Abandoned

[Shadowman]

f/16, 1/50sec, ISO 1600, 40mm
This is cropped from the image below. Should I eliminate the gate entirely?



Screenshot of above image. FastStone software displays # of colors. Does this refer to the actual colors in the image or numbers captured per pixel? RAW files show twice those captured by the jpeg.

[Mike Buckley]

Very nice conversion that works so much better for me than the color version.

When I saw the second image, I understood how you created the first image. However, when I saw the first image before having the luxury of having seen the second image, I thought it was a vignette gone awry.

Sorry, but I can't attend to the issue about the number of colors in the RAW version and the JPEG version. That's not within my knowledge base.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

John,
I also prefer the B & W photo It works best with the title ("Abandoned") for me.
The lossy compression, in converting RAW to JPEG (which is limited to a maximum of 8 bits per channel), causes the reduction in the number of colors.
Antonio.

[Shadowman]

Very nice conversion that works so much better for me than the color version.

When I saw the second image, I understood how you created the first image. However, when I saw the first image before having the luxury of having seen the second image, I thought it was a vignette gone awry.

Sorry, but I can't attend to the issue about the number of colors in the RAW version and the JPEG version. That's not within my knowledge base.

Thanks Mike, I tried other angles, even used another camera which got me a bit closer and lessened the framing from the gate.

[Shadowman]

John,
I also prefer the B & W photo It works best with the title ("Abandoned") for me.
The lossy compression, in converting RAW to JPEG (which is limited to a maximum of 8 bits per channel), causes the reduction in the number of colors.
Antonio.

Antonio,

Thanks for the comments and information.

[RustBeltRaw]

John,

I would eliminate the gate entirely. Environmental vignetting (using part of the scene to frame another part) can be highly interesting, but I don't think it works here. Probably because the vignette is very vertical. Too neat, if that makes any sense. I prefer the black and white version, but the shadows look too deep to me. The original shot looks a little underexposed, so that may not be recoverable, but you'd be surprised how much detail Photoshop can pull out of shadows. A little massaging of the Fill Light slider may be all you need.

[Shadowman]

John,

I would eliminate the gate entirely. Environmental vignetting (using part of the scene to frame another part) can be highly interesting, but I don't think it works here. Probably because the vignette is very vertical. Too neat, if that makes any sense. I prefer the black and white version, but the shadows look too deep to me. The original shot looks a little underexposed, so that may not be recoverable, but you'd be surprised how much detail Photoshop can pull out of shadows. A little massaging of the Fill Light slider may be all you need.

Thanks for the comments and suggestions Lex. I'll give it another shot, perhaps use a telephoto zoom.