Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Ed,Hello all,
Seeking the wise counsel of this group! Below are two versions of a picture I recently took (it will be familiar!). One shows the scene as it was (apart from removing a chimney that was in the way) and the other seeks a more pleasing composition by moving around some structures in the scene. I don't pretend it's a faithful depiction of the scene - just an image I like.
Any thoughts on this sort of thing?
Ed
[/url]IMGP5166_Step11CropSpotSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
[/url]IMGP5166_Step15FlatSpotSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
I am rather ambivalent about this type of manipulation. What I find that makes them unsatisfactory is they are too planned, too conceptual, which eliminates the accidents, those odd features we don't usually notice until we clean them up. For example, I have never seen a perfectly flat series of roof tops. Also the tower on the right which you moved into the center, no longer has a natural perspective, it somehow looks pasted because it does not align with change in perspective across the image. These are very subtle and probably no one will ever consciously mark them, but it does create a strange unease in the image.Hello all,
Seeking the wise counsel of this group! Below are two versions of a picture I recently took (it will be familiar!). One shows the scene as it was (apart from removing a chimney that was in the way) and the other seeks a more pleasing composition by moving around some structures in the scene. I don't pretend it's a faithful depiction of the scene - just an image I like.
Any thoughts on this sort of thing?
Ed
[/url]IMGP5166_Step11CropSpotSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
[/url]IMGP5166_Step15FlatSpotSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
I don't have any ethical problems with manipulation like this (as long as you don't submit it for a contest in which this is not allowed) but I feel it's not needed (the unaltered image is excellent "as-is" for me), and like several said your eye still picks up subtle hints that "something isn't right". Probably not seeing both images side-by-side will not give the viewer a hint what exactly has been done with the second image unless he studies it in a lot of detail.Hello all,
Seeking the wise counsel of this group! Below are two versions of a picture I recently took (it will be familiar!). One shows the scene as it was (apart from removing a chimney that was in the way) and the other seeks a more pleasing composition by moving around some structures in the scene. I don't pretend it's a faithful depiction of the scene - just an image I like.
Any thoughts on this sort of thing?
Ed
River Tees...
(no trees were moved!)
Alan, Please dont,or else, Forestry Dept of your locan council will be after you.
Well, it is a very sharp site...For some reason my photo above looks over sharpened on the site....