Chicago River, posterized

I did some heavy photoshop work to these two. I think I like the darkness of them both, it adds to their "pop art" aspect, I think.

Critique?

Bolth appeal to me visually, particularly the second one because of the colors in the water. Im not sure about pop art... but art is in the eye of the beholder.

I used the term "pop art" loosely, mostly because I equate posterization with pop art.

I guess, looking at them again, they're not really pop art. :)

This is a stupid question (showing my inexperiance... again) but what exactly is posterization.

I really like the way the first one turned out, the second is a bit "bright" for my taste. I'm more of a "traditional" guy myself and I think the oversaturated colors blow the second one... for ME. I am by no means an expert tho, and I can see it's appeal, even if I wouldn't "buy" it, you know?

It's really great work tho, definately "out of the box." (Which is a good place to be IMHO.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

I did some heavy photoshop work to these two. I think I like the darkness of them both, it adds to their "pop art" aspect, I think.

Critique?

---

Interesting ideas Kelly. Your post got me off my butt to play around with posterization, which I haven't played with much.
I think your first image may lend itself to posterization more than the second. I used a method similar to that suggested at
http://www.adobe.com/tips/phs8posteriz/main.html only after getting a grayscale that I liked I posterized it to 4 zones and then chose colors for each of the 4 zones.

I think your posterization could be stronger if limited to fewer zones of color/value.

Kelly,

Neither one looks photoshopped at all. The first one in particular, the second one just looks like the saturation was turned up real high and the shot was overexposed.

...I really don't like white skies. It's as if a large area of the shot is missing. IMO, you put dark skies with dramatic clouds in these images and they'd rock...

I actually blended several layers.

In the first photo, I have three layers: the background layer, untouched; the second layer posterized @ 8 levels and the whole thing at 75% transparency; then the third layer is at 50% transparency, and I *think* I made levels corrections on it, but I kinda forgot. :(
I think the whole effect is to hide much of the posterization while still bringing out more color in the buildings and water than in the original. I really see the posterization in the greens and reds of the buildings, and it also invisibly defines the light reflections on the water.

In the second one I *had* a middle layer adding blue sky, but at the last minute I disabled it because I thought it was too dark. Again, the top layer is mildly posterized and at 50% transparency, with the background layer untouched.

I also did some burning on both pictures.

Steve, I'll keep that suggestion in mind, and next spring I'll try to get a really good stormy sky shot or dramatic sunset (winter clouds are wimpy and bleak around here) and revisit this shot. :) I'm enjoying my white sky in these pictures because to me it's almost godlike and powerful --- especially against the strong buildings --- like the light is threatening to wipe away the invincible buildings if it gets just a little brighter ...

... but I do see your point, if I look at it through your eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtb'n ski

This is a stupid question (showing my inexperiance... again) but what exactly is posterization.

---

Most all "normal" photography, much like what we see with our eyes, has what's called continuous or graduated tonality. IOW, we perceive a smooth blend of tones in the shot from light to dark.

POSTERIZATION is expressing the tonality of a shot in a much more limited series of steps. The areas of color and tonality are more precisely defined and often appear "stacked", much like a silkcreen print.

This usually results in a higher overall contrast and less of a "real" feel to the image.

Have to say that I agree with Steve about the white sky. Heavy overcast with a lot of depth to it could work out really well but that means carrying a tripod around all day too... Could be very interesting with more posterization but I think it needs more of the effect to really get that look. Maybe a night shot here would work well with both the sky and this effect.

Interesting treatment with the river - you know it's not actually water (or at least doesn't smell like it in the summer anyway). ;)

Thanks for the explanation Steve