Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2017 · Bridge over not so troubled water

  
 
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Bridge over not so troubled water


Rip it apart.

I got my gear on.

Dave







May 19, 2017 at 05:32 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Bridge over not so troubled water


This has a nice soft feel to it. Was there mist on the water? I like the effect.


May 19, 2017 at 05:35 PM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Bridge over not so troubled water


Not at the time I took this shot. It had burned off by the time I got around the lake.

Before anyone else comments, I have to come clean. I cheated like a SOB on this image on many levels that have have never done before. Just playing around trying to learn a little PS trickery.

This will never be printed and was just an excersize.

Dave



May 19, 2017 at 06:13 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Bridge over not so troubled water


Exercise is good ... particularly when it develops "command & control" for photo-finishing. The litmus test is whether or not your "tells" are showing, and whether or not it is plausible (if you're striving for realism, that is).

Reminds me of shooting through some really, really old glass for that soft vibe. The soft styling is obvious (not a nit / tell), so that doesn't really count because it is what you wanted folks to notice (by intent). As to anything else that would be your "cheats" ... I got nuttin'. Of course, your definition of "cheats" and my definition of "cheats" vs. "finishing" may / may not be on the same page.



A little closer study ... cheats might be some dodging to emulate highlights, but even that isn't obvious enough for me to say with certainty that it isn't a dappled lighting condition through (out of scene) trees, etc. Maybe some toning to the swan's neck. The "soft" vibe probably helps mask certain things too, but I don't have anything glaringly obvious to me that screams "wrong". Maybe I've just gone as "soft" as the image.

I'm thinking that this in the realm of "making" an image vs. merely "taking" one ... yet, challenging to distinguish where the taking started and the making finished. Styling notwithstanding ... your "cheats" still seem MIA or well camo'd atm.


After working the file a bit, I'm still not really seeing your "cheats" ... maybe the water has some motion blur augmentation, But here again, I'm only hazarding a guess, not a clear cut "tell".

So, depending on your "cheats", they could fall in line with my exclamation of Ansel Adams when I learned of his darkroom finishing efforts ... "He Cheats !!!" The main diff being vs. that about 30 years makes in understanding the difference in what it means to "convey" vs. simply "record".




Edited on May 20, 2017 at 02:10 AM · View previous versions



May 19, 2017 at 08:36 PM
Kevin T
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Bridge over not so troubled water


I got a moldy lens I would love to unload? All your shots can be soft focus!

I am really liking the upper feathers on the back of the bird!



May 19, 2017 at 08:38 PM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Bridge over not so troubled water


Doesn't look hammered on at all to me, so good start! I think since you're pushing things in a softer direction you've got more leeway when it comes to knocking this one around a bit.

Food for thought rework below!

I feel that we've got too much bridge here - the bridge is okay, but everyone is here for the bird (swan??) even if they don't wanna cause of that eye-pull. A few nits that tried to pull me away is that brighter green group of leaves, the telephone pole/wires and guard rail in the background.

Does it improve? That's your call, amigo.

Jeff







May 19, 2017 at 08:49 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Bridge over not so troubled water


Probably my ignorance, but I feel like I should look up Orton effect, since I recall it has a bit of soft, glowing, dreamy quality that these images remind me of.
Great to experiment. I like the glow, soft surround with the white feathers.
Not crazy about the comp, though, and wonder if we could see something feeling more open, airy, including the swan.
The heaviness of the bridge and stone dominate the bird. Perhaps if they were in the foggy distance, and the bird in more open water.
Possible?

Scott



May 19, 2017 at 08:54 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Bridge over not so troubled water


So, after chasing for the cheats & tells ... I moved on to the image comp.

This one is a bit challenging given the masses, tones and lines involved. I think the crux of the issue lies in the determination of the subject ... i.e. we have TWO subjects @ bridge vs. swan, and are trying to give them both credence. That's always a tougher gig than a singular subject. For the most part (imo), you have to make a decision as to which ONE is the lead role, and which one gets "demoted" the leading supporting role.

In this instance, I decided that the swan was to be the leading role (+ a USM boost), and reduced the bridge to the supporting cast role. It was kinda tough to take all that the bridge has and pull it back, but I think that a "partial bridge" is preferable to a "partial swan".

Wrangled quite a bit with the crop placement, so . The crop changes things regarding #1 vs. #2, but it also goes away from open / airy. Again, kinda challenging with regard to what you're trying to say. In that regard, I'd probably critique the tighter crop as being incongruous with the softer vibe ... i.e. not harmonious with the mood / message. The question then returns as usual to what is the desired message to be conveyed ... and what helps / hinders that message being delivered.

Looking at my crop, then going back to the OP ... I think it presents the difference in open and airy impact that the crop has. vs. the OP. Suddenly, the OP looks better (regarding the soft message vibe) to me than when first viewed (i.e. somewhat relative). BTW, ask me again tomorrow and I'll have yet another, different answer.

Key word there is "different" ... i.e. not necessarily, "better".

Also, I reduced it to mono ... not so much for the sake of mono, but sometimes when I look at things in mono it simplifies my view of the comp without the hue factor tugging on my eye for any draw..












May 20, 2017 at 01:47 AM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Bridge over not so troubled water


Thanks for all the comments folks. I find it interesting to hear everyone's​ take and direction they would go with this image.

I will be posting up the sooc image shorty for all to see where this image began.

Just put down all sharp pointy objects before you look. Cause when I said I cheated like a SOB, I wasn't kidding.
It was a fun experiment but not something I plan on doing much of. I feel so dirty.

Dave



May 20, 2017 at 06:37 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Bridge over not so troubled water


Yeah, well if it turns out to be as much cheating as you suggest (like major composting, etc.) ... all I can say is you apparently have done a pretty darn good job with hiding / masking / blending your cheats & tells.

Now ... where's that firehose.



May 20, 2017 at 08:39 AM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Bridge over not so troubled water


Oh man... this is gonna get ugly.

Posting of sooc in just a few.




May 20, 2017 at 08:46 AM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Bridge over not so troubled water


Ok, here are the 100% sooc images that I used to FABRICATE the OP image.

Here's the backstory and the reason I went down this dirty road.
I wanted to "see" what this scene could look like if I keep going back to try and capture something very similar without any PS hacking.

When I first discovered this place and then saw this little bridge, the very first thing that entered my mind was, "Man, wouldn't that be sweet if I could nail a shot of that white swan swimming under that bridge in early morning light."

The trouble was that I had never seen this swan even remotely close to the bridge and was always seen on the other side of the lake.

Well, after a few more visits my "vision" ALMOST came to life. I had already crossed over this bridge and had walked about an 1/8 mile passed it when I turned around and saw the swan starting to head toward the bridge. Or at least toward that side of the lake. So I started jogging back to try and get into a good position in case it actually happened. I paused for a couple of quick shots of the swan (sooc #1) and then realized it was in fact going straight to the bridge so I started booking again to try and beat it to the bridge and get over to the other side for the composition I had already figured out if the chance ever arrived.

As it turns out, these damn birds can swim faster than a slightly fat old guy with a 100-400 hung around his neck.
At this point I knew I wasn't going to be able to get into position on the other side so slightly winded I figured I'd at least try to get a shot from this side even though it wasn't ideal. And of course the swan didn't want to cooperate and he kept his head turned. (sooc #2 )

So just for the fun of it and to force myself to learn a little more about PS, I decided to try my hand at "fabricating" an image that closely represents what I have been trying to capture.

I will never do anything with this fake image because I don't believe in such crazy manipulation. It's fine if that's what you're into, but I personally get no satisfaction from images like this other than from a learning stand point.

So there ya have it! I CHEATED! Like a scum sucking something or other.
Please don't aim for my head when you launch those rotten tomatoes.

Dave












May 20, 2017 at 09:31 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Bridge over not so troubled water


It's only cheatin' if you get caught.

Seriously though ... we have a tool that can be used as a "recording" tool (which also has a degree of variability), or as a "creative" tool.

How you choose to the tool(s) ... your call.

As to this one ... the art (i.e. skill) of executing (in camera or in darkroom) double exposures has been around long before Photoshop existed. It was considered by some to be an advanced technique that was difficult to do well. While it could be "novel", it could also be "powerful".

As an artist (referring to paint / draw / etc.) they have the liberty to put the darn swan & light anywhere / anyway they want. So, as an artistic rendering (vs. a "literal" recording), there is a latitude that we have as well ... just that most folks generally assume that a single exposure somehow has more "purity" to it than a bracketed HDR, pano-stitch or composted image. Imo, if we are crafting images ... well, we are crafting images. Of course, that's a different matter from documenting and we should be clear to understand the diff's of when it is "taboo" to inject the "cheats" vs. when it is license and liberty.

So, as to your cheat ... it apparently passed muster as I don't think anyone was able to pick up on it even with advance notice of its existence. Could anyone ever "prove" that the swan wasn't ever there ... not likely ... but, if they can tell that something is wrong with the image, then it can call it into question more readily. If a painter can put the darn swan where they want it, or photographers can "pose" people, edit out telephone lines or add negative space, etc. ... well, the lines between "cheating" and "creating", "crafting" and "finishing" can be kinda fuzzy (subjective) at times.

That said, the one rule I would suggest about cheating is:

if you're gonna "cheat" , do it in such a way so nobody can see your "tells".



May 20, 2017 at 07:47 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.