Another Sunset

[calebk]

I like the image very much. I think it captures drama and mood. Your introduction was definitely a plus for my appreciation of the total shot. I think the vignette is a very nice touch. Your lighting on the couple is a nice touch. I've never been big on silouttes--they remind me of the many accidentally underexposed accidents from my beginnings. I consider them globs of black against a lighter background that describe pretty much nothing.

Then you fail to fulfill the potential of silhouettes. Writing them off as what you do is pretty narrowminded and naive if you ask me. Silhouettes can be used to tell stories, or give a different feel. Who says every single subject in a photo needs to be well exposed 100% of the time?

and

are good examples of how silhouettes can still tell a story even though the subject is not fully lit or well exposed. Sorry if I am going too off-topic. Threadstarter, let me know, likewise, if you want these examples taken down.

 

[aspenx]

I like silhouettes, but I prefer them on black and white film. Unluckily, my FM10's "cocking mechanism" screwed up and the silhouette version of the image became a triple exposure and everything got blown...

@midnitejam: Thank you. I like the vignetting too.

@night86mare: Thanks for the C&C. I suppose the attention goes out of the frame? Couldn't find a pose in time and shot hurriedly and accidentally blended arm with head. And I do agree that it's oversharpened, but just a tad.

@calebk: So it's okay if the subjects are lighted up by strobe(s) but not if the details in the shadows are pp-ed out? Regarding your image, the building on the extreme right seems to illustrate the light falloff more than the bridge. Do you mean that the transition from bright (the sky) to dark (the building) is not smooth? Even if that is so, the hierachy of light is still coherent in that area of the image right? As the facade of the building facing you is not lit up by the setting sun. I always thought HDR give more of the frame the correct exposure than a normal shot, so I'd lighten up that bit of the image if I were you. But it looks like that will not conform to global lighting. Hmm.

Back to the original image.

For a better HDR and sensible lighting, I need more exposures and a strobe on the subjects? If I use the strobe, will that still adhere to global lighting?

 

[calebk]

...So it's okay if the subjects are lighted up by strobe(s) but not if the details in the shadows are pp-ed out? Regarding your image, the building on the extreme right seems to illustrate the light falloff more than the bridge. Do you mean that the transition from bright (the sky) to dark (the building) is not smooth? Even if that is so, the hierachy of light is still coherent in that area of the image right? As the facade of the building facing you is not lit up by the setting sun. I always thought HDR give more of the frame the correct exposure than a normal shot, so I'd lighten up that bit of the image if I were you. But it looks like that will not conform to global lighting. Hmm.

Back to the original image.

For a better HDR and sensible lighting, I need more exposures and a strobe on the subjects? If I use the strobe, will that still adhere to global lighting?

Hmm, not exactly what I meant, but you have gotten the gist of it. Hierachy of light basically means areas that are lesser lit should be darker than areas that are hit by more light, so logically, night86mare has summed it up by saying that humans in the frame being as bright as the sun is a little erroneous.

HDR actually gives more dynamic range than a single shot. How you use that imaging technique can really give varying results.

Personally, I feel that the direction that my HDR work takes goes towards what the eye can see, and usually if the eye looks at an object backlit by a very bright light source, it cannot make out that much detail of the foreground object, much like how the bridge has less detail in the frame because it is sort of backlit by the sun.

Back to your original image, for better HDR, what you really need is to get more exposures stacked such that the transition from shadow to highlight area is smoother. Notice that with a 7-frame/5-frame HDR, generally the results are smoother, as compared to a 3-frame HDR (which, after shooting 7/5 frame HDRs, I probably will try not to touch). Conforming to global lighting, or the hierachy of light, basically means a frame that looks realistic, to the common viewer.

 

[Shen siung]

IMHO, to me, the picture's idea is quite good. It deliver some stories
However, I have the feeling the human subject looks slightly unreal (the colour of the human subject). I am not sure why.
Anyway, this is just a comment from a new photographer.

 

[aspenx]

Version 2.
Now stacked from 7 exposures instead of 2.
Attempt to adhere to global lighting.
No more vignetting effect.
Less sharpening.

@calebk: I had actually shot 7 continuous frames and not done by the pseudo-HDR method. Does this look significantly smoother? And does it also conform to global lighting now?

@Shen siung: What do you think now?

 

[blurry80]

i was thinking will it be better if there is just slightly more space infront of the couple. This is to accomodate the pointing arm so that it doesnt feel too cramp on the right hand side. Maybe a 16:9 crop.

 

[blurry80]

Might be me but the 2nd image looks to have alot of purple and pink.

 

[aspenx]

Was trying for a different feel. Tweaked with the colour correction and contrast correction in capture nx. I guess I like pink. Haha.

 

[calebk]

Version 2.
Now stacked from 7 exposures instead of 2.
Attempt to adhere to global lighting.
No more vignetting effect.
Less sharpening.

@calebk: I had actually shot 7 continuous frames and not done by the pseudo-HDR method. Does this look significantly smoother? And does it also conform to global lighting now?

@Shen siung: What do you think now?

Dude, it looks a whole lot smoother now man, and definitely adheres to the hierachy of light more, though I must say, the pink doesn't sit well with me man. Does not give a warm, loving touch, nor does it lend any mood coherent to the subjects.

 

[night86mare]

now the man has turned pink. faint.

 

[aspenx]

Ok.

Pink = no-no.

Shall try again when I'm less woozy from the stress of everyday.

 

[calebk]

Ok.

Pink = no-no.

Shall try again when I'm less woozy from the stress of everyday.

I can see what you're getting at. I have a sample that I have in mind which may have achieved the hues you're looking for. However, it's not uploaded yet. Will post it up this evening when I get back.

 

[Shen siung]

Dude, it looks a whole lot smoother now man, and definitely adheres to the hierachy of light more, though I must say, the pink doesn't sit well with me man. Does not give a warm, loving touch, nor does it lend any mood coherent to the subjects.

IMHO, for this one, the human subject looks 'more real'. but I have to agree with calebk that pink does not give a warm effect

 

[midnitejam]

yes, having bright people as bright as the sun is definitely a no no.

Why?

This is awe-inspiring even spiritual in its insinuation. They're not just pointing outside of the frame--They are pointing to 'something' beyond. beyond the sunset, perhaps.

This image could be picked apart with the usual "out-of-text" quotes from the pages of "Composition Rules for Dummies" and it still makes a strong statement. Dude, your photo talks. It's a wall hanger--unless you're an atheist.

 

[night86mare]

Why?

because it's a photograph, and not a movie poster for the radioactive man

and yes, pointing OUT of the frame, when attention should be kept in. maybe you could elaborate more on what exactly makes the photo work for you, instead of making "feeling" remarks, this is a serious corner; i hate to sound stuffy but "i feel this photo is good" isn't quite good enough, nor is appealing to some form of spiritual dimension. certainly, a photograph, no matter how good or bad it is will receive alternate comments from people; but what you have just typed up there is just plain fluffy.

 

[midnitejam]

Then you fail to fulfill the potential of silhouettes. Writing them off as what you do is pretty narrowminded and naive if you ask me. Silhouettes can be used to tell stories, or give a different feel. Who says every single subject in a photo needs to be well exposed 100% of the time?

.

I think your image is also fantastic. I think in this image the sillouttes are an elloquent addition that compliments the image and are necessary to the image's success. But, I don't perceive these particular silhouettes as being the subject/s. They only compliment and contribute to the sunset and the skillful rendition of lighting. Clinically speaking, the larger of the two silhouettes could be mistaken as the main subject and then critiqued for being placed too centrally in the frame for a main subject that walks out of the frame rather than into the frame.

Clinically and theory wise (according to the rules of the book of absolute composition), in Aspenx's image, the two people should have had their backs against the left border or at least positioned in the left 1/3 and pointing at a specific tangible object such as a bounding beach ball or a jet complete with con trails. And perhaps the sun positioned in the right 1/3 for balance. But in my 'narrowmindedness', I somehow perceive the original image as a success even though it doesn't adhere to strict cooky-cutter format for properly composed captures. As mentioned before, I think it's a wall hanger as is Calebk's image.

IMO, the edited versions of aspenx's original have destroyed its sensitivity with gaudy-unbelievable color and flat lighting.

This is an expression of my opinion and my take on an image. I believe this is the place for sharing personal opinions. If I have narrow-mindedly offended anyone, may they please accept my sincerest apologies.

I've merely shared my own personal opinion.:cheers:

 

[lastboltnut]

My view for this photo is that, for those who have commented, their view came from the perspective of a photographer. Their comments are valid.

But I like this photo from a view point of a son (I assume aspenx is a "boy" lah) capturing the precious moments of his parents. If the people are really just silhouette, then its not easily identifiable in future for family viewing pleasure. Then about pointing out of the frame, I think it leaves as a mystery as its not important at all, the focus is how this old couple still share a version and common topic after such a long way in life together. I am sure the parents love this photo.

 

[aspenx]

But I like this photo from a view point of a son (I assume aspenx is a "boy" lah) capturing the precious moments of his parents...

I am sure the parents love this photo.

Yes, I consider myself a "boy" too (even at the age of 24!).

And you're right again, they love the photo.

Thanks for the comment!

 

[midnitejam]

because it's a photograph, and not a movie poster for the radioactive man

and yes, pointing OUT of the frame, when attention should be kept in. maybe you could elaborate more on what exactly makes the photo work for you, instead of making "feeling" remarks, this is a serious corner; i hate to sound stuffy but "i feel this photo is good" isn't quite good enough, nor is appealing to some form of spiritual dimension. certainly, a photograph, no matter how good or bad it is will receive alternate comments from people; but what you have just typed up there is just plain fluffy.

OUCH!

I've just returned from visiting your galery. WHEW! It is probably the best and most striking galery that I've seen. Your photos are fantastic and professional, especially the Swan Sunset. I will definitely study your forthcoming critiques and learn as much from them as possible; but could you possibly be a tad more tactful? Having max Talent, as you do, is no excuse for lack of politeness.

 

[cabbySHE]

Horizon.. a slight tilt ( no big deal here ).

The picture could be cropped vertically into two well composed picture.