Concha y Toro neigborhood - Santiago de Chile

[Javier]

[Shadowman]

Nicely composed.

[Manfred M]

Interesting image from a composition standpoint; the bench does draw the user's attention although the window box is quite predominant too, so my eyes tend to bounce between them (which is not good).

What I don't particularly like is the over-processed look. This was a popular look for a very short while, some 10 years ago, but is no longer in fashion in the photographic world.

[rpcrowe]

I could easily see this image converted into an oil painting and printed on canvas...

[xpatUSA]

What is "Concha" in this context? WikiPedia tells us that 'Concha y Toro' is a Santiago de Chile wine producer but, in Tex-Mex, "concha" is a sweet-bread, so I'm confundido.

[Round Tuit]

Interesting image from a composition standpoint; the bench does draw the user's attention although the window box is quite predominant too, so my eyes tend to bounce between them (which is not good).

What I don't particularly like is the over-processed look. This was a popular look for a very short while, some 10 years ago, but is no longer in fashion in the photographic world.

Hi Manfred, could you elaborate on what you mean by "over-processed look".

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred, could you elaborate on what you mean by "over-processed look".

It looks more like a painting than a photo. My guess is that Javier probably used tone mapping software during his production process because it has that slightly grungy HDR look to it. Overall no true whites or true blacks with a predominance of mid-tones. The false colours and low contrast were typical with that process.

The technique was quite popular about 10 years ago, but it became so overused that it quickly fell out of fashion. Back in the days when digital cameras had issues capturing 8 - 10 stops of dynamic range, it was a way of getting around that limitation. Over the past 6 or 7 years camera sensors have 14+ stop dynamic range so the process is really not needed any more.

[Thornton]

I rather like this. I understand what Manfred is saying, but still find the image quite effective. I wonder though, whether the window box and the brown window frames might benefit from a bit of desaturation. That window box is certainly the thing which claims my attention first.

[mugge]

I love it. The window box may be a bit overdone but it fits quite well with the other strong colours. I do like the composition.
Cheers Ole

[DanK]

I've come back to this several times. IMHO, the composition doesn't work. I don't find a central point of interest. Manfred mentioned bouncing back between the window box and the bench. I also find my eye bouncing between them and the tree, and there is a fourth, less prominent center in the table at the top. The tree is blocking a door. It feels tight in the horizontal direction.

I think it is an interesting scene, but I would want to walk around to explore alternative compositions.

[Javier]

What is "Concha" in this context? WikiPedia tells us that 'Concha y Toro' is a Santiago de Chile wine producer but, in Tex-Mex, "concha" is a sweet-bread, so I'm confundido.

Concha y Toro are surnames.

[Manfred M]

Javier - like Dan , I have come back to look at this image a number of times. Let me leave aside the comments on how you have processed this image.

Broadly speaking, the genre you are shooting here is referred to as "urban landscape". Landscape images of any type are easy to do, but hard to do well and require a lot of post-processing skills, especially dodging and burning. I have never seen a landscape of any type that works well without some serious local adjustments. Areas that break the visual flow, like the tree running off the top of the image interrupt the flow and weaken the image.

When we look at a well done landscape image, we find that they tend to have a number of things in common:

1. They have a "landing spot" that attracts the viewer's attention and draws him or her into the image. There can only be a single landing spot where the eyes go. When you read comments that about the viewer bouncing around to different parts of the image, this is not what you want. That tends to confuse and tire the viewer, so as the photographer and retoucher, you need to ensure that the other areas of interest do not compete with the "landing spot". Burning those areas down or desaturating them slightly are typically the tools the photographer uses.

2. They will have multiple areas of interest that the viewer will be drawn to once his or her attention has been captured. Often the photographer will use visual techniques to help guide the viewer around the image. Leading lines, S-curves, areas of subtle highlights, etc. are all parts of this tool kit.

3. Often a landscape will have a visual "resting area"; a neutral area or neutral areas for the eyes to rest before further exploring the image.

4. Bright or areas of high contrast areas near of at the edges of the image tend to pull the viewer's eyes out of the frame and are not desirable. Your seem to recognize this as you have toned down the top right hand corner. The bright window at the top left and the large door on the right side also do this.


Let me demonstrate what about 10 minutes of work that was primarily burning and desaturating colours locally does to the image. If you open the image in Lightbox you can use the arrows to toggle back and forth between the two images.

[Javier]

Javier - like Dan , I have come back to look at this image a number of times. Let me leave aside the comments on how you have processed this image.

Broadly speaking, the genre you are shooting here is referred to as "urban landscape". Landscape images of any type are easy to do, but hard to do well and require a lot of post-processing skills, especially dodging and burning. I have never seen a landscape of any type that works well without some serious local adjustments. Areas that break the visual flow, like the tree running off the top of the image interrupt the flow and weaken the image.

When we look at a well done landscape image, we find that they tend to have a number of things in common:

1. They have a "landing spot" that attracts the viewer's attention and draws him or her into the image. There can only be a single landing spot where the eyes go. When you read comments that about the viewer bouncing around to different parts of the image, this is not what you want. That tends to confuse and tire the viewer, so as the photographer and retoucher, you need to ensure that the other areas of interest do not compete with the "landing spot". Burning those areas down or desaturating them slightly are typically the tools the photographer uses.

2. They will have multiple areas of interest that the viewer will be drawn to once his or her attention has been captured. Often the photographer will use visual techniques to help guide the viewer around the image. Leading lines, S-curves, areas of subtle highlights, etc. are all parts of this tool kit.

3. Often a landscape will have a visual "resting area"; a neutral area or neutral areas for the eyes to rest before further exploring the image.

4. Bright or areas of high contrast areas near of at the edges of the image tend to pull the viewer's eyes out of the frame and are not desirable. Your seem to recognize this as you have toned down the top right hand corner. The bright window at the top left and the large door on the right side also do this.


Let me demonstrate what about 10 minutes of work that was primarily burning and desaturating colours locally does to the image. If you open the image in Lightbox you can use the arrows to toggle back and forth between the two images.

Thanks.... very much.