Angkor

Don't know if this is ok or not but didn't think it'd hurt.

Top is unedited (except for resizing to post).

 

 

 

What I was going for was an air of mystery. You're walking along a rain forest trail. Triple canopy, dense vegetation all around, etc. You round a bend and come across something like this. Covered in vines, trees all over the place, etc. Who built it? How? Why? Why here? When? Why did they leave? Etc. Etc. Etc. Thought that grayscale would capture that atmosphere better.....Izzy

 

I think you have an interesting original shot. The way you've handled the black and white is a bit harsh for my taste. You talk of mystery, which I appreciate. Mystery often has a degree of subtlety worth preserving. The solid blacks are graphic and in-your-face, to me, lacking in mystery. If I had a sense of dark shadow with a suggestion of depth, on the other hand, I might react better. That said, I think the original textures and sense of ruin don't need a whole lot of extra help. A shift to black and white without the histrionics would be worth taking a look at.

Izzy, if you want to go with monochrome, that's fine. However, in my relatively uneducated opinion, the blacks dominate the frame to the point of losing the inherent value (as you described it) and mystery of the scene. Personally, I prefer the full color version. However it needs some post work, primarily to balance tonal levels and to boost the saturation somewhat on the ruins. Hope this helps.

Thankyou both! I'll see what I can do!!...Izzy

OK I'm totally with everyone else in not liking the extreme treatment of your 2nd version.

 

I like this shot overall. I like the way the pathway leads you "into" the scene. I also like the sort of desaturated colors, although everything seems almost monochromatic, like the tones are all very similar. This has great bones but lacks... something. It needs to be a bit punchier, I think.

I personally would stick closer to the original and try to elevate the contrasts. Bring that wall and door, the columns etc out a bit more. The foreground with the jumble is busy and distracting. There's a clear visual, psychic -and actual- path to the primary subject- which happens to be conveniently lit up by the sun. Not that I'm the king of post processing but there's a lot of subtle color shifts and tones in this. I'd try to find some way to capitalize on this and boost the contrast a bit on the primary subject without killing or muddying any of the other elements. Were I to change this to a black & white shot, I'd probably just go straight-up mono on it and still give the main subject some boost to bring it forward in the mind's eye. But as stated, I like the colors and the subtlety & similarities of the whole color palette.

 

As an aside:

You mentioned in your "deer" thread that you shot that on film. This also has that feel, like maybe you are shooting film. If that is so, maybe you should think about your choice of film? Especially if traveling around the world, you (most likely) only have one shot at a place like Angkor Wat. Shooting off beat film is fun and stuff, for maybe a minute. But a lifetime memory, IMO needs to remain as significant as possible to the actuality. Photography is a really wonderful medium for taking great memories home, but if you only have one moment, why blow it or risk it with some off hand component? Not that I have any idea what this was shot on, I'm just feeding off your other posts here. I've shot a lot of stuff on beater gear or on expired film and at the end of that particulate journey, I decided to upgrade in every regard. it makes a nice difference.

 

Going even further aside:

I mostly drag n drop photos onto this site straight out of my photo file in my desktop. The files could be large, and if they get too big, then the site will translate them to a jpg file and you have to click on it to open it. If I'm posting out of my photo host site, Zenfolio, for this site I choose extra large file size. Some sites have a size or file limit, but Zenfolio's XLG works just fine here. I did get one complaint from somebody who has limited data, but maybe that person simply doesn't click on my photos any more? LOL

 

Cheers and thanks for posting in "Critique".

This was shot on film. At the time (2001) as near as I can recall, digital wasn't available yet (not at a reasonable price anyway). In any case, I didn't start coming over to the dark side until 2004, and it wasn't until 2006 or 7 that I went completely digital. Still have the film cameras though, and a few rolls of some very expired film someplace. One of these days (if and when I get around to it). I'll find where someplace is, call B&H to see if batteries for the cameras are still available and give it a shot.

This was shot on film. At the time (2001) as near as I can recall, digital wasn't available yet (not at a reasonable price anyway). In any case, I didn't start coming over to the dark side until 2004, and it wasn't until 2006 or 7 that I went completely digital. Still have the film cameras though, and a few rolls of some very expired film someplace. One of these days (if and when I get around to it). I'll find where someplace is, call B&H to see if batteries for the cameras are still available and give it a shot.

 

 

digital is old news man film is where its at :)

 

But seriously, this photo is strong and doesn't need that much. Judging by your B&W treatment here, and what I saw of the deer pic, I think, for my tastes anyway, you have a tendency to be little heavy handed.

With this already being pretty cool, a little selective contrast boost could go a long way towards bringing this out to its proper glory.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Ricochetrider

Are you trying to "rescue" old film shots. You've been digital way longer than me, so I'm wondering what's motivating you to go back to these old shots.

 

Looking at this and your white-tail deer shot, mooning us, your processing seems drawn to extremes, to the edge of abstract, but not fully crossing the line. Here, you shadows have gone totally black. You do want your blacks to be black, but in most realistic shooting, we like to see shades of grey and details in shadows. Are you yearning for something more abstract and mysterious? If so, I'm not the one to help you, but you need to find some models to emulate. If you're trying to be realistic, I wonder, is your monitor calibrated? I've seen that lead some people where they weren't aiming. That's a serious question.

Are you trying to "rescue" old film shots. You've been digital way longer than me, so I'm wondering what's motivating you to go back to these old shots.

 

No. It's just that those old film shots comprise the bulk of what I've got catalogued, keyworded, and sorted (at this point in time anyway). It's an ongoing process.

Hey another thought I just had is: how are you getting these old photos onto the computer?

Scanned from the negs and\or slides (for those which I still have the negs and slides for). In those cases where I no longer have or can't find the negs\slides for but have been able to find prints. I set up a tabletop studio (shoebox with no top and one end removed), or something equally makeshift and simple, a tripod, and a digital camera (don't have a flatbed (document) scanner). Take a picture of the print, and voila. A digital image. The cameras I use record the image on CF or SD cards. Take the card out of the camera. Pop it into a card reader. Etc.

Love the first pic. It takes your eye right up the path to the entrance. Maybe take down the highlights a bit to get the sky back and you’re there. Nice shot. Second one is not in the same league.

Thankyou