Jump to content
  • 0

What Do You Think, Guys?


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Not really working for me to be honest Edo.

Also there seems to be artefacts around the tower and cables and above some of the skyscrapers. 

 

I find the tower and small park on the left distracting and my eye is pulled into that corner.

 

Sorry

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Not really working for me either, it sort looks like a scan of old film to me, tho I know it's not.  But it passed QC so might as well leave it up.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

No Edo. Not very realistic as an image.   But someone might think this was intentionally done to be 'artsy' or something and license it.  You never know.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, hsessions said:

No Edo. Not very realistic as an image.   But someone might think this was intentionally done to be 'artsy' or something and license it.  You never know.

agreed.

 

i feel the same way about this image as i feel about over HDRed images that keep popping up on travel marketing material....  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Ed, I quite like the principle of using a sky replacement tool. But I'm concerned about the light in the sky matching the lighting on the ground.

 

This one does look a bit too heavily processed, don't think it goes well with the water colour. But you occasionally see photos like this published.

Steve

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I agree with everything all of you said. In fact, those are the points I would make if it were someone else's image and I was asked to comment.

 

However, I think I will add it to my collection. Here's why:

 

I stayed in Dumbo, Brooklyn for two whole months right after I lost my apartment to the fire on Mulberry Street. I have a bunch of normal, well-lite images of the same subjects — the bridge, and the skyline, and the river, and the ferry. I thought adding something garish and surreal might be worthwhile. Maybe, maybe not.

 

The point Ian makes about the area on the left pulling your eye away from the main subject is what bothers me most. I'm going to tighten the crop to see if that helps . . . but part of the problem is the dark, murky area on the far right. 

 

The other re-edits with new skies all look real and so far most of those images are of Rome when I had a couple of days with bald skies. PS sky replacement lets us change the weather.

 

Thank you all for your comments. 

 

Edo

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

A "Dodge and Burn" brush like the one in Affinity Photo might help brighten up the murky areas.

 

Garish and surreal are trending I believe, so you could be onto something. Good luck. 😎

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

My rainbow image passed QC this morning. I had questions about that. I've decided to leave it up, keyword it, and move on. I've not done any editing with Affinity yet, John. I did try to re-edit again in PS and fix some of the issues mentioned, but the image did not stand up to anymore cropping, and every fix I tried created a new problem somewhere else in the frame. At the moment, I do not have the Nik Collection. I must get that again. 

 

So instead of digital savvy, I used rationalisation. 😉

 

The lighted area on the left that pulls the viewer's eye over there that Ian and I saw as a problem? What if a buyer was looking for an image of the Dumbo Carousel that also showed the Lower Manhattan skyline? This image might be the answer. 

 

Here's one of my more normal, classic views of the same subject:

 

2G666D5.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
20 minutes ago, Sally R said:

To my eyes Ed the sky in the original image you posted looks like a warmer colour temperature than the rest of the image. It also looks a bit murkier or more hazy while the atmosphere of the rest of the image looks clear. You could both adjust the colour temperature of the sky and use a dehaze tool on it and then recombine with the main image. But now you've uploaded it, it makes sense to leave it.

 

Although I can see the point about the park in the bottom left being a bit of a distraction, I also kind of like it as I feel it gives the image more of a 3D feel. I also like the sun shining through the American flag at the top of the bridge, even though its small in the frame. I think it's good to have an image with the carousel too and, as you say, someone may be looking for that along with the bridge.

 

I like the second one you've just posted now.

+1 Thought original composition was ok, but very subjective I know. Sky tone doesn't match the bottom. Colours too garish in the original. Like the 'normal classic' view.

 

Ed, you could try some split toning in the highlights and shadows if you want to push things a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

Right you are, Sally and Steve, but I'm moving on.

 

Where that sky replacement tool excels, is where I can change to a more attractive sky that's not dissimilar from the original. Below, I was able to put one of Bernini's angles in soft, angel-like clouds. 

 

 

2G6BNDG.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Right you are, Sally and Steve, but I'm moving on.

 

Where that sky replacement tool excels, is where I can change to a more attractive sky that's not dissimilar from the original. Below, I was able to put one of Bernini's angles in soft, angel-like clouds. 

 

 

2G6BNDG.jpg

 

My main concerns when I heard about the tool was actually the (pixel) replacement of the sky itself, although I hear that it does a very good job. The other thing was having a big library of skies that you can use to replace the original with. So I think the main thing left is matching the light in the sky to the light on the subject so it looks natural.

 

This photo looks fine. Obviously at totally different zooms, but the sky is sympathetic to the subject. Did you put a sneaky halo around the angel too? 🙃

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
23 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

My main concerns when I heard about the tool was actually the (pixel) replacement of the sky itself, although I hear that it does a very good job. The other thing was having a big library of skies that you can use to replace the original with. So I think the main thing left is matching the light in the sky to the light on the subject so it looks natural.

 

This photo looks fine. Obviously at totally different zooms, but the sky is sympathetic to the subject. Did you put a sneaky halo around the angel too? 🙃

 

Yes I see the "Halo" as well.

 

Edo it seems as if the sky replacement tool has lightened the sky around the angel. Does the tool offer hard and/or soft edges which can be adjusted to suit the main image?

 

Allan

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I kinda see the Halo effect but what jumps out more at me is what appears to be some of that blue from the sky that has crept into the angel's face, parts of the cross; maybe?

 

Helen

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)

 

??? I see no halo. Perhaps you guys are having a religious experience?

 

Here's the original:

 

FX39Y7.jpg

Edited by Ed Rooney
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)

Ed it is a kind of (forget Halo) lightening effect more visible around the cross, and at the same time it looks like some of that sky has leaked onto the cross.  I could be wrong just what I am seeing.

 

Helen

 

I re-read some of my posts and don't understand what I am saying either.  It's like the sky is lighter around the cross.

Edited by hsessions
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)

I'll assume you, Helen, and maybe some others are right about there being some blue or white or whatever spilling here or there. So what? I'm happy to have the sky replacement tool to use . . . although I do not intend it to become an obsession. 

 

Helen, you look like an energetic and positive young woman, and it's great to have you on the Alamy forum. Stay virus free on your discovery trips to observe nature on the west coast of America. 

Edited by Ed Rooney
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

and whatever we may personally think about the look of the image, maybe it is what Alamy's clients want.  Here is example of content the Content Team is looking for this morning,

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

and whatever we may personally think about the look of the image, maybe it is what Alamy's clients want.  Here is example of content the Content Team is looking for this morning,

 

The image looks better with a sky obviously, of course.  Not giving opinions about the content.  The comments were addressing the post-processing/editing or how well the tool handled it, I think.

Helen

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, hsessions said:

The image looks better with a sky obviously, of course.  Not giving opinions about the content.  The comments were addressing the post-processing/editing or how well the tool handled it, I think.

Helen

 

Definatly how the tool is handling it.  Edo is very experienced at using image development software so would not be of his making, unless totally intentional.

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here's a look at the 799, 00, 00 pages of rainbows Alamy has on offer. I don't see one on Page One that is real. And that shot of the Tower of Pisa? That is something people were doing with their Box Brownies long long ago.

 

https://www.alamy.com/search.html?CreativeOn=1&adv=1&ag=0&all=1&creative=&et=0x000000000000000000000&vp=0&loc=0&res=0x0&frrate=0&ach=0&matte=0&loop=0&edrf=&qt=rainbow&qn=&lic=6&lic=1&imgt=0&archive=1&dtfr=&dtto=&hc=&selectdate=&size=0xFF&aqt=&epqt=&oqt=&nqt=&gtype=0

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, hsessions said:

The image looks better with a sky obviously, of course.  Not giving opinions about the content.  The comments were addressing the post-processing/editing or how well the tool handled it, I think.

Helen

 

 

sorry it wasn't about your comment, was mainly using it to highlight what the Alamy Content team thinks is what we need- which probably means i have to change my approach, because i think it's horrible, but as i mentioned above, i guess i need to cater to clients, not my feeling.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

and whatever we may personally think about the look of the image, maybe it is what Alamy's clients want.  Here is example of content the Content Team is looking for this morning,

 

 

 

 

Oh dear. Stay tuned for the Leaning Tower of Pizza. 🍕

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Halo? I don't see no halo. I must have lost my Catholic view. 

 

Perhaps there is a Vatican-sanctioned halo-removal tool available somewhere. 😇

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
43 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

sorry it wasn't about your comment, was mainly using it to highlight what the Alamy Content team thinks is what we need- which probably means i have to change my approach, because i think it's horrible, but as i mentioned above, i guess i need to cater to clients, not my feeling.  

No probs.  Funny you said that abaout changing your approach; and after following your link I thought exactly the same.  Got to keep with the program, as they say.  If oversaturated is in, then its in.  I will try it on a few that aren't nature shots and see how well they license or sell.

 

Helen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.