Early morning

I really like the juxtapositon of the human form and the massive bridge. IMHO a great

composition.

for me the photo is really natural..i like the architechtural of this composition..

The uprights of a bridge are on a slight angle, and the base of the bridge looks like it is digging into the person's neck. Both of these factors (for me) are too apparent, and take away most of the positive appreciation I would otherwise have had for this photo.

Great post about composition by Anders Hingel. I think this picture's composition (ok, except for the mild slant) is "perfect enough". All the little nits and minor glitches that people pointed out so far regarding composition are, imo, true, but they arewhatmake this composition alive. I find the picture cold and "frozen" enough: taking away theseglitches will make itoverly static, and eventually... dead...

 

Now... I just look at the photographer's folders, and found quite a few very nice pictures indeed. And... THE COLOR VERSION OF THIS POW, here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4066798

 

Looking at the color version - which seems airbrushed in PS or such, with very strange colors -, I'd like to add a couple of things:

 

1) I certainly prefer the b&w over color version.

 

2) If the b&w was obtained via a desaturation of THIS color version, then we surely have the explanation about the flat tones. The equation being: flat colors ( "à-plats de couleurs" for those who speak French, I can't translate this ) will unavoidably lead to exagerately flat tones in b&w.

 

3) The area at the back of the bidge (picture's left), and which I said earlier I had a problem with (perhaps some cloning or overdone airbrushing, or..............) is even more problematic in color.

 

And all this makes me really wish, that the photographer could explain what happened at left (if anything), and how the conversion to b&w was actually performed. Regards.

"Why do we convert things to B&W and when does it improve the picture?"

 

I personally believe - strongly believe, for what it's worth :-) - that colors are sometimes distracting, and either take away from the overall MOOD of a photo, OR, somehow DILUTE THE IMPACT OF A PICTURE'S GRAPHICAL QUALITIES.

 

These are, at least, the reasons I have had to convert some of my own images to B&W. And in many cases, since I shoot digital too, I know when I record the picture, that I'll convert it to b&w after that.

 

"It seems to me that a B&W picture, especially here on PN, is automatically perceived as more artful or more serious."

 

I doubt it very much. For SOME people, this may be true - but not as a general statement - I think.

 

"Too often B&W is used (and I am certainly guilty of this) to cover up faults in color processing, exposure, etc."

 

True. Or simply to cancel any impact the color had on the picture - see above.

 

"Is this picture better in B&W or color? What is the point of converting it to B&W and does it gain anything from the process?"

 

Imo, for this POW, the b&w version emphasizes graphics, and graphics are a key ingredient of its receipee. It also emphasizes the mood that the fog brings about.

 

As for those who do not believe that the tonal range can't be improved, I'd submit the following:

 

With PS, extending the range of tones and giving the images some tonal relief doesn't simply mean going up on the contrast scale. It could for example means a separate control of the contrast available in one of the extremes of the range (either shadows, either highlights). Or it could mean to introduce real white instead of a 235 or such white point. Or the same thing about real black (but, as Mona pointed out, black is ok in this case).

 

When thinking about tones, one needs to think in terms of PICTURE AREAS, and in terms of HISTOGRAMM - not in terms of contrast. With that in mind, a conversion to b&w from a color photo using PS can become very subtle - especially using channels. So subtle in fact, that I think it takes years of learning to "see" a little better in b&w, and to manage just decent conversions. (Still a learning process for me, although I converted hundreds of pictures with 3 to 10 versions each...)

 

As a conclusion, those worried about losing the foggy mood by boosting the contrast and such are imo worried about mistakes - but such mistakes are not fated. It's a matter of playing around and doing it right - at least in theory. :-)

Wow, really a great shot. Is this the IP1-bridge over the Rio Guadiana?

 

I really like your coast and boats portfolio. It provides me with inspiration!

"...automatically perceived as more artful or more serious"

 

I believe that this is very common with less instructed photographers/viewers. Don't ask me why :)

 

Better experienced viewers would judge the photo by its merits, being either bw or color.

Marc, I certainly agree that, with the digital age, we need to concern ourselves with learning

how to convert to black and white to achieve the best rendition of a photo. But I do think

that there is one principle that guides it all, how does the photo look. For me, I continue to

feel that this one's tonality and tonal separation has been well done for "this" subject. This

tonal pallette would certainly not work for a clear, sunny morning in the desert southwest,

but that is what I like here, the palette was adjusted to fit the mood/atmosphere of the photo

rather than adhering to a histogram's "perfect" photo distribution, which would totally ignore

nuance.

Hi. Nice to meet you by this picture Monteiro.

I first view I saw the pic, i dislike with something, then I review the folder and I found the original photo. So I understand why about my point of view. When we transform some photo as original colour is in Black and White or medium tones the results will not be as we wish. And that is happening about this great shot. For me is so much better in the original colors. On the other hand, thre angle selected and exposure are great !!!

Atte: Mario Paper Martinez Caballero

I like the lines in the original version better than the "strait" version.

 

amazing photograph

Thank you all for your comments.

 

Although my english tends to leave me unconfortable at this level of discussion, I'll try to aproach some aspects that most of the comments mentioned.

 

But let me begin with one essencial "detail" that was apparently forgotten : the light. Well, the light angle explains why the tones (both in the b&w version and on the color version, natural tones by the way) got this way. The sun had rised about 20 minutes before and there was fog around the bridge creating a sort of haze atmosphere. To avoid the direct light I "hid" it behind the pilar on the left. So the tones are a consequence of the fog and light angle.

 

The b&w conversion was made with Paintshop simply using the greyscale toll. Since I got pretty happy with the result I kept it like that. And it's true, sometimes there's just not a full tonal range.

 

The composition is exactly as I managed to make at the site. No crop was made. While I was focusing on the bridge, dealing with the quite difficult light and trying to adjust the camera settings, this jogger showed up coming from the right and towards me. This is the only shot I took where he shows up. This joggers are pretty fast these days.

 

Tilted to the right. I had a hard time with that. Finally I concluded that there was no tilt. If you look close to the elements that can decide on that department (the pilar fundation on the lower center and the person) you will notice there's no tilt. Apparently what creates that visual idea is the margin, the line on the ground on the right and the fact that the bridge turns to the right right after entering the mist. These elements together are creating that idea, I believe.

 

B&W or color? I too prefer the b&w version. Mainly because it gives a more graphical impact, pumps up the lines on the bridge and the misty eerie atmosphere gives that flat tones I really liked when I converted it.

 

Originality. I tend to agree that an original subject is not exactly a bizarre subject and that originality is often on the way something is shown and not a inner characteristic of the scene or object photographed. That said, if one can say "never seen it like that" I believe some kind of originality is present. Can be the angle, the light, the composition or a combination this elements. Originality surprises the viewer not the nature of things.

 

The 18-55mm is not that bad piece of glass. It takes to know how to handle it, that's all. Keep it from the edges in all aspects and the results can surprise.

Thanks F. for these very qualified comments on your own photo. We are very often better in seeing and make critics of photos of others but are too "close" to our own photos. Congratulation with the POW.

 

Andersour own photo

To F. Monteiro,

 

Thanks for your reply. I perfectly understand that the lighting angle did this and that with the fog. So the colors were as we see them in the posted color version ? If that's the case, then I think we'd have indeed a hard time to "improve" the tones.

 

"The palette was adjusted to fit the mood/atmosphere of the photo rather than adhering to a histogram's "perfect" photo distribution, which would totally ignore nuance."

 

I never spoke about "perfect" histograms nor did I suggest to ignore nuance - rather to be subtle. I spoke about histograms, yes; but even most of the col to b&w conversions that I am very happy with, are very "imperfect" by the book. It's a very fine thing, and therefore can't be explained or dismissed in two sentences. Trial and error...

 

But if the original version was the way we see it in the portfolio, then, there wasn't much to do with channels, and there goes all the hope I might have had to get better tones...:-)

 

Point just was: Fog is fog, tones are tones, and we shouldn't assume that better tones would ruin the foggy atmosphere and mood of this photo. It just depends WHAT we'd do with the tones.

Parab鮳 Fernando Monteiro. ɠsempre bom ver um Portugu고reconhecido internacionalmente. Ab.

Several people have agreed with me that the image seemed tilted; others think I went too far with my "correction." With images like this, it isn't a cut and dried issue, as the maker points out. Often you have what is called a false horizon, where a receding line rises or falls even though a bubble level shows that you're dead on. In this case, there's a choice to be made between the back edge of the foreground and the base of the bridge, but the most obvious issue is the bridge itself which is influenced by the strong oblique on the right. It's true that I've given the runner a slight tilt, so I'm now considering a rotation that would be about 2/3 of the amount that I applied originally.

The image is very aesthetically pleasing at first glance. The horizon at the water line does seem to bow a little while the land horizon line is definitely higher on the left. This is probably what gives the feeling of being slightly un-level. This in addition to a small imperfection (?) on the left, midway down the diagonal line of the large concrete base, may accentuate this disparity.

 

The tonal range is pleasing. The subject eye-catching. All the lines & angles keep the image from becoming boring. The gentle arc in the lower right not only softens the sharp angles but draws the eyes to the runner. The runner's form echoes the form of the bridge support. I like that very much.

 

The only thing I find distracting is the "dotting" found in the sky & some sharpening artifact in the bridge & other distinct sharp edges. Is this compression artifact? All in all, well seen & captured.

I will not offer a critique. I like the image and a lot has been said so I'll skip analysis and just go straight to the point. Jpeg most likely is responsible for the tiling but i don't know what caused the dot pattern that has been mentioned above. Here it is taken from the color version and curved. Regards,

In landscape photography, you may look at the horizon, yes, especially ifthere's hardly anything else to base judgement on. But the RULE in general, especially for architecture photography, and particularly so when not using a wide angle, is TO LOOK AT VERTICAL LINES, not horizontal onces. Why so ? Because vertical lines remain vertical in every case. Bubble levels are just an indicator, vertical lines are the true test. P.S: this is not a subjective opinion. In this case, the only true vertical line available would be the symetrical axis that runs accross the two main poles of the bridge. This axis needs to be straight. If it isn't, then the picture is tilted.

Marc, this is interesting. You are teaching me something. But, I don't understand why you present it as objective fact that you have to work only on the vertical lines. If you take the horizontal line of the base of the bridge the correction would look like this. Is that not sufficient?

 

Whether the photo needs that correction is another question. I'm not sure. The main lines of the composition are still the anything but horizontal or vertical and it is those lines (the wires and the the bended line on the ground especially)that create a composition tranmitting the impression of movement towards the right - as the bridge itself. It is because of these "movements" that I personally like the composition.

 

Anders

Marc, you must know that what you wrote about vertical lines is not correct as a general matter. It is true only in the limited case where your perspective on the vertical lines is level or where your distance from the lines is effectively infinite. If you are looking up or down at vertical lines, they converge toward a vanishing point just like any other lines. In this photo, where the perspective on the bridge supports is upward and they are toward the left side of the picture, one would expect them to lean slightly toward the center of the picture if the picture were level.

 

That said, I concur that the original picture is slightly tilted. If you draw a line along the base of the far bridge foundation in your photo editor, you'll see that it steps down 3 or 4 pixels over the length of the foundation. A line drawn halfway between the vertical bridge supports as you suggest is consistent with this result, although perhaps implies a slightly greater tilt due to perspective effects.

 

The "straightened" version that was posted is rotated too far in the other direction and in fact is even more out of true than the original.

 

But I think too much is being made out of all of this. For my money it really doesn't affect the picture all that much.

"It is true only in the limited case where your perspective on the vertical lines is level or where your distance from the lines is effectively infinite. If you are looking up or down at vertical lines, they converge toward a vanishing point just like any other lines."

 

Of course, you are correct. But the axis between the 2 converging lines is then the vertical that should be used as a guide - as I indicated in my example regarding this POW. Point was only: look at verticals, not at horizontals. Regards.

Horizontal lines - especially long ones like the horizon are easily curved by wide angle lenses, and there is no symetry axis available - see my reply above this one. Besides that, there are many cases whereyou are not facing straight on the straight line you are taking as a reference point, and therefore, it could be perfectly horizontal just because the side angle compensates (more or less) the tilt; whereas this is not the case for verticals - they remain what they are, or if the camera is tilted up or down, the symetry axis between the distorted lines will still serve as an accurate reference point.

There is no way to know if either of the horizontal lines are "true", ie if both ends are equal distance to the camera. It is possible that neither of them are. Choosing between vertical or horizontal lines as a point of reference is entirely subjective depending mostly on the relative dominance of each element. I chose the same reference that Marc did initially, the vertical mid line in the bridge, but as I mentioned earlier, I now think that other lines suggest a compromise. In the original, there are no lines that compensate for all the right leaning ones.

Marc: "Of course, you are correct. But the axis between the 2 converging lines is then the vertical that should be used as a guide - as I indicated in my example regarding this POW. Point was only: look at verticals, not at horizontals."

 

Still not quite right. The correct method would be to extend the converging lines to the vanishing point and then rotate the pic so that the vanishing point is dead center above the frame. If the verticals are both left of center as in this photo, then perspective looking upward will give them a "/" slant in a level photo and the axis between them would also have this slant. The best rough method where you have multiple verticals is to use the vertical closest to the center of the frame as your guide. As you would do if, e.g., you were shooting upward among a stand of straight, tall trees.

 

Carl: "There is no way to know if either of the horizontal lines are "true", ie if both ends are equal distance to the camera."

 

I agree, although I think the foundations are close enough to the horizon to minimize perspective issues. And I strongly agree with Carl that the ultimate decision is aesthetic, not technical, in a photo of this kind.

Thanks Marc for the explanation. Nevertheless, I think we now all seem to agree that the "ultimate decision is aesthetic, not technical, in a photo of this kind" - so why touch the original. I have above made reference to the elements of the composition that explain, in my eyes, why the POW functions perfectly despite the technical imperfections that have been pointed out - or maybe even because of them.

 

Anders