[LeDave]

Hate The Rain. Color or B&W and why?

---

Last edited by LeDave; 08-08-2009 at 04:22 PM.

[axl]

sorry but none of them really works for me...

[mr tibbs]

I like the B&W better, but the darks are a little too dark for my liking.

[flippedgazelle]

I agree with both the previous posters.

The photos looks like a random shot from the street, with no apparent action nor thought given to composition. If you have a photo of the man reading the "cheerleader" sign, that would possibly have been more interesting.

Also, there should be a bit detail apparent in the man's dark suit. If you look at a histrogram of the photo, you will see that it's rather bunched up at the extreme left, your cue that the black levels need to be adjusted a bit, made a little less dar.

[LeDave]

Yeah it was way too dark at first, darker than that, but I was afraid to make it even brighter because it might look overexposed. I was testing out what it'd look like when I crop the people on the left out but I decided to leave them in anyways. And yeah I guess I have to work on my composition a lot.

I agree with both the previous posters.

The photos looks like a random shot from the street, with no apparent action nor thought given to composition. If you have a photo of the man reading the "cheerleader" sign, that would possibly have been more interesting.

Also, there should be a bit detail apparent in the man's dark suit. If you look at a histrogram of the photo, you will see that it's rather bunched up at the extreme left, your cue that the black levels need to be adjusted a bit, made a little less dar.

The guy could actually be reading the sign.

@OP, by cropping from the right to get rid of one of the pillars and the sliver of person standing between them, you will make the guy more prominent, he's in quite a strikin pose. It's still not a great picture but it would be an ok exercise in making the best of something.

[FHPhotographer]

I agree with both the previous posters.

The photos looks like a random shot from the street, with no apparent action nor thought given to composition. If you have a photo of the man reading the "cheerleader" sign, that would possibly have been more interesting.

Also, there should be a bit detail apparent in the man's dark suit. If you look at a histrogram of the photo, you will see that it's rather bunched up at the extreme left, your cue that the black levels need to be adjusted a bit, made a little less dar.

I have to disagree here. I think it just wants a bit of post work to open up the shadows and emphasize the dreary/rainy day, plus a bit of serious cropping. That would focus the eye and create a bit of visual tension between the two main people. With the original (hopefully RAW) image, there would a much cleaner, nuanced and dramatic outcome. I've taken that liberty below of doing a quick n' dirty retouch on the low-res jpeg,
Brian

That's a terrible piece of editing, look at the back of his jacket and the highlights above his head, you can't blame that entirely on low resolution.

[FHPhotographer]

That's a terrible piece of editing, look at the back of his jacket and the highlights above his head, you can't blame that entirely on low resolution.

This was suggestion, not editing. DB, you're nitpicking here. You're looking for things I already said aren't in this edited version; it was meant so show composition and potential tonal range only, not a finished image. I stand by my comments: cropped right, and edited from a high-res original (preferably RAW) it can be made into a good street photograph,
Brian

This was suggestion, not editing. DB, you're nitpicking here. You're looking for things I already said aren't in this edited version; it was meant so show composition and potential tonal range only, not a finished image. I stand by my comments: cropped right, and edited from a high-res original (preferably RAW) it can be made into a good street photograph,
Brian

Editing, suggestion whatever, it's just semantics. Doesn't matter which, it was still terrible IMO.

[FHPhotographer]

Editing, suggestion whatever, it's just semantics. Doesn't matter which, it was still terrible IMO.

Sorry, but "just semantics," matter. Semantics goes to the heart of who we are as human beings. It is the very complex examination of meaning, language and language cognition, and how language interprets and shapes reality. Dismissing a comment as "just semantics" is as wrong and wrong headed as dismissing photography as "just light" or music as "just sound." What we call a thing matters.

If you respond to something with the word "terrible," do you mean it evokes terror in the listener/reader? Or maybe something that is extreme, or very bad, or formidable? Or maybe you just mean terrible = very poor quality? If so, you're taking an indefensible subjective position, unless you claim an a priori knowledge or esthetic sense that somehow elevates your opinion to truth?

Put another way, if we start calling stuff in the Forum "terrible," we've lost the ability to learn from each other. The words matter,
Brian

If you choose to edit someones photo you set yourself up for critique. Doing so and posting something that looks like someone has wiped their derriere on it, is not cool IMO.

[FHPhotographer]

If you choose to edit someones photo you set yourself up for critique. Doing so and posting something that looks like someone has wiped their derriere on it, is not cool IMO.

There's a rule about offering a visual suggestion on a forum that is devoted to visual media? Whose rules, yours or the Forums? In any case, I didn't know that; and absent that rule, I don't think I'll take your opinion of what's "cool."

You've chosen to misconstrue my responses to the OP; and your comments on my attempt to show with example what could be done (never what should be done, just a visual suggestion of what might be done ) have been both inaccurate and inappropriate. If you don't like what I have to say, and the way I say it, then report me for breaking the rules of the road, or block me or get me kicked off the forum or something, but don't take that tone with me in public discourse and expect to get away with it.
Brian

If you did that to one of my pictures, I would report you.
And before you do, I'm giving you advance notice that you do not have permission to copy or edit any of my pictures.

[FHPhotographer]

If you did that to one of my pictures, I would report you.
And before you do, I'm giving you advance notice that you do not have permission to copy or edit any of my pictures.

Is there any other kind of notice than "advance notice"? Just curious.

By the bye, once they're posted images online you no longer have control over those images; nobody needs your permission to alter them. You can jump up and down, threaten and posture, but the fact is that unless they are used for commercial purpose you don't have an f/stop to stand on. But I will do you the courtesy of not altering your images, if you do me the courtesy of watching your language and the tone of your remarks,
Brian