Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Critique Part II

  1. #1

    Default Critique Part II

    This is a continuation of my previous post. To make it less messy, I have decided to start another thread for this pair of corrected pics. Fire away, critics...which one is better? Done on a Spyder calibrated display with 2.2 gamma... Thanks to all in advance.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Critique Part II

    Well, care to say what you did to the photos? So that I have a better understanding and focal points...

    Anyway, based on what I can differentiate, it's the colours and lines.. the top one is definitely better.

    However, if the cars are your subjects, do something to the background (blur it). With cars, it's very easy to do a selection, inverse and blur the bgd.

    Of course you don't blur the foreground (the road, etc.) to maintain realism.

    EDIT: Oops, i didn't see the previous thread about this comparison... i tot your previous meant another set of photos... pls forgive if anything has been mentioned previously.
    Last edited by spurssy; 21st March 2006 at 09:25 AM.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Critique Part II Nothing like what you said has been said in my previous post.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Critique Part II

    the problem with the usual street lights is that they are not really incandescent but sodium vapour lights...they are very deficient in many colours...if the cars are blue or green the colours might look funny...but looking at the street sign (the blue wheelchair sign which is blue), there seems to be some other forms of lighting as well, or the street lights are not the usual sodium vapour types...
    Last edited by theRBK; 25th March 2006 at 09:48 AM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Critique Part II

    The one on top is better

  6. #6

    Default Re: Critique Part II

    ok. Noted...Thanks.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts