Italian bridge revisited


pschlute

Link Posted 28/06/2019 - 23:40
I had lacklustre comments on various fora for the original of this picture. I decided to give it a makeover and try again in b+w

Am I wasting my time or is there something here ? Please be honest.



Peter



My Flickr page

davidwozhere

Link Posted 29/06/2019 - 01:29
The foliage over the dark water constantly grabs the attention, even when you try to examine the structure on the left. The light tree in the middle of the foliage also tries to take over. I can see where the composition is trying to go but the area of highest contrast dictates where your eye tries to go.

A square crop with the temple thing towards the upper or middle right would put the high contrast where you want it and retain most of the elements from the original?
Both the *istDS and the K5 are incurably addicted to old glass

My page on Photocrowd - link
Last Edited by davidwozhere on 29/06/2019 - 01:32

Chrism8

Link Posted 29/06/2019 - 08:49
Hi Peter

Can you add the colour version please as a comparison, I don't recall seeing this image.

There is a consensus of thought that if an image doesn't work in colour it wont work in mono either
Chris

www.chrismillsphotography.co.uk

" A Hangover is something that occupies the Head you neglected to use the night before".

-------------------------------------------------------------
K1 - Sigma 85mm F1.4, Pentax 150 -450 F4.5 / 5.6, Pentax FA 24 - 70 F2.8

Sigma 100-300 F4, Samyang 14mm F2.8, Sigma 70-200 F2.8,

K5iis - Sigma 17 - 70 F2.8, Sigma 70 - 300 F3.5/F5.6, Sigma 18 - 200 F3.6 / F4.5.

johnriley

Link Posted 29/06/2019 - 10:48
I don't think we need the water at all, but the building and its setting are very compelling. How about a letterbox format showing just the building and its surrounding foliage?
Best regards, John

Lubbyman

Link Posted 29/06/2019 - 10:58
johnriley wrote:
I don't think we need the water at all, but the building and its setting are very compelling. How about a letterbox format showing just the building and its surrounding foliage?

Almost agree. The bright patch in the water is a huge distraction. Crop just above it and suddenly the building becomes the focus of attention even with a bit of dark water present. It's still hard to see that there's a bridge below it, but that can be dealt with by a change of title.

Steve

StephenHampshire

Link Posted 29/06/2019 - 11:08
pschlute wrote:
I had lacklustre comments on various fora for the original of this picture. I decided to give it a makeover and try again in b+w

Am I wasting my time or is there something here ? Please be honest.



Two crops spring to mind- a landscape one cutting out the water, as others have said the light patch distracts, and there is no reflection. The hosta/gunnera to the right of the bridge are quite interesting, so a wide but low crop might be good. Also a portrait crop of the bridge and the climber net to it would look nice, would be quite a heave crop though. Plus maybe lift the highlights a bit, they look a little muddy on my screen. Definitely something in there though...
Everything Changes
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arleimages/

1stEverPentax

Link Posted 29/06/2019 - 12:17
I agree with the suggestion to crop it to a letterbox format. When scrolling down the page the image purely by accident ended up displayed with the bottom 20-25% missing ...ended up about 16:10 ratio which I really liked. The structure then becomes much more dominant and the whole composition looks better balanced in my opinion. Definitely worth persevering though.

Regards

Karlo

davidwozhere

Link Posted 30/06/2019 - 01:01
I just scrolled it as you said and you are right. Doing so suddenly whacks the rule of thirds into play and places the temple thing and the foliage right where they ought to be.
Both the *istDS and the K5 are incurably addicted to old glass

My page on Photocrowd - link

pschlute

Link Posted 30/06/2019 - 10:16
Thanks for the input. I had a few recommendations for the pano format on another site too. I will give it a go.
Peter



My Flickr page

pschlute

Link Posted 30/06/2019 - 16:08
OK here is the final version. I used a 16:9 ratio. After Dodging/burning I added a Gaussian blur to everything except the bridge and added a vignette for good luck !



Peter



My Flickr page

derek897

Link Posted 30/06/2019 - 19:05
pschlute wrote:
OK here is the final version. I used a 16:9 ratio. After Dodging/burning I added a Gaussian blur to everything except the bridge and added a vignette for good luck !



I missed this first time around, and this final 3dit works for me. I think part of the problem with the first, was it was way too tight at the top.
This is a far better balanced shot.
I know what i like, If not always why.
Last Edited by derek897 on 30/06/2019 - 19:06

Helpful

Lubbyman

Link Posted 30/06/2019 - 20:26
What a transformation! Are you sure you didn't add a pinch of magic, too?

And the bridge is now so clear that it justifies the title.

Steve

Helpful

pschlute

Link Posted 30/06/2019 - 21:08
Lubbyman wrote:
What a transformation! Are you sure you didn't add a pinch of magic, too?

And the bridge is now so clear that it justifies the title.

Steve

Thanks Steve.
Peter



My Flickr page

LennyBloke

Link Posted 30/06/2019 - 22:18
The final edit (particularly when seen at a decent size) really is a transformation (IMO) - the processing is a little better but the crop is what really makes it - well worth the effort
LennyBloke

Helpful

pschlute

Link Posted 30/06/2019 - 22:52
LennyBloke wrote:
the processing is a little better but the crop is what really makes it

Thanks. I wish the dodging/burning took as long as the cropping did !
Peter



My Flickr page
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.