Interesting maybe. Any good?

Shot this today, obviously very contrasty, but I used a tungsten white balance and I thought it made this throw away, a rather cool image. Thoughts?

Hoboken terminal clock, 1907.

Cool it is. Love the colour of the clock face highlighted against the more muted colours of the window. Since you have shared the secret of how you shot this I am tempted to try to replicate this in my local church. No idea why but I love the name Hoboken. All the best, Charles.

Cool it is. Love the colour of the clock face highlighted against the more muted colours of the window. Since you have shared the secret of how you shot this I am tempted to try to replicate this in my local church. No idea why but I love the name Hoboken. All the best, Charles.

I’d love to see the results!

It's a great photo of an interesting subject. Congrats!

 

How you present the photo is of course a matter of personal taste and 'artistic license'. I really like it as it is. Although I sometimes come across as a 'post-processing nerd', I truly believe that this photo might benefit from a bit more post-processing without sacrificing the 'character' and style of the photo. Entirely up to you!

 

I hope you don't mind, but I downloaded a copy, simply because I was interested enough to 'explore' your photo. I have already deleted this copy!

 

What I found (in Photoshop) was that are fascinating ornate details around the clockface that are hidden in the deep shadows. I don't suggest that you just 'brighten up' the whole photo' which would detract from the intention and style of the photo. But just brightening the shadows a bit, specifically on the 'ornate details' would just suggest that these details exist. IHMO, this would make the photo more intriguing and interesting than the 'deep black shadows' around the clock.

 

I repeat: as a viewer, I don't need to see all the details but seeing (by suggestion) that there's something else outside the clockface expands the 'area of interest' and would IMHO make the photo more intriguing.

 

Again, how you want to present this photo is your decision, which I entirely respect!

 

Should you require any further help or tips on how to subtly PP your photo, post in the Digital Darkroom forum.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mike

I'm lost. What's great about this dark image of a clock? If it's an interesting clock, I can't see the details. The photographer indicates that it's intended as a "throw away". He may have changed the color temperature, but, as the end user, I can't see what's interesting about that.

 

It's not abstract, just under exposed, to my eye. Am I wrong to view it as a very weak image?

Mike, Took your advice and lightened the shadows.

Hi @jc1305us,

 

I completely respect your choice w,r,t, to how you want to present this photo. As I said previously, it's great as it is! But I still feel that there are some really interesting details 'lurking in the shadows'. I very rarely post any 'alternative versions' to illustrate my comments but I think this version might be helpful. I'm not in any suggesting that it's any 'better' but I'm just posting to illustrate my point,

 

Mike

Hi @jc1305us,

 

I completely respect your choice w,r,t, to how you want to present this photo. As I said previously, it's great as it is! But I still feel that there are some really interesting details 'lurking in the shadows'. I very rarely post any 'alternative versions' to illustrate my comments but I think this version might be helpful. I'm not in any suggesting that it's any 'better' but I'm just posting to illustrate my point,

 

Mike[ATTACH=full]1433509[/ATTACH]

THATS exactly what I was trying g to achieve with my second post. Beautiful. Thank you!

@mikemorrell, I think with a bit more subtlety, you'd be onto something, very different from the original, but an interesting, more decorative, view. The distraction from the beauty of the detail in this version is the glare of the white highlighting artifacts coming from behind the gilded areas. If those areas had not become blown out, it would feel a little more organic and kinder to the subject.

Agreed, I just posted a rough version to illustrate the 'hidden detail' in the shadows. I also missed some of the details at the top and bottom. The 'glare' is just parts of the window that I (roughly) selected along with the details. If the photographer wanted to go down this route, a more precise selection of the details would avoid the glare. I also think a much 'toned-down' highlighting would 'suggest' the detail rather than my fluorescent version!

@mikemorrell, I think with a bit more subtlety, you'd be onto something, very different from the original, but an interesting, more decorative, view. The distraction from the beauty of the detail in this version is the glare of the white highlighting artifacts coming from behind the gilded areas. If those areas had not become blown out, it would feel a little more organic and kinder to the subject.

THATS exactly what I was trying g to achieve with my second post. Beautiful. Thank you!

 

I don't think that you're "getting" it. Your second version is no better than your first. Look at Mike's interpretation. While Mike's may not be perfects, it's WAY MORE interesting than either of yours.

 

Why don't you try something more like Mike's?