more as what my eye would have seen had I been standing there... the colors, hues & shadows mores real to life

That's how 'my peepers' see it, anyways...

Val
--

A descendant of my ancestors... Do I see life through their eyes... or do they see life through mine? Either way, photographing life as seen.....

Actually, this shot WAS taken with a polarizer... but not rotated to the most powerful effect!

Thanks for your vote!

Thanks, Val.

I'm beginning to think that people's views may be influenced by what they think the "story" of the photo is.

If you think the "story" is the sign jutting prominently into the sky -- then perhaps the higher contrast #2 is preferred.

On the other hand, if you think that the "story" is a dry cleaner (a personal grooming and presentation business) with an unbelievably decrepit and unpresentable sign.. well, then perhaps the texture details of the sign in #1 is preferred.

For the moment, I think the story is about the decrepit state of the sign, and for that reason I think that I slightly prefer #1.

But thanks for your vote!

Jay

--
Anthony Beach

Jay,
Note my reply below to your thoughts...

JayUSA said:

Thanks, Val.

I'm beginning to think that people's views may be influenced by what they think the "story" of the photo is.

If you think the "story" is the sign jutting prominently into the sky -- then perhaps the higher contrast #2 is preferred.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not influenced by the story of the sign or anything.... I was looking closely at all the parts of the photo... and many 'wash out' in the first photo... just like using the flash on the camera 'washes out' darker subjects... and in photo no. 1 everything reacts just like that, that's within several yards of the camera..... the sign, the closer building and it's roof and the sky above and around the sign and the rooftop and the palm tree next to the building and the ground around these objects....... but further down and across the street I don't see it happening with those houses or cars... they seem to "hold their hues and tones" unlike the "foreground objects"...

That's what and all that I was inferring and referring to.... Now, 'if' this photo was took on a very 'hazy' day... then I would understand and yes, then no. 1 would be more 'true to life'...

But I know that what I'm saying is subjective... and I'm a 'realist'... Whatever situation I see... I see the reality of it... Besides using a camera, I can and do draw and sketch too... very good and very realistically, very detailed..... whatever I'm looking at will be sketched with it's full details as it is seen... I can't do it otherwise... I'm a 'detail' person and have to get the details right... or at least right to the very best of my ability if that means the proverbial, "try, try again til you get it right"... I was taught this while young... and you don't shake off that kind of 'training'... Am I a 'perfectionist'? Nope... I make too many mistakes for that... but I just do my best in everything and keep it as perfect and real as "I" possibly can...

Looking at abstract art... and especially studying it in class... can't/coudn't stand it... Abstract to my eyes is like 'off key/note' singing is to my ears... and I have, or at least, used to have, almost perfect pitch... so wrong notes/pitch or evenly slightly flat voices, make me cringe... I used to tune my guitar and others without a pitch pipe... didn't need it...

Jay said:

On the other hand, if you think that the "story" is a dry cleaner (a personal grooming and presentation business) with an unbelievably decrepit and unpresentable sign.. well, then perhaps the texture details of the sign in #1 is preferred.

For the moment, I think the story is about the decrepit state of the sign, and for that reason I think that I slightly prefer #1.

Click to expand...

I too look for and see the 'stories' in photos and pictures... but in this case I wasn't doing that... I thought you wanted to know what the better 'look' was... "off contrast or full contrast" by the way you were talking about the 'contrast'... and so that's what I looked at too... and decided on No. 2... just as the other poster did who got his reply in before mine...

the one with the stronger contrast if to my preference..... that's all....

JayUSA said:

But thanks for your vote!

Jay

Click to expand...

You're welcome... just my 'vote and opinion'... and thanks for sharing and giving the opportunity for a good discussion of 'photos' instead of the 'proverbial' gear....

Val
--

A descendant of my ancestors... Do I see life through their eyes... or do they see life through mine? Either way, photographing life as seen.....

-Wayne

It really depends on what your trying to tell with the picture, I like no.2 more, because of the brighter colors and all. but if you want to express the oldness of the sign then maybe no.1 is the best.

my vote is no.2, but im just a starter with dslr, so wont take to high on my words

respect
vissers

Hi Jay,
my initial reaction was the same as everyone elses', number 2.

However, Ansel Adams as I recall, always tried to avoid test printing a photo too contrasty, because then the correct contrast would look flat by comparision.

Whilst respecting I'm in a huge minority here, I'm going for number 1.

cheers
Flakey
--
flakey

I have to say I like neither one, better than the other, there are parts of both that I like, I like the sign from 2 very nicely boosted colours, but at the cost of the sky and the shadows in 1. As said the sky and shadows in 1 are to me much clearer, and contain more detail, not so burned out.

I have composed the images together to show you what I mean, I hope you don't mind me doing this. Please take a look.

The image is a composite of both images even though it shows you a 2 in the bottom corner

I like nr. 2 a bit more than the nr 1 but I do like the sky of nr. 1 a bit more. The combo in the previous post seems striking a good balance.
--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/

Wupper,

Oh, wow!! Super-cool!! I like it!

How did you do it? What were your steps?

Jay

3 sec. to download and either one is good.

Simple I downloaded the files, and placed them into Photoshop, kept switching off the second layer and looked through the photo, and accessed which areas to keep, a simple selection with the lasso, and delete, as long as both images are the same scale shouldn't hit to many problems, but always best to be careful.

Plus I was in Düsseldorf last week at a Creative Alliance tour, I will say if you have access to Photoshop CS4 this can do wonders for your images, I have no connection with Adobe, or any of their Staff, I paid good money to learn a little more. If you have a few images that are the same you can do a correction on them and end up with a great overall tone, in Edit, under Auto blend layers, then in the selection select stack images, you can merge 3 or more over/under exposed images (same images with different exposures), Photoshop will then automatically make a great image from them, so your burned out ares will be removed and replaced from the other images, and like wise the areas that are to dark will be replaced with the ares that are OK from the other ones.

Time 2:33 the part with the books is a good idea of how this works

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-cs4/using-advanced-compositing/

I like the subject matter of your photos as well.