Interesting forum. Here is quiet San Francisco

[Nikita66]

Just discovered this forum. I like the artistic nature of it and critical comments. So here is my attempt.

Thanks


February, around noon.

 

[kgwhite]

The stark low angle light adds excellent dimensionality to the image. To me the buildings resolve as graphical marks in a cubist composition. Maybe a little less sky.

Some artifacts are visible, maybe from sharpening or other post processing. They don't impact the essential elements of the image. Those learning exposure may quibble about black point and white point. The tonal range works rather well to promote the graphical qualities of the image.

This is a well considered and executed finished photograph.

--
kw
http://www.thealamoproject.com/
http://www.pbase.com/kwhite

 

[tolleknolle]

Just discovered this forum. I like the artistic nature of it and critical comments. So here is my attempt.

Thanks


February, around noon.

Hi and welcome, robjons!

Re. the image: compositionally, it works, and the light is striking.

In terms of processing, the bleached-out facades in the middle ground appear flat and lifeless - if shot in RAW there might be a chance to bring out the tonal richness that defines the cubic shapes. By contrast, the tonality in the foreground is muddy, with shadows rather blocked up - again it could be re-processed from RAW.

Further, the B&W conversion was quite aggressive on the B channel, and this left a white fringe around the treetops in the background - this could be eliminated either by careful cloning or by adopting a different approach to darkening the sky.

Up close, the texture of the image is rather blotchy - adding grain would help that.

Finally, shooting the scene at f/2.8 leads to a loss of sharpness, most obviously in the foreground.

Welcome to the shark tank!

 

[Dr Paul]

Just discovered this forum. I like the artistic nature of it and critical comments. So here is my attempt.

Thanks


February, around noon.

Welcome aboard. I'm from SF, but did not shoot much back then as a kid. This is an excellent representation of the unique nature of the city scape. Coit Tower on Snob (Nob) hill, from which flows the famous Lombard street. And great placement of the bridge.

Photographically it seems to lack crispness and definition. I have no idea if it was how you had to shoot it, or in PP. Regardless, very well organized photo.



--
Paul K

 

[Nikita66]

Just discovered this forum. I like the artistic nature of it and critical comments. So here is my attempt.

Thanks


February, around noon.

Hi and welcome, robjons!

Re. the image: compositionally, it works, and the light is striking.

In terms of processing, the bleached-out facades in the middle ground appear flat and lifeless - if shot in RAW there might be a chance to bring out the tonal richness that defines the cubic shapes. By contrast, the tonality in the foreground is muddy, with shadows rather blocked up - again it could be re-processed from RAW.

Further, the B&W conversion was quite aggressive on the B channel, and this left a white fringe around the treetops in the background - this could be eliminated either by careful cloning or by adopting a different approach to darkening the sky.

Up close, the texture of the image is rather blotchy - adding grain would help that.

Finally, shooting the scene at f/2.8 leads to a loss of sharpness, most obviously in the foreground.

Welcome to the shark tank!

V helpful comments. I appreciate your taking a few minutes. After looking at the image again at 300% I see what ‘tollek’ is saying. But “aggressive” B&W conversion: how do you convert it un-aggressively?

It was aggressively processed (CS6) and not sure why I shot it at 2.8. Wish I had the original raw (lost when hard drive went down – no backup).

Anyway, thanks, all items to be aware of.

 

[bosjohn21]

Just discovered this forum. I like the artistic nature of it and critical comments. So here is my attempt.

Thanks


February, around noon.

your choice of contrasty harsh sunlight really wakes up the city at day break with the receding fog. its very atmospheric. You don't see many pics of the city from the east. Nice

--
John aka bosjohn21

 

[tolleknolle]

But “aggressive” B&W conversion: how do you convert it un-aggressively?

In LR/PSP, the B&W tab gives you a neutral "Auto" starting point that renders all tonal values 1:1. From here you can drag, in this case, the Blue slider down to get a dramatic sky, checking and stopping before fringes or any other tonal flaws show up. From here you can use local brushes and/or the Grad filter to continue to darken the area.

Alternatively you could develop two exposures from RAW, one for the sky and one for the foreground, and blend them in PSP.

In either case, the goal is to preserve the continuous tonality and the texture of the image.

Just my 2c and have a good weekend!

 

[bosjohn21]

whats a b channel?

 

[tolleknolle]

whats a b channel?

 

[bosjohn21]

thanks I learned something

 

[Walter de la Internet]

February, around noon.

Welcome.

Compositionally I like this image, and it's impact is improved by the fact you've managed to work in multiple strong iconic elements. Well done there.

Noting that I haven't read the other responses (some of us here prefer not to read before responding, so that we can maintain the ability to offer an independent response), I would however like to offer a few technical points of feedback for future images:

• There is a loss of clarity (vignetting) around the corners of the image. This is most visible in the lower-left and lower-right portions of the image, on the respective houses. This is an artifact on the image that is derived from a physical property of the lens you are using in combination with the aperture and shutter speed you are shooting at. Typically, vignetting occurs most frequently when the aperture is wide open and/or the shutter speed is very fast. With a subject like this, which is mainly static and with little requirement for limited focal range, many photographers would be using f/22 (very tiny aperture / almost closed) and then scaling back their ISO to a point where the shutter speed was in an acceptably slow range (when shooting handheld, this might be roughly between 1/1000th of a second to minimize vignetting but above 1/100th of a second to guarantee relative clarity despite potential hand motion during the shot). I just checked your shot's EXIF values and according to those you shot at f/2.8 (wide open) and 1/5000th of a second (very fast shutter speed) which accords with the above explanation.
• There is a sort of 'photocopy' effect, or flat tonal grouping, sometimes termed 'posterization'. This is mainly because of the combination of very fast shutter speed and very harsh midday light. While it is not extremely pronounced, it is definitely there. The normal way to avoid this type of thing when shooting a single frame is to use a longer exposure and a smaller aperture / less sensitive ISO. If you try to shoot two different images next time you have a midday landscape, one with a fully open aperture and fast shutter speed (as per this image) and one with a fully closed aperture, lowest available ISO and a slower shutter speed (possibly using a tripod) then you will see the difference clearly in fine tonal detail.
  (Edit: Just went and read the other comments after posting this message and I do second tolleknolle's warning that a weighted B&W conversion is another prime potential culprit here. Very often strong color-weighting during these conversions does also lead to flat tonal regions ... but I think in this case it's not necessarily the conversion)
• There are halo artifacts present. These generally occur because of overly aggressive post-processing, most commonly sharpening or contrast adjustments. The precise culprit depends upon the post-processing program you use, but you can see these artifacts clearly by viewing the image at full size and running your eye along the horizon. As an exercise, you may wish to try going back and re-processing the image from the raw file or original JPEG file and taking care not to create these artifacts. Learning how to work within your post-processing tool's limitations will help you improve the technical quality of future images.

Hope that was useful and welcome again.

 

[Nikita66]

February, around noon.

Welcome.

Compositionally I like this image, and it's impact is improved by the fact you've managed to work in multiple strong iconic elements. Well done there.

Noting that I haven't read the other responses (some of us here prefer not to read before responding, so that we can maintain the ability to offer an independent response), I would however like to offer a few technical points of feedback for future images:

• There is a loss of clarity (vignetting) around the corners of the image. This is most visible in the lower-left and lower-right portions of the image, on the respective houses. This is an artifact on the image that is derived from a physical property of the lens you are using in combination with the aperture and shutter speed you are shooting at. Typically, vignetting occurs most frequently when the aperture is wide open and/or the shutter speed is very fast. With a subject like this, which is mainly static and with little requirement for limited focal range, many photographers would be using f/22 (very tiny aperture / almost closed) and then scaling back their ISO to a point where the shutter speed was in an acceptably slow range (when shooting handheld, this might be roughly between 1/1000th of a second to minimize vignetting but above 1/100th of a second to guarantee relative clarity despite potential hand motion during the shot). I just checked your shot's EXIF values and according to those you shot at f/2.8 (wide open) and 1/5000th of a second (very fast shutter speed) which accords with the above explanation.
• There is a sort of 'photocopy' effect, or flat tonal grouping, sometimes termed 'posterization'. This is mainly because of the combination of very fast shutter speed and very harsh midday light. While it is not extremely pronounced, it is definitely there. The normal way to avoid this type of thing when shooting a single frame is to use a longer exposure and a smaller aperture / less sensitive ISO. If you try to shoot two different images next time you have a midday landscape, one with a fully open aperture and fast shutter speed (as per this image) and one with a fully closed aperture, lowest available ISO and a slower shutter speed (possibly using a tripod) then you will see the difference clearly in fine tonal detail.
  (Edit: Just went and read the other comments after posting this message and I do second tolleknolle's warning that a weighted B&W conversion is another prime potential culprit here. Very often strong color-weighting during these conversions does also lead to flat tonal regions ... but I think in this case it's not necessarily the conversion)
• There are halo artifacts present. These generally occur because of overly aggressive post-processing, most commonly sharpening or contrast adjustments. The precise culprit depends upon the post-processing program you use, but you can see these artifacts clearly by viewing the image at full size and running your eye along the horizon. As an exercise, you may wish to try going back and re-processing the image from the raw file or original JPEG file and taking care not to create these artifacts. Learning how to work within your post-processing tool's limitations will help you improve the technical quality of future images.

Hope that was useful and welcome again.

Walter, excellent and well written suggestions. I appreciate your time in explaining how my technique can be improved just prior to shooting and in post. I have copied your (and ‘tollek’s”) advice and will be reviewing and referring to it.

Very instructive, thanks.