Helpful Posts Helpful Posts:  0
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Abandoned

  1. #1
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    29,249
    Real Name
    John

    Abandoned

    Abandoned
    f/16, 1/50sec, ISO 1600, 40mm
    This is cropped from the image below. Should I eliminate the gate entirely?

    Abandoned

    Screenshot of above image. FastStone software displays # of colors. Does this refer to the actual colors in the image or numbers captured per pixel? RAW files show twice those captured by the jpeg.

    Abandoned

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    17,931

    Re: Abandoned

    Very nice conversion that works so much better for me than the color version.

    When I saw the second image, I understood how you created the first image. However, when I saw the first image before having the luxury of having seen the second image, I thought it was a vignette gone awry.

    Sorry, but I can't attend to the issue about the number of colors in the RAW version and the JPEG version. That's not within my knowledge base.

  3. #3
    Panama Hat & Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rio de janeiro, Brazil
    Posts
    429
    Real Name
    Antonio

    Re: Abandoned

    John,
    I also prefer the B & W photo It works best with the title ("Abandoned") for me.
    The lossy compression, in converting RAW to JPEG (which is limited to a maximum of 8 bits per channel), causes the reduction in the number of colors.
    Antonio.

  4. #4
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    29,249
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Abandoned

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Buckley View Post
    Very nice conversion that works so much better for me than the color version.

    When I saw the second image, I understood how you created the first image. However, when I saw the first image before having the luxury of having seen the second image, I thought it was a vignette gone awry.

    Sorry, but I can't attend to the issue about the number of colors in the RAW version and the JPEG version. That's not within my knowledge base.
    Thanks Mike, I tried other angles, even used another camera which got me a bit closer and lessened the framing from the gate.

  5. #5
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    29,249
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Abandoned

    Quote Originally Posted by Panama Hat View Post
    John,
    I also prefer the B & W photo It works best with the title ("Abandoned") for me.
    The lossy compression, in converting RAW to JPEG (which is limited to a maximum of 8 bits per channel), causes the reduction in the number of colors.
    Antonio.
    Antonio,

    Thanks for the comments and information.

  6. #6
    RustBeltRaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    1,009
    Real Name
    Lex

    Re: Abandoned

    John,

    I would eliminate the gate entirely. Environmental vignetting (using part of the scene to frame another part) can be highly interesting, but I don't think it works here. Probably because the vignette is very vertical. Too neat, if that makes any sense. I prefer the black and white version, but the shadows look too deep to me. The original shot looks a little underexposed, so that may not be recoverable, but you'd be surprised how much detail Photoshop can pull out of shadows. A little massaging of the Fill Light slider may be all you need.

  7. #7
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    29,249
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Abandoned

    Quote Originally Posted by RustBeltRaw View Post
    John,

    I would eliminate the gate entirely. Environmental vignetting (using part of the scene to frame another part) can be highly interesting, but I don't think it works here. Probably because the vignette is very vertical. Too neat, if that makes any sense. I prefer the black and white version, but the shadows look too deep to me. The original shot looks a little underexposed, so that may not be recoverable, but you'd be surprised how much detail Photoshop can pull out of shadows. A little massaging of the Fill Light slider may be all you need.
    Thanks for the comments and suggestions Lex. I'll give it another shot, perhaps use a telephoto zoom.

Posting Permissions

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