Something Simple ...

[Colin Southern]

... to round-out the end of the "working" week.

2 Minutes @ F32 @ ISO 100 - Canon 1Ds3 / EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM @ Approx 70mm.

Not sure if I like it or not - what do you all think?

[David]

Colin - Composition and exposure time effect very good, but the colour balance doesn't seem quite correct to me. Is it a bit magenta? Perhaps also a half stop too dark?? Not sure.

Cheers

David

[arith]

It looks alright to me; but I get exposure 2 minutes. Maybe it is an optical illusion but it appears to be leaning very slightly down on the right. I wished I could take photo's like this. Give me a couple of years.

[Colin Southern]

Colin - Composition and exposure time effect very good, but the colour balance doesn't seem quite correct to me. Is it a bit magenta? Perhaps also a half stop too dark?? Not sure.

Cheers

David

Hi David,

Thanks for that. I've tried to split the colour balance between the magentas and purples; so I like the "balance" between the two, but the overall colour distribution isn't ideal - but I can't always do much with what's in front of the lens

I played with the levels (on my home screen, which I suspect that the kids have "adjusted" since I last calibrated and profiled it), so they could be out a bit. In terms of the levels I saw, I walked a tight rope between brightness and saturation (the brighter I made it, the less saturated it becomes).

[Keith]

I agree with Arith, it does appear to be sloping slightly down to the right.
But the picture is just superb in my eyes.

Keith

[Colin Southern]

It looks alright to me; but I get exposure 2 minutes. Maybe it is an optical illusion but it appears to be leaning very slightly down on the right. I wished I could take photo's like this. Give me a couple of years.

Thanks Arith,

It might have been 2 minutes (I did shoot some that long) - I have a weird bug in Photoshop where shows 30-Seconds but Bridge often shows a different time. I use bulb mode to execute the shot, but it's almost as if Photoshop is reporting what the last manual setting was for; I'll have to investigate further.

It could be sloping to the right slightly - I didn't level the shot in post (wrong side of midnight at the time!) - I'll check it later.

UPDATE: Bridge is shoting 118 seconds (ie "2 Minutes", so I'll edit my original post)

[Donald]

Not sure if I like it or not - what do you all think?

As an execution of what you set out to do, it's brilliant. It's not quite my thing as there's too much of an 'artificial' feel to it. I'm sure there will be customers who will go for it in a very big way.

A good example, for me, of the difference between the technically brilliant and the aesthetic. So, not to my taste, but something I can learn a h^%! of a lot from.

[Wirefox]

I have a blank space behind my 1960's sofa......just kidding. Technically brilliant as usual but `I think I may have seen one too many of these type of landscapes. I am certain that it is because I live in the grungy, gritty northwest of England I do not relate to these images so there is no prickly neck syndrome when I look at them. But I am guessing that there will be many people who are fortunate to live in such places for who it will evoke the same reaction as the dark satanic mills and boarded up pubs do in me. Well perhaps not quite the same but you know what I mean

[Colin Southern]

As an execution of what you set out to do, it's brilliant. It's not quite my thing as there's too much of an 'artificial' feel to it. I'm sure there will be customers who will go for it in a very big way.

A good example, for me, of the difference between the technically brilliant and the aesthetic. So, not to my taste, but something I can learn a h^%! of a lot from.

Thanks Donald,

I know what you mean. Unfortunately not every shoot produces a winner - it was the best I could coax out of what I had.

[Colin Southern]

I have a blank space behind my 1960's sofa......just kidding. Technically brilliant as usual but `I think I may have seen one too many of these type of landscapes. I am certain that it is because I live in the grungy, gritty northwest of England I do not relate to these images so there is no prickly neck syndrome when I look at them. But I am guessing that there will be many people who are fortunate to live in such places for who it will evoke the same reaction as the dark satanic mills and boarded up pubs do in me. Well perhaps not quite the same but you know what I mean

Thanks for that

To be honest, it's not one of my favourites yet - although I've been wanting to get one of those foreground rock in a shot for a while now. One thing I have learned though is that it's dangerous for me to decide what the market wants - for every 19 who might say that a shot is "too peachy", there'll be one who says "that's just the colour of my curtains"!

[Colin Southern]

Are either of these any better? (Tighter Crops)

[McQ]

Hi Colin, I like the first tighter crop the best of the bunch. To me, the foreground diagonals lead the eye off into the top right, so it's nice to have a little more space there as opposed to running up against the edge of the frame (as in the second tighter crop). As a whole, the tighter crops seem a bit more dynamic and off-center than the original photo posted at the start of this thread. The "artistic center of mass" just seems to be much more to the left-hand side of the frame in these two...

Was f/32 for depth of field or to increase the exposure time?

[Dave Humphries]

The last is my preferred one

[Wirefox]

One thing I have learned though is that it's dangerous for me to decide what the market wants - for every 19 who might say that a shot is "too peachy", there'll be one who says "that's just the colour of my curtains"!

I must say I had forgotten the commercial aspect. I think that is why I would find it very difficult to become professional. Which is unlikely anyhow since I doubt I will every attain your skill with the camera. I want to create images that drives a square block into the round hole of peoples expectation. That essence of "I am not really sure I like that but I have to keep going back and looking at it". I may never attain that but I think I may have fun trying.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Colin, I like the first tighter crop the best of the bunch. To me, the foreground diagonals lead the eye off into the top right, so it's nice to have a little more space there as opposed to running up against the edge of the frame (as in the second tighter crop). As a whole, the tighter crops seem a bit more dynamic and off-center than the original photo posted at the start of this thread. The "artistic center of mass" just seems to be much more to the left-hand side of the frame in these two...

Was f/32 for depth of field or to increase the exposure time?

Thanks Sean,

To be honest, I'm oscillating (or should that be "equocating" (sp?)) between all three, although I think that the one you mention resonates a little better with the rule of thirds.

The F32 was just to increase the exposure, although I also had a Singh-Ray Vari-ND mounted (it wasn't particularly dark at that stage). I was hoping that the sky would pink up a bit as the sun behind me dropped, but not so much as a hint of it on this occasion

PS: You would not believe how much sensor dust F32 shows up!

[Colin Southern]

Which is unlikely anyhow since I doubt I will every attain your skill with the camera. I want to create images that drives a square block into the round hole of peoples expectation.

Horses for courses ... I can "hold my own" technically, but I've seen many of your shots demonstrating an 'outside the square" type thinking that I'll never be able to do

It's a bit like the old "you're fat, I'm ugly, but you can diet type of thing" - the technical side can be learned, but I'm not convinced that one can learn "outside the square" type thinking.

[Colin Southern]

The last is my preferred one

Thanks Dave