Project 52 by Mike (Myk)

[Goldcoastgolfer]

I think you've done a pretty good self-assessment on your photos - I don't have too much more to add than what you've already mentioned. I find that first one really interesting actually - you've taken it on an angle which adds a good perspective and ensures there's depth to the photo. There's a pole on the right thought that I think if removed would make the capture look better but I'm not sure if that's possible with the perspective you've taken. That pole also gives me the impression the photo needs a counter clockwise rotation because it's quite prominent and close to the right edge of the frame.

[FrankMi]

Hi Mike. I'm not seeing anything from the HDR processing that jumps out and say's 'the dreaded overdone HDR syndrome' so I think you have that part pretty close on these images.

What I do notice is that in the first one, the red object is stealing the attention from what appears to be the subject, the bridge. Red is a tricky color to use in an image as even a small amount will grab the eye away from almost anything else in the composition. There is an old saying when it comes to making the subject the center of attraction like this, if it isn't great, make it BIG. If you can't make it big, make it RED. The bridge may be big, but the thingy on the left is red, Bright Red!

Also, is the bridge leaning to the right? It looks like the pole is leaning also.

As a tip on setting the subject in a composition, consider what is the viewer’s eye is drawn to:
• Sharp elements before out-of-focus elements
• Human elements before non-human elements
• Faces before other elements, and on the face, the eyes first
• Warm colors over cool colors
• Bright colors over dark colors
• Areas of high contrast over areas of low contrast
• Recognizable elements before unrecognizable elements
• Oblique or diagonal lines before strait lines
• Large, dominant elements before smaller elements
• Isolated elements before cluttered elements

One other thing that will grab and hold the viewer's attention, sometime to the detriment of an otherwise excellent image, is TEXT, which is why watermarks can have such a devastating effect on images.

On the second image, the vertical pole blocking part of the bridge breaks up the symmetry of the bridge. If you get another chance to shoot this, see what you think of the composition if you move forward enough to either eliminate the pole or have it off more to the left side of the composition. As it is, it is providing a service in as much as it blocks most of the red thingy!

In both images you have a beautifully dramatic sky that can benefit from some Local Contrast Enhancement. Hope this helps!

[Myk]

Thanks for the replies Mal, and Frank.
I think in the first one I tried to level with the top of the bridge. Just now I tried a straighten using the pole and it is much better.

I find more and more that poles and wires are quickly becoming the bane of my existence.

That is a very red piece of construction equipment, I actually desaturated it a little bit. Construction on the new bridge is ongoing, and maybe they will move the big red thing off of there. At the same time, though the concept of the red thing "stealing" the attention from the older bridge is fitting, as when they are done the older bridge will be gone.

On the second image, the vertical pole blocking part of the bridge breaks up the symmetry of the bridge. If you get another chance to shoot this, see what you think of the composition if you move forward enough to either eliminate the pole or have it off more to the left side of the composition. As it is, it is providing a service in as much as it blocks most of the red thingy!

I will try that next time. I am also waiting for a higher tide, should be able to lower all the pilings in that shot by 5 feet or so.

I would have added more LCE to the sky in the first (should have bracketed a bit further), but was dangerously close to haloing on the crane, and around the top of the bridge already.
The second, I just tried and does add to it.

[Myk]

Back to a much more controllable subject this week.
Tired of the typical color flower shots, the fairly strict triangular shape of this one inspired me to try out some B&W work.
After cropping the triangle just within the frame and starting the conversion, the much more subtle tones deeper within seemed to want to come out more.

[johnbharle]

Back to a much more controllable subject this week.
Tired of the typical color flower shots, the fairly strict triangular shape of this one inspired me to try out some B&W work.
After cropping the triangle just within the frame and starting the conversion, the much more subtle tones deeper within seemed to want to come out more.

Marvelous shot. Just wondering what color the flower was originally? Also (and related), did you use color filtering?

[Myk]

Marvelous shot. Just wondering what color the flower was originally? Also (and related), did you use color filtering?

Thanks John; it was mostly bright pink, the center had a much more subdued purple that was hard to see with all the pink around the edges.
No physical color filters, I did tweak the color sliders in LR3 for the conversion.

[Dave Humphries]

Back to a much more controllable subject this week.
Tired of the typical color flower shots, the fairly strict triangular shape of this one inspired me to try out some B&W work.
After cropping the triangle just within the frame and starting the conversion, the much more subtle tones deeper within seemed to want to come out more

Hi Mike,

It reminds me of one of those images usually titled "this is what the insect sees because they see into the UV part of the spectrum"

A good idea, which definitely works, but possibly just a tad over sharpened?

[Myk]

Hi Mike,

It reminds me of one of those images usually titled "this is what the insect sees because they see into the UV part of the spectrum"

A good idea, which definitely works, but possibly just a tad over sharpened?

Thanks Dave, highly possible, even likely

Are you referring to the outer edges of the flower? Looking back at the unsharpened original the "fringes" of the petals, especially the upright ones were slightly oof, I probably needed a touch more dof to crisp up edges.

[Dave Humphries]

Are you referring to the outer edges of the flower?

Initially I was drawn to the gritty specular bits on the petals, then the apparent dark halo around the petals on the left hand side (against the lighter background) and finally a few bits of bright white halo around the black stamen in the middle.

Looking back at the unsharpened original the "fringes" of the petals, especially the upright ones were slightly oof, I probably needed a touch more dof to crisp up edges.

Yes, I guessed why

If I were to guess, I'd say the radius used was more than 0.3px (?)

Cheers,

[Myk]

Initially I was drawn to the gritty specular bits on the petals, then the apparent dark halo around the petals on the left hand side (against the lighter background) and finally a few bits of bright white halo around the black stamen in the middle.

Ahh, I see now; thanks again.

If I were to guess, I'd say the radius used was more than 0.3px (?)

I used 0.3 px intitially, then a high pass sharpening further on, around 8 px, I believe. I suspect that was what caused the issues. More things to watch out for in the future.

[Myk]

This week nearly slipped by; while I didn't have much chance to do any dedicated shooting; I did get some shots from my nieces birthday. It served as good practice, although frustrating at times to get the kids to cooperate (they just move too fast sometimes).

One of the better "action" photos I got, swinging at the pinata.
98mm 1/800 f4.5 iso 640

[Myk]

I've been busy enough to forget about this project for a bit, but recently edited some shots from a while back.

Crabby