Old Bodie Car

[GB1]

A few more shots of that old Bodie ghost town car. I think the Velvia did its job that day.

I desaturated the surroundings of the car on the vertical shot a bit to emphasize the car more. Let me know if it helps,

GB

[Greg McCary]

Nice pictures GB, I like them better than your first one of this. Good work on them both...
Greg

[drg]

The desat in the portrait oriented photograph works. It might even be worthwhile to go a little further with the desaturation.

After that it seems the levels could be adjusted to bring out the shadow details or a curve adjustment for the overly dark exterior areas of the car. I'd leave the interior/window areas dark. Then sharpen fairly aggresively to draw focus to the car.

The second (all my comments refer to that image) photo is really the strongest with the most potential of the two. The cars orientation and tonality make a much stronger composition.

[Copy_Kot]

I like them both. The old buildings in the background are a big plus.

[Ronnoco]

The first shot was the best and looked somewhat like an American painting. All, I did in this edit was to clean up some unnecessary "clutter" in the background to keep it simple.
This was done using the clone tool.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

Thks for your comments. Greg, I also think these are stronger, for some reason.. I guess the first ones were too plain at that angle. Paul, I like the buildings too but I think that there may just be too much of them.

Ronnoco, thanks for taking a shot at cleanup. I would never have known there was PS work there. I was actually thinking that it looked like a vintage painting too, or a hand-colored B&W photo. That's why I desaturated the other.

Drg, I took your advice and desat'd the 2nd some more, and also desat'd Ronnoco's version (see attached). I think it creates an old-time feel thanks for the suggestion. Perhaps I will print out a big print of one or both of them, see how they look...

GB

[CLKunst]

Hey GB~
Chiming in here! You find the neatest places. At first the second one was my favorite because I like the line proceeding out of the frame with all of the objects, but that second car is crowding a little. (Where's the tow truck when you need it right?) I really love all of the details on the car (They double strapped the door to get it to stay shut.) and that it is facing out in to the distance staring down Time.
But after looking at the newest desaturated versions the landscape, for me, is preferred. The grass looks almost like surf from the ocean.
Neat!

[jorgemonkey]

Nice car! I was up there the weekend of Oct 7-8 shooting at Bodie & Mono Lake.

I agree with everyone else that the de-saturation works really well with the car. Especially after I've been there a few times, the area isn't very colorful anyway.

The first one works best for me. The angle of the car adds to the depth of the photo. The only bad thing (which is somewhat out of your control) is the truck bed in the background to my eye blends in with the car.

Good job though!

[GB1]

Cindy, jorge - Thks for commenting. I also think the desaturated versions are superior. I purposely used a lot of VELVIA film on this trip cause I was hoping it would exaggerate the colors of the trees (which I will post soon)... But here, I think it exaggerated the colors a little too much. It looks strange to me. Like you said Jorge, it just ain't the way it is!

Cindy, perhaps I should of led the old car a little more in the second shot? That gives me a reason to go back Bodie is a fairly popular place with Cali photographers btw. Jorge, when you posting your shots?

GB

[jorgemonkey]

I've posted mine in a couple different threads on the site. Most of the best ones are in the Fall 24 hour thread, but there is some in a few other places as well. They're all up on my site in this gallery though.

[GB1]

I've posted mine in a couple different threads on the site. Most of the best ones are in the Fall 24 hour thread, but there is some in a few other places as well. They're all up on my site in this gallery though.

Jorge - Looks like you did better than I in Bodie. Your version of the old car (http://scottmosher.exposuremanager.c...06-10-07-16022) is good. I heard it snowed there on 10-6, too bad we missed it.
GB

[Ronnoco]

The only bad thing (which is somewhat out of your control) is the truck bed in the background to my eye blends in with the car.

Good job though!

I noticed that as well, but it is easy to take out in PS, if that is what you want.

Ronnoco

[gahspidy]

Good work on these shots, GB. I like the selective desat here. While the landscape shot dramatically improved with the desat bg I still find the vertical shot to be more interesting and impactful for me. It is also another case where a somewhat blown out sky works. Good shots.

[Ronnoco]

Good work on these shots, GB. I like the selective desat here. While the landscape shot dramatically improved with the desat bg I still find the vertical shot to be more interesting and impactful for me. It is also another case where a somewhat blown out sky works. Good shots.

No, the vertical shot has a number of problems. The background is too busy and distracting, particularly items that conflict with the car. The car should be going into, not out of the frame and the vertical frame does not leave enough room in the front of the car, considering the angle at which it was shot. The blown out sky and the desaturation do not work well together. The desaturation suggests sunshine and extreme heat but neither the sky, nor the image give the viewer the impression of extremely bright sun and lots of heat.

The problem with effects such as desaturation or selective colouring is that the approach MUST match perfectly with all the elements in the photo, as well as the overall "look".
In this case, it doesn't, which means it should not be used, or more work needs to be done in post-production to get the "right look" of everything working together.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

No, the vertical shot has a number of problems. The background is too busy and distracting, particularly items that conflict with the car. The car should be going into, not out of the frame and the vertical frame does not leave enough room in the front of the car, considering the angle at which it was shot. The blown out sky and the desaturation do not work well together. The desaturation suggests sunshine and extreme heat but neither the sky, nor the image give the viewer the impression of extremely bright sun and lots of heat.

The problem with effects such as desaturation or selective colouring is that the approach MUST match perfectly with all the elements in the photo, as well as the overall "look".
In this case, it doesn't, which means it should not be used, or more work needs to be done in post-production to get the "right look" of everything working together.

Ronnoco

Ronocco - Several of the things you've state here I really must conclude are 'personal preference.' The biggest question is, why should an object be "going into, not out of the frame and the vertical frame"? I agree that there's not as much negative space on the left side as there could be, but you can lead an object moving away from you just as you can one moving towards you.

I've never felt (or heard) that desaturation implies heat or bright sun.. Actually, I was inspired by a hand-painted B&W photo of a Scottish rowboat on a cloudy cold day, by William Vanscoy, a photographer who displays and sells work on the west coast. Check out http://www.vanscoyphotography.com to see his style (unfortunately, the rowboat shot doesn't appear to be on the page anymore).

I was a little surprised that the sky was that blown-out btw. I do not recall it being that bad. I think the Velvia went nuts.

-GB

[Ronnoco]

Ronocco - Several of the things you've state here I really must conclude are 'personal preference.' The biggest question is, why should an object be "going into, not out of the frame and the vertical frame"? I agree that there's not as much negative space on the left side as there could be, but you can lead an object moving away from you just as you can one moving towards you. -GB

NONE, of what I say in Critique is EVER personal preference! All of it is based on received feedback from judges in professional competitions related to my personal work or from editors, artists and others related to my work or that of my competitors. Any statement I make can be backed up in composition or technique areas.

One "rule" or guideline, (whatever you wish to call it) of composition is that all paths: roads, rivers, creeks, etc. must lead into the photo toward the centre of interest. In terms of people, photos of speakers from side angles MUST leave space in front of the speaker in the frame toward the audience. This rule applies to framing for television production as well. In terms of cars moving or in a direction away from the camera person there must be an implied direction into the frame toward a centre of interest perhaps one third from left centre in your photo and there must be sufficient space in the frame for that implied movement.

I've never felt (or heard) that desaturation implies heat or bright sun.. Actually, I was inspired by a hand-painted B&W photo of a Scottish rowboat on a cloudy cold day, by William Vanscoy, a photographer who displays and sells work on the west coast. Check out http://www.vanscoyphotography.com to see his style (unfortunately, the rowboat shot doesn't appear to be on the page anymore). -GB

One basic rule of composition, GB, is that any technique or special effect that does not contribute to the effective presentation of the centre of interest in a photo DETRACTS from it and is a weakness. Hand painted photos are an anachronism and to use an anachronistic analogy there is still an earth is flat society, somewhere. My mother did top quality colour photography a half a century or more ago with a twin lens reflex.

Desaturation as a technique MUST contribute to the overall photo and desaturation is definitely NOT a natural look. So, WHY desaturate, if it does NOT contribute to the look of the photo? The appearance of the overall photo with long yellow grass, light brown buildings, vegetation, landscape is midwest U.S. during DRY times, in the heat of the summer. (Otherwise, there would be more green, brown, red, as in my scenic photos in wetter climates.)

I was a little surprised that the sky was that blown-out btw. I do not recall it being that bad. I think the Velvia went nuts.-GB

Don't forget that Velvia was designed for fewer colours but more contrast and punch.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

NONE, of what I say in Critique is EVER personal preference! All of it is based on received feedback from judges in professional competitions related to my personal work or from editors, artists and others related to my work or that of my competitors. Any statement I make can be backed up in composition or technique areas.

One "rule" or guideline, (whatever you wish to call it) of composition is that all paths: roads, rivers, creeks, etc. must lead into the photo toward the centre of interest. In terms of people, photos of speakers from side angles MUST leave space in front of the speaker in the frame toward the audience. This rule applies to framing for television production as well. In terms of cars moving or in a direction away from the camera person there must be an implied direction into the frame toward a centre of interest perhaps one third from left centre in your photo and there must be sufficient space in the frame for that implied movement.



One basic rule of composition, GB, is that any technique or special effect that does not contribute to the effective presentation of the centre of interest in a photo DETRACTS from it and is a weakness. Hand painted photos are an anachronism and to use an anachronistic analogy there is still an earth is flat society, somewhere. My mother did top quality colour photography a half a century or more ago with a twin lens reflex.

Desaturation as a technique MUST contribute to the overall photo and desaturation is definitely NOT a natural look. So, WHY desaturate, if it does NOT contribute to the look of the photo? The appearance of the overall photo with long yellow grass, light brown buildings, vegetation, landscape is midwest U.S. during DRY times, in the heat of the summer. (Otherwise, there would be more green, brown, red, as in my scenic photos in wetter climates.)


Don't forget that Velvia was designed for fewer colours but more contrast and punch.

Ronnoco

Ronnoco -

There are many of rules/guidelines out there. Take what you hear with a grain of salt. Though most of them are good, just because someone's written or said something doesn't necessarily close the book on other techniques... The many rules (or guidelines) may apply most of the time but they definitely do not apply all of the time. Simply applying the rules will not produce good pictures!

The guideline you mention that all paths lead to the center of interest sounds logical, but this is a case in point. This is probably true for most shots but applying it blindly means that any and all shots of a subject aiming away from your camera (towards an area that isnt the subect) are a violation of the rule, and are a failure. I find that ridiculas. This one seems like a case where a rule has been stated, written in stone, then used as a gage for evaluation. Hmmm... Oooookaaaaaaaay.

Hand-painted photos are not an "anachronism" to what I was discussing... They are directly relevant to the discussion. A person can hand-paint a B&W photo's different areas with varying degrees of color, adding more color to the subject... this exact same technique can be applied to a desaturated photo. Coincidentially, you just answered you own question there about "WHY desaturate": To draw attention to the area which isn't desatured (which is what I was attempting to do in the car shots........ :idea: )

Btw, though I admit I'm NOT privy to the Velvia design formula, it sure looks more colorful than reality to me . I try to use it in baren landscapes, or where I want an injection of color. The contrast is stronger than most films, which can be good or bad depending on what you're photographing. I prefer Kodachrome for more realistic colors.

GB

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=GB1]Ronnoco -

There are many of rules/guidelines out there. Take what you hear with a grain of salt. Though most of them are good, just because someone's written or said something doesn't necessarily close the book on other techniques... The many rules (or guidelines) may apply most of the time but they definitely do not apply all of the time. Simply applying the rules will not produce good pictures!

Well, I answered your post already, but it ended up in cyberspace somewhere so I will try again. Composition rules, GB, are based on the Elements of Design and are part of any course in Art, Graphics, Design, and Photography in most schools, colleges and universities. They are based on what draws the eye, influences attention, and communicates within an image and how elements in an image need to be organized in order to achieve the goals of the photographer, artist, or graphics specialist. My first exposure to the elements of design was in salon competitions, my next was in an arts school, and after that in a thick textbook on Television Production which formed the basis for several courses. They do apply all the time, but in a even manner in that the weaknesses(poor composition...ignoring rules) have to be balanced against strengths in composition(following other rules). However, any compositional element that does NOT contribute to the effectiveness of an image DETRACTS from it, so it is impossible to, for example have a path that leads the eye of the viewer out of the image, away from the centre of interest make any POSITIVE contribution to the effectiveness and impact of the photo. Therefore the rule which always applies that paths need to lead into the image toward the centre of interest.

And yes, applying the rules in conjunction with technique, knowledge, the appropriate equipment, and a keen eye WILL produce good pictures. The best work of even photographers who don't like rules, nevertheless follows those rules.

One can also selectively paint a B&W or partially desaturate to emphasize a centre of interest artificially and non-photographically but one can also simply use a gel pen and circle the centre of interest in red ink or even use arrows. The point is that none of these supposed approaches is either "natural appearing" or "photographic" in approach. To be effective, the approach has to at least look and fit naturally into the overall photo as well as emphasize the centre of interest.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

[QUOTE=Ronnoco]

Ronnoco -

There are many of rules/guidelines out there. Take what you hear with a grain of salt. Though most of them are good, just because someone's written or said something doesn't necessarily close the book on other techniques... The many rules (or guidelines) may apply most of the time but they definitely do not apply all of the time. Simply applying the rules will not produce good pictures!

Well, I answered your post already, but it ended up in cyberspace somewhere so I will try again. Composition rules, GB, are based on the Elements of Design and are part of any course in Art, Graphics, Design, and Photography in most schools, colleges and universities. They are based on what draws the eye, influences attention, and communicates within an image and how elements in an image need to be organized in order to achieve the goals of the photographer, artist, or graphics specialist. My first exposure to the elements of design was in salon competitions, my next was in an arts school, and after that in a thick textbook on Television Production which formed the basis for several courses. They do apply all the time, but in a even manner in that the weaknesses(poor composition...ignoring rules) have to be balanced against strengths in composition(following other rules). However, any compositional element that does NOT contribute to the effectiveness of an image DETRACTS from it, so it is impossible to, for example have a path that leads the eye of the viewer out of the image, away from the centre of interest make any POSITIVE contribution to the effectiveness and impact of the photo. Therefore the rule which always applies that paths need to lead into the image toward the centre of interest.

And yes, applying the rules in conjunction with technique, knowledge, the appropriate equipment, and a keen eye WILL produce good pictures. The best work of even photographers who don't like rules, nevertheless follows those rules.

One can also selectively paint a B&W or partially desaturate to emphasize a centre of interest artificially and non-photographically but one can also simply use a gel pen and circle the centre of interest in red ink or even use arrows. The point is that none of these supposed approaches is either "natural appearing" or "photographic" in approach. To be effective, the approach has to at least look and fit naturally into the overall photo as well as emphasize the centre of interest.

Ronnoco

Ronnoco - I won't bore anyone to list out my art/photo history. But let's just say that I've had extensive experience and coursework in all elements of compositional rules and color theory, both in the classroom and in practice. As stated, I've found in my own experience (and have noticed on some photos posted on PR) that simply applying rules (which are really guidelines...) will not produce good photos. You could screw up a decent shot with poor composition, however.

I find your anology of selective colorization to drawing on top of a photograph with a gel pen quite strange. I take it that you simply do not like the technique? That's OK if you don't, opinions are what we're here for. Note however that even though I don't use it much, I've seen this techique applied in many situations,... in advertisements in places like billboards, subway trains, etc. A basic color like red on a black-and-white image seems to create a strong 'city' feeling. It is used to emphasize a part of the image. Of course, someone can incorrectly apply any technique and not get very good results. This doesn't necessarily condemn the technique.

-GB

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=GB1]

Ronnoco - I won't bore anyone to list out my art/photo history. But let's just say that I've had extensive experience and coursework in all elements of compositional rules and color theory, both in the classroom and in practice. As stated, I've found in my own experience (and have noticed on some photos posted on PR) that simply applying rules (which are really guidelines...) will not produce good photos. You could screw up a decent shot with poor composition, however. -GB

I have said several times that it is never just composition but composition combined with technique or technical excellence in choosing and working with the appropriate photo equipment as well as top quality post processing that results in a top photo.

To quote one pro: "Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but photo quality isn't."

By the way, does your experiment with desaturation indicate that you are now adding Photoshop and post-processing to your "extensive experience"?

Ronnoco

[GB1]

[QUOTE=Ronnoco]

I have said several times that it is never just composition but composition combined with technique or technical excellence in choosing and working with the appropriate photo equipment as well as top quality post processing that results in a top photo.

To quote one pro: "Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but photo quality isn't."

By the way, does your experiment with desaturation indicate that you are now adding Photoshop and post-processing to your "extensive experience"?

Ronnoco

Ronnoco - I'm quite a beginner with PP. I just let my work speak for itself.

GB