Tourist or Street 2: Sparkle City

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

Hi Sandy,

Yes, quite dark, I was relying on the edge lights to bring the figure to the surface. Thanks for commenting.

---

Hi John - Your idea worked! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skitterbug

Hi John - Your idea worked! :)

---

:cool: Thanks

John - I like your concept in #158 but agree with Sandy, your subject is just too dark. I think you need to bring out your subject a bit more by dodging. Given the strange colours and where the light is falling, this could cause issues with the face. B&W might be worth trying too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

John - I like your concept in #158 but agree with Sandy, your subject is just too dark. I think you need to bring out your subject a bit more by dodging. Given the strange colours and where the light is falling, this could cause issues with the face. B&W might be worth trying too.

---

Hi Manfred,

Thanks for comments and suggestions, I did apply a slight amount of dodging to the face and legs, I'll give it another going over.

f/3.5, ISO 200, 1/1600sec
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...0&d=1571494777

Nice shot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staffan

Nice shot

---

Thanks for commenting.

There are good tones in this monchrome image but I feel the composition could be stronger. From the title, the subject appears to be on the left and looking out of the frame. I find the empty ground takes attention away from the people in the mid-ground, possibly due to the lines in the paving leading the eye past them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rufus

There are good tones in this monchrome image but I feel the composition could be stronger. From the title, the subject appears to be on the left and looking out of the frame. I find the empty ground takes attention away from the people in the mid-ground, possibly due to the lines in the paving leading the eye past them.

---

Hi David,

Thanks for comments and critique.

I was experimenting with this image from post 158, the first is the original from the post, the second is that image with dodging on the face, legs, and some of the clothing and converted to B & W, the third is the second with a levels adjustment to tone down the background. This is a low res image as I did a PrntScrn form FastStone. Comments on the tones and effects of conversion on background welcome.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...1&d=1571579126

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...2&d=1571617938

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

I was experimenting with this image from post 158, the first is the original from the post, the second is that image with dodging on the face, legs, and some of the clothing and converted to B & W, the third is the second with a levels adjustment to tone down the background. This is a low res image as I did a PrntScrn form FastStone. Comments on the tones and effects of conversion on background welcome.

---

I think the added information in the paler background of the 2nd image does not add to the image but the tones of the body are good.

The 3rd image is more dramatic with its higher contrast but the subject is less natural. The lack of detail in the background does not matter to me, except it begs the question: do you need as much of it in this version?

It is probably just my perecption, but in the monochrome versions the forearm and hand nearest the camera seem to be growing out of the ground in these small images, and might benefit from some dodging to seperate them from the foreground shadows and "connect" them to the upper arm.

Hi David,

Thanks for comments and suggestions.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...9&d=1572101262

I'd like to believe it approaches at a slow speed but for some of us we know it appears very quickly.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...9&d=1572101262

I'd like to believe it approaches at a slow speed but for some of us we know it appears very quickly.

---

I wonder what the image would have looked like with more sky and less reflections in the water.

In general, unless the water is almost completely still, downplaying that part of the scene and concentrating on the areas that have more texture will often result in a stronger image.

Hi Manfred,

The original composition had more sky, my first thought on crop was as shown for the sky and perhaps a bit off the bottom, thanks for commenting. I just printed the original but haven't looked at it yet, will consider further editing.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...0&d=1572105498

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

Hi Manfred,

The original composition had more sky, my first thought on crop was as shown for the sky and perhaps a bit off the bottom, thanks for commenting. I just printed the original but haven't looked at it yet, will consider further editing.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...0&d=1572105498

---

This shows exactly where I was coming from. Look at how textured and interesting the sky is when compared to the water and the reflections we see there.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1627a8f7_o.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

This shows exactly where I was coming from. Look at how textured and interesting the sky is when compared to the water and the reflections we see there.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1627a8f7_o.jpg

---

I see where you are going with your idea, more movement in the sky as well as texture, thanks for the suggestion.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...4&d=1573259908

f/1.8, ISO 2500, 1/200sec