Harvard Science Center

[DanK]

Not my usual cup of tea, but I stumbled on this old one today and did some tweaking. C&C more than welcome.

[xpatUSA]

Good architectural shot with excellent tonal balance.

With the cloud being the only sign of Mother Nature, I'd be inclined to clone it out, LOL ...

[Manfred M]

Interesting image Dan. I like it. I don't agree with Ted and find the cloud really adds to the image, adding an organic element to the stark architectural elements.

If it were my image, I would look at calming down the hot spots and open up the shadow to try to calm some of the extreme areas.

[xpatUSA]

I don't agree with Ted and find the cloud really adds to the image, adding an organic element to the stark architectural elements.

Um, Ted was kidding ...

[Manfred M]

Um, Ted was kidding ...

That was not obvious to me.

I often here comments like that in discussions of images and at times it is a valid comment as the cloud can act as a distracting element and the image would be stronger without it.

[xpatUSA]

That was not obvious to me.

Originally Posted by xpatUSA Um, Ted was kidding ...

I often [hear] comments like that in discussions of images and at times it is a valid comment as the cloud can act as a distracting element and the image would be stronger without it.

Then I can only assume that you missed "LOL" and the winking smiley and actually thought I was serious. Oh well ...

[mugge]

I think this is a strong image with rectangles and triangles. The cloud is, to my mind, a distraction.
Cheers Ole

[Wavelength]

Somehow i too feel removing the clouds would strengthen the straight architectural lines

[DanK]

Thanks for all the comments.

Re the cloud: I'm of two minds. I may try removing it to see. Although it looks like it would be easy to remove it, it might not be. We often perceive featureless skies as evenly illuminated when they aren't. In this case, the luminosity values range from 69 to 72--enough to make a patch look unnatural, even with tools like content-aware fill. I'll have to experiment.

Re hot spots and shadows: I half agree. looking at it more, I think the bright triangle on the lower left is too bright; it pulls the eye, and there is nothing much there to see. However, I deliberately darkened the shadows at the bottom. That area isn't crushed now, but very close, with luminosity values around 1--which is essentially crushed for prints, as no paper I have can show detail below 6 or 8. I did that because I found the small amount of detail there didn't contributed, whereas a bold black diagonal does (IMHO).

One other problem is that DOF doesn't extend all the way to the front of the image. I took this with a little Lumix LX-100 that I often keep in a jacket pocket just to have something handy. There is no way I could have gotten a handheld image with enough DOF, even tolerating diffraction, because that camera does very poorly at high ISOs (limiting how much I could close the aperture). I haven't been back there since COVID, but I'd like to re-take it some day with appropriate equipment--a tripod and remote release--in order to shoot at a reasonable aperture and focus stack.

[escape]

I like it. The effect is equivalent to putting pieces of a building in a kaleidoscope and turning the ring. It's interesting.

[DanK]

Thanks again for the comments. Here's the version I put on my website, subject of course to further tinkering:

[Manfred M]

Burning down those hot spots works very well. It's a much stronger image than your initial post.

Pulling up the shadows can be challenging as my GX-7 tends to be quite noisy in the shadow details especially when the ISO is a bit higher. I suspect that your LX-100 has somewhat similar issues.

[davidudin]

As I look at this, the many parallel or near parallel lines gives me the feeling of looking at a 30-60-90 rendering of a scene rather than vanishing point perspective. This adds to the flattened out feeling of the picture. Very nice.

[xpatUSA]

As I look at this, the many parallel or near parallel lines gives me the feeling of looking at a 30-60-90 rendering of a scene rather than vanishing point perspective. This adds to the flattened out feeling of the picture. Very nice.

Hi David, welcome to the forum. I remember those kind of drawings from my days as an Engineer. Called an Isometric Projection:

https://www.creativebloq.com/features/isometric-drawing

I used to pass through Buffalo on business often in the past. Flew Houston to Buffalo, then drove down Route 16 to Olean.

[Dave Humphries]

I think the cloud aids the depth of the image Dan,

I tried viewing with a strategically placed finger masking it from my eyes - and felt the image had lost something.

Cheers, Dave

[DanK]

Dave,

thanks. That was my thought after the fact as well, although it's happenstance that the cloud was there. I didn't pick a partly cloudy day or wait for one.

Dan

[davidudin]

If an accident, a happy accident. Which seems to be the consensus...

David