Colour, B&W, work on it or bin it?

Can't make my mind up about this (shot with DA12-24 & K20D, f16, 1/25, ISO400). The choices are:

a. Colour


b. B&W


c. Work on it - I wonder if this needs a more obvious focal point? This place is just down the road, so I can go back easily, with the aim of putting something else inside the frame (a person? a boat, if I was lucky?).

d. Bin it - The lack of a clear focal point isn't great but neither is putting one in going to improve it.

One other thing - getting the horizintals and verticals right was a bit of a challenge as they were uneven. Are these okay in the above shots?

A for me, there is more contrast in that photo and the papers/cloths on the other side acts there as a focus point because of the colours that doesn't come back anywhere else in the photo.

Using the pillar for framing works really well and it gets you into the photo.

What is that on the other side, do someone live there?

Cheers Stefan. I think it's just washing hung out to dry on the other side!

I'd say the colour version is better but have you applied too much sharpening? It all looks a bit brittle to use my favourite word at the moment. Also it seems to have created the impression of false layers where the tones change.

I'd suggest trying less sharpening (if you can) and some desaturation and see what you have to work with. I don't think the way you can see triangle of green at the top corners helps much but removing them might radically alter the whole image. Also the foreground is bright and assertive while not really being very interesting - could you selectively tone that down a bit?

Mike

All those straight lines are calling out for the Fisheye !

Hang on f16 ISO 400 1/25th what was all that about?

Surely you could have used f8 and ISO 100 say?

I missed the question about verticals etc. - I'd say they are fine.

mike

How about colour popping the washing in a B&W version :

Just a thought - might be rubbish

C. If you wonder if the picture needs a more obvious focal point, then it most likely does.

To me, this shot is crying out for a story - i.e. a person, sitting beneath the laundry, bored to tears with their legs hanging off the sides, and nothing to do but wait for the clothes to dry. Or something like that.

I think the idea of some desaturating is a good one. The vibrancy of the greens may be a little overpowering.

Thanks for the comments.

Mike - I have serious sharpening issues which I've yet to get to grips with. This is partly due to my re-sizing which usually seems to degrade my images to an unacceptable extent; and also I think to the screen I currently work on which is small and makes images look soft until I open them up onto the full screen. Oh yes, and also because I probably have a tendency to over-sharpen! Anyway, I need to resolve this as it's not exactly rocket-science. As for the aperture - I went for f16 for complete dof. I assume you mean that at this length (21mm) f8 would have sufficed?

Rob - This was a pre-fishy shot. But you're right I should go and see what the 10-17 does to it.

Hyram - I see where you're coming from, though I reckon the clothes are about as eye-catching as I want them. Popping would draw too much attention to them, I think.

Emily - I take your point about the story. I look at it and sometimes think exactly that. At other times, though, I find the combination of shapes, textures and perspective visually interesting. The confusion led to this post. Re. the desaturating - I completely agree - was just about to do this.

I can understand that you screen might not help with the assessment of sharpening but what do you do about sharpening?

Personally (and I await howls of dismay/derision) with most Pentax lenses I take default ACR sharpening and then on any resize apply whatever looks right via unsharp mask but often very little especially on my Sri Lanka shots 45-55%, 0.7 radius and 1-5 threshold.

I know that some people apply way more than this but I can't see the need. Equally others say you don't need any sharpening at ACR stage but RRs work on that lighthouse suggests otherwise.

Also I find that the 70 ltd for example in good light doesn't really require any sharpening after a resize which I do not understand at all.

Mike

Mike, what is ACR?!

Re. sharpening, I think I have been overdoing it in my initial sharpening which then has made re-sizing of images more difficult (though I don't think it's only this). As I said, it's not helped by the way images on my computer appear soft other than on full screen. I generally use normal sharp in Silkypix when converting from RAW. When I've finished in PSE I tend to sharpen the following Amounts: 100-200; Radius: 0-2; Threshold: 0-10.

Adobe Camera Raw which I use to convert from RAW to PS.

After resize I rarely use more than 75 for amount but I know others use far more - apparently including you. I read somewhere one guy pushed the amount until it looked wrong then backed off quite a bit probably 50%.

I found Silky to be fine with normal sharp for importing.

Do you then save as JPEG or TIFF? In either case make sure Silky doesn't apply more sharpening at that stage which I think it might want to and then you'd be sharpening a sharpened image. You shouldn't need I'd guess although I never mix Silky and PS.

I find I cannot assess sharpness except at 100%/pixels even on my OK 22" screen so with a smaller screen you'd be stuffed.

Mike