Which one do you like the most?

[arith]

GG2 filter and exif is intact but really is GG2 better

Anyway which is best

The web version



The Print Version which is very high resolution, which is best size from A3 to A1, I don't print smaller except test prints on my crummy £36 printer.



Or the Orton method with adaptation, a normal layer on top, a warming filter, a pin light layer using a Topaz sharpened image with RL deconvolution and bold detail as a template. Further enhance using a High Pass Filter.

[David]

Steve - To me, visually #2 is the most appealing, although a trifle washed out on the RHS pavement area. I'm not sure the Orton effect works all that well on this subject, although I am a fan of the technique.

Cheers

David

[arith]

Cheers David; yes I think I should have turned the filter sideways. But I heard it coming and didn't fancy waiting another 30 minutes. The filter is there for a different photo really although the lines were very shiny.

[revi]

I'd prefer #1, a bit warmer.

2 seems too pale and cold to me, and indeed, Orton seems not to work all that well here(or just too much warming?)

What else did you do to #s 2 & 3 though? The verticals don't match up with those in # 1 (lamp posts mainly, they match up perfectly on 2 & 3)

I feel that in 2 & 3 the tram is a bit lopsided, esp. the strong vertical bar at the left (lower part is parallel to the image edge, as is the left lamp post, in 2 & 3 the lamp posts to the right seem parallel to the edge)

[arith]

Indeed the Orton is Warmer by a lot, the web image is all I would do for the web and the Print; I expect to look just like the web image after processing. But the Orton isn't just an Orton in that an orange warming filter is used, so maybe not fair to call it Orton especially since a lot more than that has been done to it.

So it is in fact the print which would actually look like it is winning, so what I have to do is make them a lot brighter to be popular

Forgot #1 was done first and quickly for the web, the rest I had trouble with as the first because now my application has black guides and I can't change their colour, I can't see them. But I think they are all relatively straight given that I needed to include the light.

[carregwen]

#1 looks too dark to me - not enough oomph! #2 looks a little washed out on the colours, but has better detail. I like #3. Even though you can tell it has been processed in some way, it actually seems the most appealing.

[arith]

cheers, it is very helpful but I admit quite hard to incorporate all the ideas. The verticals are a trade off between a light and not having one. I mean the light on the tram of course. I don't think I'm going again and I'm impatient I cannot wait 30 minutes for the perfect shot. I had planned such returning every 15 mins to see if conditions improved but alas they got worse.

[Dave Humphries]

I find visiting such places* on a bright weekday in winter can be useful (if they are open then of course).

Far less people, unless you get unlucky and have a school trip or two descend upon the place, but they should be able to tell you that if you ring ahead.
Low sun angles.
Chatty staff who are sometimes interested in what you're doing and may even be able to organise something special, or at least tell you when something is happening at a certain time.

* such places includes pretty much any attraction, be it railway, zoo, etc.

[arith]

Cheers Dave I'm not going again. As regards the first it was done a day before the rest and without thought for printing. The other two, I think with low latitude in printing the print version will look like the first, and the special effects version is just a matter of taste, but I have to do something to make it interesting and not the stuff where viewers are left confused if it is a photograph or graphic art.

Well I will try on something else because I like reality with a bit of realism, this is possible with Orton but I'n not doing flowers macro or wildlife since I ain't got the equipment.

[Colin Southern]

#1 for me. #2 is too flat, and #3 just looks weird.

[arith]

Cheers Colin.

[arith]

What else did you do to #s 2 & 3 though? The verticals don't match up with those in # 1 (lamp posts mainly, they match up perfectly on 2 & 3)

I feel that in 2 & 3 the tram is a bit lopsided, esp. the strong vertical bar at the left (lower part is parallel to the image edge, as is the left lamp post, in 2 & 3 the lamp posts to the right seem parallel to the edge

Cor you look close Remco. In the first I allowed the lamp posts to be wrong perspectively in order that the light showed on the tram; I was a bit slow adjusting my dials for exposure which I need banged up to the right and thought I had missed the opportunity.

In the second two I discovered horizontal perspective and thought who will notice a slight distortion in the tram if the lamps are straight it has to be better right, non, a photographer will notice and tell everybody. cheers