Sophisticated Staircase

[Jim A]

Well, I thought that my original pic would just need a bit of a tidy-up and some cloning etc, however it took me nineteen active layers and a lot more time than I had bargained for. Still, I hope that the (nearly) end result is worth it. Awaiting with trepidation! ;-)

[DanK]

An attractive and interesting photo, and your cleanup was clearly successful.

[Jim A]

Or in B&W, which I like too – Nik Collection – Silver Efex Pro 2, Push Process 1.5.

However, whilst I like this result, I found that there are quite a few others in B&W that look really good too. Usually, I find one that stands out for each particular image, but on this occasion, there are a multiple great choices! :-0

[xpatUSA]

I like that wooden railing on the stairs. Interesting mix of ironwork styles - Art Nouveau and Art Deco ...

[Jim A]

Ah, Ted, that is a VERY interesting observation, for both my wife and I are interested in both styles. Our city of Napier, New Zealand, is an Art Deco heaven, plus my heritage in Scotland, before I came to New Zealand in 1965, has on my first trip back to Scotland in 1995 given us great appreciation of Art Noveau - Charles Renee McIntyre, and his wife, in Glasgow. I will certainly show your comment to my wife! :-D

[xpatUSA]

Ah, Ted, that is a VERY interesting observation, for both my wife and I are interested in both styles. Our city of Napier, New Zealand, is an Art Deco heaven, plus my heritage in Scotland, before I came to New Zealand in 1965, has on my first trip back to Scotland in 1995 given us great appreciation of Art Noveau - Charles Renee McIntyre, and his wife, in Glasgow. I will certainly show your comment to my wife! :-D

Cool, Jim. Y'all might find this article of interest too - from when I was into wristwatches:

http://kronometric.org/article/engraving/temp.html

[ST1]

Ah, Ted, that is a VERY interesting observation, for both my wife and I are interested in both styles. Our city of Napier, New Zealand, is an Art Deco heaven, plus my heritage in Scotland, before I came to New Zealand in 1965, has on my first trip back to Scotland in 1995 given us great appreciation of Art Noveau - Charles Renee McIntyre, and his wife, in Glasgow. I will certainly show your comment to my wife! :-D

Jim, I think you may be mixing your tyre's and tosh's

See here:-
https://www.crmsociety.com


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ST1]

Of the two images I prefer the colour version Jim. Out of interest where is the staircase.

PS. I have happy memories of a short stay in Napier


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[royent]

Sorry but I thought that this was a competition

[DanK]

Sorry—didn’t notice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

Jim - I have moved your original posting to the correct thread and removed the duplicate.

Stunning image; well done!

I'm not loving the B&W as while it is a strong image, it is missing some character that we see in the colour one. You've lost the warmth of the wall and the wooden features of the railing. The colour palette is so simple, that I see no aesthetic reason for monochrome.

It would be interesting to see the original image; 19 layers suggests there was a lot of work done to get to your final versions.

[Jim A]

Thanks Manfred for fixing the posts. Also, for your very nice comment! At one stage I meant to fix the handrail, probably by increasing the saturation, but along the way forgot. Will do now. I believe that you are right about the wall being wishy-washy - I will fix that.

Dan - yes, I noticed a short while after that I should have put Charles Renee McIntosh. Have flagellated myself in penance ;-)

Peter - the staircase is in the Dunedin Public Art Gallery. It does not lead anywhere, but is there just for show. At the top is a window. I had not realised that until my wife told me a few minutes ago. https://dunedin.art.museum/

Here is the original, Manfred -



Also, here are my layers -

[Manfred M]

Thanks Jim - I saw what I expected. There is one tiny area in the image that bothers me and that is where the top of the stairs where the supports connect to the wall are located. That part just seems to float in the air without any signs of being connected to the wall.

If you look at the original, there are some fairly light areas of shadow in that area that make that connection with the wall. Something to consider in another layer or two?

[DanK]

This thread raises a very interesting general point (interesting to me, anyway).

First, the specifics: I can't fully interpret the layers--e.g., in which layer those shadows were removed--but the solution might be one fewer layer, or a modification of a layer rather than one more.

The more general question is how much effort one should make to remove natural imperfections. The answer, of course, depends on the image and your own taste, but I often find that people recommend taking more natural variation out of an image than I want to remove. this may be a case of that. Why remove those naturally occurring shadows?

If I remember right, this issue came up years ago when I posted this image here:



The irregularity of the surface is the reflection of heavy cloud cover shortly after dawn. One group of people wanted me to remove it, to make the background uniform. The other group agreed with me that the naturally irregular surface is a key part of the image.

I've seen variations of that same debate over and over again. I don't always come down on the same side of the argument, and often I have a hard time deciding. It came up again recently with this image:



Some folks wanted the cloud removed, while others considered it a plus. I had to think for a long time before I decided I wanted to keep it.

In this OP, I think one part of this is whether the image is an architectural shot or an abstract. if the former, I'd lean toward keeping shadows and the like in the image, at least to some extent.

[xpatUSA]

This thread raises a very interesting general point (interesting to me, anyway).

The more general question is: how much effort should one make to remove natural imperfections?

Dan, I am firmly against any such efforts. Ergo, none.

I am also against removing blemishes, cracks, etc from stuff like pottery and rust from iron/steel work.

The Japanese philosophy of wabi-sabi applies:

http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/2018...view-the-world

By a similar token, I remain against removing human artifacts from a scene, e.g. bob wahr.

[Wavelength]

Since you have posted both color and B/W, i prefer original; otherwise both are fine image; a perfect subject for a vertical frame!!!

[Digital]

Jim, well done.


Bruce

[FootLoose]

Nice work, Jim. I think the frame is a bit tight at the top. If it were mine I would allow a space between the orange hand rail and the frame similar to the space between the orange floor and the bottom frame.

[Manfred M]

This thread raises a very interesting general point (interesting to me, anyway).

First, the specifics: I can't fully interpret the layers--e.g., in which layer those shadows were removed--but the solution might be one fewer layer, or a modification of a layer rather than one more.

The more general question is how much effort one should make to remove natural imperfections. The answer, of course, depends on the image and your own taste, but I often find that people recommend taking more natural variation out of an image than I want to remove. this may be a case of that. Why remove those naturally occurring shadows?

If I remember right, this issue came up years ago when I posted this image here:

The irregularity of the surface is the reflection of heavy cloud cover shortly after dawn. One group of people wanted me to remove it, to make the background uniform. The other group agreed with me that the naturally irregular surface is a key part of the image.

I've seen variations of that same debate over and over again. I don't always come down on the same side of the argument, and often I have a hard time deciding. It came up again recently with this image:


Some folks wanted the cloud removed, while others considered it a plus. I had to think for a long time before I decided I wanted to keep it.

In this OP, I think one part of this is whether the image is an architectural shot or an abstract. if the former, I'd lean toward keeping shadows and the like in the image, at least to some extent.

Dan - I have been having similar thoughts and discussions with other experienced photographers. It is certainly not an area where one can expect a lot of agreement on the specifics, but probably more on the direction.

I tend to approach things from a more abstract standpoint in creating images. If something distracts from the image, perhaps to should not be there, or at least its presence needs to be toned down. There is a fine balance here; removing something that should be there can be just as distracting as something that might be better removed or reduce the impact on the overall image.

An "imperfection" can be an important part of the image, so eliminating it might be the exact opposite of what one should do. Drawing attention to it might be precisely what gives the image that edge.

Like you, I sometimes have a hard time deciding which way to go and may try going both ways and then sitting on the image for a week or more before I come to a decision.

[pschlute]

I like both images , but the warmth of the wood in the colour version wins for me.