I number of you have been kind enough to comment on Iron Horse 1 (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/875314) so I thought I would share a problem with you. The images below are from the inside of the same building and I can't quite figure out the best way to present the interior. I'd appreciate knowing what you think of these three options and whether there is something else that you think would be better. Thanks!!
Jeff
To me, #2 looks the most natural but I like the processing in #3. Unfortunately, because of the high contrast of the image, #1 almost looks like you did a high-key process on it.
I looked at the other thread. Where is this place?
Jeff,
If these are the outputs from a single RAW image, kudos to you!
My thoughts:
Its a very busy scene. So much to see makes it both intriguing and a bit overwhelming. I like the BW with its excellent detail and contrast.
I was about to write that the BW simplifies the scene, reducing the perceived busy-ness, but when I look at the second, I'm not sure that's right. Instead the color seems to segment the image into floor, left vertical side, and the remaining, making the image more manageable to take in. And it looks pretty natural.
Third is my least favorite. It gets busier again, especially with the pulled out textures and details in the floor. And it has that HDR look that some love, but isnt for me.
Overall I think you did a wonderful job with each rendition. And what a great place!
AuntiPode wrote:
The B & W version is good. There's something appropriate to expressing decay in B & W. However, I prefer the second because it's more natural. For a theme of decay, the glamorization of the third version seems contrary to the spirit. The second may benefit from some tweaks to contrast and yellow channel and blue channel Hue/Sat tweaks to emphasize the rust hues of decay:
Thanks, AuntiPode! I like what you've done with enhancing the rust. I gives it a sense of depth, enhancing all the lines that run back towards the vanishing point (which I noticed after a comment from Tim over on B&W).
sbeme wrote:
Jeff,
If these are the outputs from a single RAW image, kudos to you!
My thoughts:
Its a very busy scene. So much to see makes it both intriguing and a bit overwhelming. I like the BW with its excellent detail and contrast.
I was about to write that the BW simplifies the scene, reducing the perceived busy-ness, but when I look at the second, I'm not sure that's right. Instead the color seems to segment the image into floor, left vertical side, and the remaining, making the image more manageable to take in. And it looks pretty natural.
Third is my least favorite. It gets busier again, especially with the pulled out textures and details in the floor. And it has that HDR look that some love, but isnt for me.
Overall I think you did a wonderful job with each rendition. And what a great place!
Thanks for the thoughtful observations, Scott. The B&W is really growing on me. As for the HDR, I do like that look at times but, in this case, it was actually your suggestion over in the Iron Horse 1 thread that gave me the idea. !
who me wrote:
To me, #2 looks the most natural but I like the processing in #3. Unfortunately, because of the high contrast of the image, #1 almost looks like you did a high-key process on it.
I looked at the other thread. Where is this place?
Thanks, who me! This is located in Billerica, MA, and, as you might imagine, it is one of those "off-limits" places.....
Mister Bean wrote:
There's a lot going on here. I'm not sure what to look at.
Your reaction was exactly me problem in printing this image! I think I've come to appreciate the value of the converging linear elements as the key to holding all the details together. Thanks for the comment!
Hey, wait a minute!
Actually, thinking HDR predominantly as a technique to draw out as much detail from an image with so much dynamic range. But, for me, most of the time I prefer HDR that doenst look like HDR. Most of the time.
Scott
simdoc1 wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful observations, Scott. The B&W is really growing on me. As for the HDR, I do like that look at times but, in this case, it was actually your suggestion over in the Iron Horse 1 thread that gave me the idea. !
sbeme wrote:
Hey, wait a minute!
Actually, thinking HDR predominantly as a technique to draw out as much detail from an image with so much dynamic range. But, for me, most of the time I prefer HDR that doenst look like HDR. Most of the time.
Jeff, looking at this, it does appear to have a lot of things to draw your attention. It is a long building, maybe some vinyetting, to direct your gaze down the building instead of so wide, might help. I don't know if it will help or just subtract from the feeling you want. Good luck. Rick
Sort of a fan of the tonemapped look (some aren't; to each's own). Decreased Contrast and then applied GIMP's ACE and set that result to Value. Super-enhanced color/sat afterwards.
who me wrote:
No doubt this is 'off limits'. I am actually surprised that place is still standing...
Unfortunately, many of those cool places are that way.
Thanks again for sharing those cool shots.
For those interested, I found a couple of links on the history of that place:
lylejk wrote:
Sort of a fan of the tonemapped look (some aren't; to each's own). Decreased Contrast and then applied GIMP's ACE and set that result to Value. Super-enhanced color/sat afterwards.
It's amazing how many different presentations there are for the same image! Yours is a little overcooked even for me but it does give it an almost cartoon-like quality. Thanks for giving it a go!
!