C&C/How to improve

[chauncey]

This image of the Dalton enclave, from southern Colorado, was taken years ago and I have not been
able to PP it to the point that it would be worth having it printed on metal which is my goal.
FYI, I am reasonably adept at CS6. I have done selections of various parts and gotten rid of the lens flare





Any direction at all would be appreciated.

[pnodrog]

It is a pleasant scene and is fine from a technical point of view. Generally photographs with competing elements or a visual impediment for the eyes to enter are not that successful.
The small timber wall although an important part of the setting is tending to block and dominate the scene. A different viewpoint - maybe with the wall to the left and a bit more end on to reduce its impact and the grass as a visual approach would have worked a bit better. The scene has great potential just need to experiment with composition a bit.

[dje]

Hi chauncy

I assume you have posted the original with little pp and I don't know what you've tried in pp. My suggestion is to add some Local Contrast Enhancement using the Unsharp Mask Filter, with settings of about 30% and pixel radius of about 350. This brings out the textures in the wood nicely.

Dave

[nimitzbenedicto]

Looks ok.

But there's one tiny distracting white spot.

........

FYI, I am reasonably adept at CS6. I have done selections of various parts and gotten rid of the lens flare

..

It's at the top. a little to the left of middle, among the trees. Must be a white cloud showing thru the trees, but still distracting.

( yes, it's tiny. just like those tiny dust spots on our sensors. )

[Stagecoach]

Chauncey,

You say you have gotten rid of the lens flare but on my monitor I am seeing what appears to be that in the area on the left upper second tree in which is distracting.

[Glenn NK]

Sorry, but I'm with L.Paul on this one.

Glenn

[chauncey]

The image is constantly undergoing work, in this version the lens flair still exists.

LPaul...not following you, are you suggesting that it would have worked better if I would have been
a yard or to the camera right when I squeezed the shutter?

[Brev00]

When I look at this image, I see the cabin as the main focal point yet it is removed from the viewer and separated by the wooden fence. Both are interesting, yet if one has to go it would be the fence. I would not crop it out entirely but I would keep half the upper beam as a frame for the cabin and a remnant to link us to the unseen fence. I would play around with the rest of the crop keeping in mind the centrality of the cabin. How well the cropping would work would depend on how many pixels you are dealing and how sharp the remaining details are. Obviously, shooting it that way at the start would be ideal. I am agreeing with L.Paul about the double subject. I find it to be a very common issue and, in this case, the fence detracts from the cabin, imo. Either would be a great subject by themselves. Finding a way to integrate both is your challenge.

[pnodrog]

The image is constantly undergoing work, in this version the lens flair still exists.

LPaul...not following you, are you suggesting that it would have worked better if I would have been
a yard or to the camera right when I squeezed the shutter?

Yep - or at least try it. Better is not really the right word because it depends on what you want to take but an open aspect may have more appeal for other viewers. It is a bit like having an open gate into say a garden or field. It acts as a lead in and lets the mind/eye have an illusory or possible path to the main focal point. In this case you have two points of interest the cabin and the wooden wall and it generally works best if you have only one or a very dominant point of interest. These are not rules but just techniques that seem to work. There is another couple of threads on "Rules" that you may like to read.

All the rules can be ignored but if you have an image that is not quite working or your trying to workout how to improve it checking what rules it does or does not conform to can often be a good starting point in analyzing it. Having a well composed and interesting image is far more important than worrying about minor technical faults.

[Glenn NK]

As already explained so well by Larry (Brev00), the simplest suggestion I could offer was to not include the partial log building wall in the foreground. Although it's part of the same group of old buildings, it detracts from the setting and the main building - which is pushed into the background as a secondary object. And the partial wall doesn't have enough space around it - it's cramped into the frame (in fact partially cut off) - and this makes it dominant.

Another approach might have been to move much farther back, and use a long lens. This would reduce the apparent size of the partial wall compared to the more complete building.

Judging by the shadow cast by the partial wall, you were shooting fairly well into the sun (explaining the lens flare) which put the side of the trees you were looking at into shade. Any bright areas of cloud that show through the leaves/branches now seems much brighter by comparison (a great way to achieve CA).

This shooting angle also put the near side of the main building and the near side of the partial wall into full shade, resulting in little detail in those areas - which can be fixed in PP, but the essential problem is the composition.

Glenn

[chauncey]

I like that "long lens" idea...all that would involve is reducing the size of the wall and leaving the cabin alone.
Maybe adding some perspective to it and move it a little stage left. Will play some more...thanks!!!