The final output is probably closer to what you saw at the time of capture, what were the intentional processing characteristics?
+1 to Greg's comment. I'm not quite sure as to what you have tried to do with this image and why.
Sharon, the first thing that I noticed when viewing this image was that the horizon was a bit crooked... I might a;so like a bit more contrast with the image a bit darker to give more of a evening time impression...
Last edited by rpcrowe; 5th January 2019 at 05:02 PM.
(Apart from the wonky horizon) I really like the result, whatever you were aiming for. Dave
Sharon, the horizon is crooked alright but I like it - it is different.
Cheers Ole
I like it, looks like a fun place to be!
Thanks for the comments.
I softened the details and contrast. I wanted the people to look a little soft and have a more abstract feel.
Tried to bring out the coolness of the sky against the warmth of the fire.
I could have darkned exposure, but this wasn’t shot in the dusk.
Not sure of success, but alas there’s always another day and another moment. I hope.
And holy crap about the horizon.... ugly mistake.
S
Sharon - other than the wonky horizon, the main issue I have with this image is that it does not have a main centre of interest for the viewer to focus on.
The human visual system is keyed to areas of brightness or areas of high contrast. There are easily four of them:
The bright lights in the centre of the circle, the bright lights on the pier, the area to the right side of the frame and the area just in front of the circle. All of them are competing for the viewer's attention and none are strong enough to dominate the scene. We just go from light source to light source until we tire of it and move on...
I don't think the horizon is wonky. That's what I'd expect when shooting across a bay. Look at the pier pilings, they're vertical, or nearly so.
The horizon is long whereas the pilings are short, so it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusion by looking at the pier.
When I drop a guideline across the horizon, it shows this:
The problem with the horizon is that the human visual system if very sensitive to the horizon not being level. To complicate things even more, there are situations where the horizon is correctly presented in the image, but the shot still looks off due to optical effects.
I often use a level when I shoot landscapes to ensure that my camera is level, but from time to time when I open the image in post, even though it is level, it still looks "wrong", I will rotate the image to make the horizon look level.
Although this may not have been shot at dusk - I think that the image has some added punch with this rendition...
However, with the aim of of giving the image a specific center of interest, I might crop it this way...
Of course post processing and cropping is always depending on the eye of the beholder and one person's choice is just as good as another's depending on your desires...
My first thought about the cropping was similar to Richard's, I, however, would have cropped (from the right side of the image) to the left side of the pair of easyup (pointed canopies) as well as try to heal out the the trashcan in the bottom left of the image.
Other than my two comments, I like the image. Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing more of your work.
Richard's edit suggests he was thinking about the same thing I was, but he didn't make it explicit.
The first thing that struck me about the image was the lack of dynamic range and contrast. I don't know whether that was your intent, but it makes the image look drab and murky to me.
Here is a very simple edit, not enough to re-finish the image, but enough to show what I mean.
I did two things. First, I pulled up the black point and lowered the white point. This has the effect of spreading out the tones, increasing tonal range and thereby increasing contrast. Second, I pulled up the shadows a very small amount by pulling the single control point on the curve up a tiny bit. I did this because raising the black point had darkened the sand too much.
This is the result. Again, not finished, but it's the direction I would go in.
Last edited by DanK; 8th January 2019 at 11:21 PM.