from the top

I agree that the "uncorrected view" is right for this shot. The white bulb could easily be cloned out to make it a non issue. Squaring up the perspective, for me, puts the subjects in a box. If you look at the steps on the right side, you can see that the rail is not square to the steps anyway. Nice eye Marco.

I am not sure I understand the cropping here. Are the side walls left in to keep a sense of cozy enclosure?

I prefer the original version, it seems to be more natural and informal. Excellent image, fully deserves to be chosen as the photo of the week

I don't think "perspective" correction is valid...it may be that the stairs actually get wider at toward the top?

 

Also, I like the fact that I can see the nice details of the balustrade of the stairs....which the maniuplated second photo in effect eliminates.

 

The first images is a photo...the second is graphics.

Sometimes when I see such fantastic images, i feel incompetent to even comment. Its an absolute superb image even with the slanted right. I only wish the white blob on right was missing.

 

Marco, hearty compliments from India, a great image!

Great contrasts, it gives perspective and it's absolutely a superb piece of work!!Congratulations.

I love the way you've got cold lighting from behind the dancers and warm lighting from in front of them.

 

A very striking image!

I don't think the "asymetry" of the walls is such a problem in fact, but if you ask me to choose, I prefer the perspective-corrected version.

 

But I've got to reply to Tom Meyer on this issue:

 

"You see these "distortions" with your eyes, why not show them in a photograph that is meant only to reveal what was before the camera?"

 

What means "before the camera", precisely ? Are we talking about what IS there ? Or what is there SEEN FROM A GIVEN VIEWPOINT ? OR even... the ESSENCE (meaning, message) that was before the camera ?

 

"Since the image was made with a 105mm lens on a full frame camera at f11, I don't think perspective distortion is a significant factor."

 

That's lens theory, but there are some distortions here that aren't caused by the lens. That's because the camera wasn't centralized on top of the subject, or if you prefer, the lens wasn't strictly parallel to the ground.

 

Here, the camera was more to the left and to the bottom, and the lens was not parallel to the ground, which is why the perspectives are a little distorted, despite the use of a long lens.

 

Had the photographer had the time to move a bit to his right or had he been able to fly till his lens would be right above the center of the picture, then you would have no distortions. But of course, he couldn't fly and had probably no time to move either, so what's the point of talking about this, one may ask...?

 

Well, Photoshop offers a perspective correction tool, so the question is whether to use in or not. But the reality of this scene is not less or more real with or without distortions, or from this or any other viewpoint.

 

My point is: correcting a perspective or such - assuming it can be done quite perfectly - is neither necessary, neither a prejudice to the realism of a scene. It may just help to concentrate on what's important in a given composition, that's all. In this case, I think the right side's wall detracts my attention from the group - to a minor extend. More importantly, I think this wall adds nothing to the composition, EXCEPT... A diagonal line amidst of all the horizontal and vertical straight lines... As such, it gets more attention and because a dynamic nuisance in a quiet setting.

 

No big deal, but that's why I think correcting the perspective is a good thing to bring back the inherent peace of the scene into the frame.

Ohhhh... And I almost forgot... I love this picture as it is... and I agree with what Tony wrote of course...

 

This picture wasn't taken from a perfect viewpoint, but that's life and most photographers don't fly...:-) So I have no criticism towards this POW, I am just offering a small suggestion for a small possible - yet not compulsory - "improvement". Congrats to the photographer for bringing this picture back home, and for allowing such an interesting weekly discussion.

Actualy I do prefer innocence in your collection because of the superb light whitch comes in !

Herman

just beautifull

Hey Marc,

I agree: "Had the photographer had the time to move a bit to his right or had he been able to flytill his lens would be right above the center of the picture, then you would have no distortions."... and, asyou say photographers can't fly (but don't tell that to Vincent Laforet). But there was some reason, perhapsoversight, excitement, a desire for stealth or maybe a large cement urn or column, that precluded the pov beingfrom the mathematical center of the grouping. Only Marco knows and he may not even recall the many differentinfluences that, consciously and subconsciously, in the heat of the moment influenced the structure and making ofthis image.

My only point here (with which you seem to agree) is that the asymmetrical structure of the imagedoes not interfere with it's quality.

There is no artwork in the world that someone, with the aid of aftersight and Photoshop, might think that they could improve (including the artist!). That does not mean it should bedone, or that the work is devalued by that possibility... t

an amazing photo i love the subject (elegant ballet dancres and the backstage of theaters in general, it's a v.inspiring subject) , the contrast between the colours of the females with that of the male. the angle together with the circular composition in which the dancers sit ,gives me a sense of amicability and support . it reminds me of Edgar Degas' paintings , he was infatuated with dancers

Though the ballerinas and their dresses are the center of the picture, most of the light is focused on the man.

It makes this otherwise very nice picture a little unbalanced.

I agree with the distortion on the right. It’s a bit too much.

I disagree with the people who think that Photoshop cannot improve a picture and that it should not be done. Shame, the poor souls are still stuck in the previous century; yet they will be the first ones to give a higher rating to an “altered” picture.

This is my answer:

I don't know who is more fortunate...you for your access to the ballet or the ballet for their access to you. Incredibly beautiful and sensitive images...all of them. Thank you for sharing.

This is a great image, a candid shoot with a wonderful light, a rest in the scene that every dance lover knows, perfectly taken, nicely exposed, and with a movement in composition that reminds the spirit of dance itself. Please, don't stay on the surface. I wonder if Cartier-Bresson came to publish anonimously here we still discuss about correcting perspective in some of his images...

Dear friends, this photograph is a great one.

I like Marco Coppo's detailings about the photo. It is quite natural of a photograph. Capturing the best from the given situations. Congrats, and 7/7

I think the photo is excellent for the following reason - it meets design criteria that naturally causes attraction: the black clothes of the male counterbalancing the white. The circular form posed by the women on the stairwell leading the eye back to the male. When a photo naturally draws attention among a bunch of photos on a page it's a good photo. I would have cropped the stair banister on the right - and I just noticed in the second version (skewed) it was cropped... Great work.

I believe that Photoshop can improve a picture (and I use it to do so almost every day) but I also feelthat it is frequently done just because it can be done.

This picture doesn't need it, imo."Correcting" this image wouldn't make it any better. It would just make it different. Knowing it was tweakedmight only make me wish it hadn't been. I appreciate a perfect moment more than a perfect picture. Idealistic? Ican live with that. I'll be cynical (again) another day... t

This is a nice photograph with good composition. What ruins it for me, is the distortion in the left dancers arm and the legs of the central dancers. I find this too disturbing.

Looking again at the ballerinas, I can see that the balustrade was built askew. Even if photographer captured them straight from above, the balustrade would have been askewed. I'm not bothered by this right distortion. In my opinion, it can't be repaired in Photoshop.

 

(Vincent Laforet has already in his thirties conquered the world.)

Well, one can correct it to a point, but then something else is lost. I like it as it was originally posted. I also like the comparison of the ballerinas with daisies. This is an exquisite photo.

 

Congratulations, Marco, on a job well done. I cannot improve upon it with Photoshop.

 

--Lannie

Yes, it makes you stop for a second and watch it. But..whats with the name? "From the top" is what I would expect to see when NASA take a picture of a satelite flying above the ocean for example...

"Something gained but something lost".

 

It all depends how it's done, Lannie. Main thing is to keep the camera format ratio, to which this composition is perfectly adapted.

 

Then, here is a set of 3 versions. 1st (top) is the POW, as it is. 2nd is the same with a minor perspective correction. Bottom version is where it's been corrected 100% - more or less.

 

Now if you watch carefully the body shape of each dancer, which version is more realistic and more pleasant to look at...?

 

Like Tony, I think the photographer did his part and brought back a great shot, and like Tom Meyer, I agree that pictures can be corrected with Photoshop, and that this picture could be corrected or not.

 

But who is now, after careful comparison of these 3 versions, going to say that the original POW version (at top) is the best of the three ? Tom, could we have your opinion...?

I feel that the original is still the best. The angle of the ballustrades shows the gradient of the stairs and gives the shot depth. Cropping too close removes that and, I feel, takes from the photograph rather than adding to it. The only change I would make would be to remove the white spot centre right by cloning as it does distract slightly from the subject. GREAT shot though. Well done!