Constructive comments appreciated

[Steve F]

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Verticals. Use of Geometry tool to straighten buildings etc.

 

Not soo worried about one or two that I have got wrong but an overall impression would be appreciated.

 

Ian, all looks fine to me. Maybe this one, but I'm guessing you couldn't get any further back and you were limited by your focal length so you didn't want to use the Geometry tool and lose part of the building to the crop.

[geogphotos]

Yes, exactly Steve. I was having more doubts about overuse rather than underuse of Geometry. That one I purposely left as it is obviously a wide angle shot and I think the eye automatically compensates.  I feel that the wall to the right gives a big clue about what is happening in this image. 

 

The only other option - given what you say about the lack of space to play with - is using Distort or similar. Maybe I tried it, can't remember.

Edited June 2 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

I'm still using LR5 so it's the vertical corrrection tool. I under-correct somewhat- I don't know how the units compare but anything over -15 starts to look odd. I do try to include some spare sky if I'm going to need the correction.

[geogphotos]

47 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I'm still using LR5 so it's the vertical corrrection tool. I under-correct somewhat- I don't know how the units compare but anything over -15 starts to look odd. I do try to include some spare sky if I'm going to need the correction.

 

 

Fair comment. If I had left the space I could have done more playing around. But rather than chuck it I thought I'd leave it for a potential buyer to decide. 

 

With this one it looks like I just left it as it was and didn't do anything - the rubbery verticals shout out at me now! 

 

But it is a numbers game and making mistakes is part of that. 

 

 

Edited June 2 by geogphotos

[Steve F]

I try not to overcorrect too...

[StokeCreative]

6 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Fair comment. If I had left the space I could have done more playing around. But rather than chuck it I thought I'd leave it for a potential buyer to decide. 

 

With this one it looks like I just left it as it was and didn't do anything - the rubbery verticals shout out at me now! 

 

But it is a numbers game and making mistakes is part of that. 

 

 

I do tend to "correct" most converging verticals, but actually they can look really false, and I sell as many "dramatic" shots as corrected shots. As usual there's no one way of doing things

[geogphotos]

7 hours ago, StokeCreative said:

I do tend to "correct" most converging verticals, but actually they can look really false, and I sell as many "dramatic" shots as corrected shots. As usual there's no one way of doing things

 

 

Thanks for the observation Hugh. I have noticed the same. What made me start this thread was a worry that I was overusing the Geometry tool - I was doing a lot of buildings.

 

There is no way that this is what you see standing where the picture was taken. You are looking up and the eye has to see converging verticals. 

 

But it was published in the Times a day ot two ago so must be what they want. Equally, I feel sure that they might have gone with one that showed converging verticals.

 

Maybe the trick is to offer both versions when in doubt?

 

 

RAW

 

Edited June 3 by geogphotos

[StokeCreative]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Thanks for the observation Hugh. I have noticed the same. What made me start this thread was a worry that I was overusing the Geometry tool - I was doing a lot of buildings.

 

There is no way that this is what you see standing where the picture was taken. You are looking up and the eye has to see converging verticals. 

 

But it was published in the Times a day ot two ago so must be what they want. Equally, I feel sure that they might have gone with one that showed converging verticals.

 

Maybe the trick is to offer both versions when in doubt?

 

 

RAW

 

 

 

I often do the correction, and then dial it back a bit by eye. It probably depends on the building as to what looks 'right'. Also as you'll know the correction tools are quite capable of (literally) stretching the truth, so I always try to keep the original open as a reference.

[geogphotos]

2 hours ago, StokeCreative said:

 

 

I often do the correction, and then dial it back a bit by eye. It probably depends on the building as to what looks 'right'. Also as you'll know the correction tools are quite capable of (literally) stretching the truth, so I always try to keep the original open as a reference.

 

 

That is certainly what I try and do.

[Michael Ventura]

I wouldn't worry too much about converging lines.  I do correct some too but sometimes the converging can add a dramatic effect to a building.  I really depends on the subject and the surroundings.

[geogphotos]

Thanks Michael. I suppose that there must be some rules about the sort of angle that works and doesn't work. But as you say making individual judgments based on context is best. 

 

From time to time I just get doubts about overusing a specific tool - this time it was Geometry. 

 

I'm very grateful to all who had a look including those who didn't comment.

 

 

[Vincent Lowe]

On 02/06/2023 at 16:31, Steve F said:

Ian, all looks fine to me. Maybe this one, but I'm guessing you couldn't get any further back and you were limited by your focal length so you didn't want to use the Geometry tool and lose part of the building to the crop.

 

First extend the canvas at the top then you can crop without losing any part of the building.

 

I often correct verticals but sometimes it doesn't look right if the building is absolutely vertical so I scale it back a bit to give a hint of convergence, e.g....

 

 

 

[Normspics]

On 02/06/2023 at 11:31, Steve F said:

 

but I'm guessing you couldn't get any further back and you were limited by your focal length so you didn't want to use the Geometry tool and lose part of the building to the crop.

 

 

I have often gone to stitching two or three images together where I can't get further away or I'm at the limit of my widest angle.

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

On 03/06/2023 at 02:20, geogphotos said:

Maybe the trick is to offer both versions when in doubt?

Trick?

Look at 20+ published building images in each of 20+ publications using Alamy building images.

Are they corrected?  Are they not?  Are they both?
Whatever the answer is what you offer, IMO...

IMC, I correct "unpleasant" converging if room but not necessarily to perfection...

regards from Gastonia
 

Edited June 6 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[geogphotos]

6 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

Trick?

Look at 20+ published building images in each of 20+ publications using Alamy building images.

Are they corrected?  Are they not?  Are they both?
Whatever the answer is what you offer, IMO...

IMC, I correct "unpleasant" converging if room but not necessarily to perfection...

regards from Gastonia
 

 

 

 (noun)  in the sense of secret

Definition

a clever way of doing something, learned from experience

She showed me all the tricks of the trade.

Synonyms

secret 

skill 

device 

knack 

art 

hang (informal) 

technique 

know-how (informal) 

gift 

command 

craft 

expertise 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

BETTY!  ANN!  PROTECT ME!

 

once again Geeogzy is didactically patronizing me 

 😲he's talking down to me   😲__ 😲

[geogphotos]

In realms of wisdom, where knowledge resides, There stood a soul, Jeff Greenberg, with pride. But in his heart, a storm began to brew, For he felt patronized, his spirit askew.

With intellect vast, he sought to explore, Yet others saw fit to instruct and ignore. His mind, a canvas, yearning to create, But their didactic ways just bred frustration's weight.

On the Alamy forum, they preached their righteous truth, Their words, a melody, but devoid of any couth. They sought to enlighten, or so they claimed, Yet condescension flowed, and respect was maimed.

Jeff Greenberg, a seeker, a knowledge devotee, Craved the freedom to learn, to wander, to see. But they boxed him in with their pedantic zeal, Reduced him to a student, a cog in their wheel.

Yet hidden within, a fire burned bright, A rebellious spark, a relentless fight. For Jeff knew his worth, his capacity untold, And their patronizing ways would never take hold.

He delved into books, ancient and wise, Explored ideas, unfettered by their guise. He surpassed their limits, their narrow confines, With a hunger for learning that forever shines.

No longer would he heed their didactic parade, For his intellect soared, refusing to be swayed. Jeff Greenberg, a spirit unyielding and true, Embracing his journey, his knowledge to pursue.

In the face of patronizing words and scorn, He rose above, like a phoenix reborn. For wisdom is not measured by one's degree, But by the passion and curiosity set free.

So let us remember, when knowledge we share, To uplift, not belittle, and truly care. For in the realm of learning, we're all on a quest, To grow, to enlighten, and to be our very best.

 

 

Hope that you like it! My way of saying sorry 😀

Copyright ChatGTP

Edited June 7 by geogphotos

[Cal]

On 03/06/2023 at 07:20, geogphotos said:

 

 

Thanks for the observation Hugh. I have noticed the same. What made me start this thread was a worry that I was overusing the Geometry tool - I was doing a lot of buildings.

 

There is no way that this is what you see standing where the picture was taken. You are looking up and the eye has to see converging verticals. 

 

But it was published in the Times a day ot two ago so must be what they want. Equally, I feel sure that they might have gone with one that showed converging verticals.

 

Maybe the trick is to offer both versions when in doubt?

 

 

RAW

 

 

In this case I prefer the version with corrected verticals.

 

However, I suspect like a lot of smaller details that we photographers put a lot of emphasis on, the end user doesn't even notice or care. I'm guessing if the uncorrected version (with the same edits to exposure, saturation etc as the top one) was the only one available it would still have sold.

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

On 06/06/2023 at 19:55, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

BETTY!  ANN!  PROTECT ME!

 

once again Geeogzy is didactically patronizing me 

 😲he's talking down to me   😲__ 😲

👨🏻THE PEDANTRY WAS HUMILIATING
👦🏻HE TREATED YOU LIKE A CHILD...

[geogphotos]

17 hours ago, Cal said:

 

In this case I prefer the version with corrected verticals.

 

However, I suspect like a lot of smaller details that we photographers put a lot of emphasis on, the end user doesn't even notice or care. I'm guessing if the uncorrected version (with the same edits to exposure, saturation etc as the top one) was the only one available it would still have sold.

 

Here are the pics I took that day and the 'flags ' show the two selected by an experienced editor:

 

 

Both 'selects' have corrected verticals.

Edited June 8 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

13 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

👨🏻THE PEDANTRY WAS HUMILIATING
👦🏻HE TREATED YOU LIKE A CHILD...

 

 

 

A master lens, a soul's expanse,

Behold the brilliance, Jeff Greenberg's gaze,

Capturing wonders in myriad ways.

With nimble fingers, a poet's touch,

He paints with pixels, colors clutch,

His lens a window to worlds unseen,

A tapestry of life, both raw and serene.

 

Through cityscapes, he finds allure,

The hustle, bustle, stories pure,

Faces immortalized in his frame,

Expressions etched, a lasting claim,

The beauty, joy, and depths untold,

In each portrait, a story to behold.

 

His mastery unfolds in every click,

Each image, a tale, a magic trick,

From golden sunsets to midnight's glow,

Jeff Greenberg's greatness, it does bestow.

So let us raise our hearts in praise,

To the photographer who sets ablaze,

 

Our spirits, with visions he's captured,

Jeff Greenberg, his brilliance, enraptured.

Edited June 8 by geogphotos