cts

I think it's one of the best in your folder.

Good movement capture, nice tonalities and good retouch of the local contrast around the three men.

But I would prefer it without the balloons.

I think that darkening the sky and the base of the buildings could make the picture a further more interesting.

The two windows make me think to an airport runway or a UFO.

But I chose the title from what I feel about these colors.

Do you think the title "Cold" is appropriate ?

Did you see the legs of a man on the lower right corner ?

I'd better redo the picture with a more visible person ... should I ?

... but it doesn't match the luminosity of the ground.

You should darken gradually the ground, and put a nice black frame around to make it more beautiful.

Could you post the original picture of the sky ?

I'm curious to see how you obtained such a sky.

It is in "Drafts" because of the low ratings (compared to others).

The blue glow comes from the type of film, wich has a blue cast to compensate a warmer temperature or color. Useful for indoor pictures under tungsten lights. Sometimes funny in other situations, but not every time.

Thanks to all for your comments and congrats.

Brassaï: don't compare this picture with Brassai's work. On this point, I agree with Andrew Lee (see above).Comparing to Brassaï is like saying "It's an Ansel Adams class picture" of a good black and white landscape picture.Please, look at Brassai's work and you'll see the difference.On some Brassai's pictures I saw a more black ambience, more feelings about the night (beeing alone, afraid, in the cold, etc ...) that this picture doesn't have. Also, Brassaï's night pictures often have a nice haze that diffuses the lights.

About the POW theme: when I uploaded this picture, it wasn't on a "big city" theme, but more on "night work". For the "big city" theme, I would rather choose Manhattan sunset (3) or East New York (3)."Rue Becquerel" was more an exercise on night photography and (digital) masking.

About the soul of Paris: I don't think 'Rue Becquerel' captures the soul of Paris.

For first time visitors, Paris is a romantic city, so for them a picture with lovers on the Seine could be a picture capturing the soul of Paris. And for others, a picture with night lights could be a better definition of the soul of Paris, "la ville lumière" (city of lights).

I think big cities have many different aspects that could lead to "many possible souls". I don't think a single picture could capture the soul of a very big city, except capturing "clichés". But a portfolio can.

About the blue hue of the picture (André Cortès): yes, it was added a slight blue cast. Congratulations, your screen is well calibrated ! ;-P

To Henri Manguy: I didn't use filters on this picture, except UV filter. I always have an UV filter to protect my lenses, and sometimes I use a polarizer (night + rain = playing with reflects). I used to play with red filters, but I prefer now to shoot in color films and filter in post-processing with the channel mixer (it makes possible the "nagative" filtering, which is impossible to do with glass filters; an example here: Manhattan (4) where I used "negative" gray and blue mixing). Although I love much more b&w than color, I shoot in color for the ease of use (easier for using IR dust removal on filmscanners, for filtering, a little cheaper than b&w film developping, ...).

To Joel Alfaro: for a 50mm Yashica lens, you'd better subscribe to the Yashica mailing list. They should have an answer to your question. I sold my Yashica one year ago, but I know a good shop in Paris 14ème that could help you. Email me if interested.

About the processing of night pictures: Mark Hansen's remarks about T-max and papers are interesting. But my process is actually different: I shoot on color films (Fuji Provia 100F is my preferred, sometimes Reala, Kodak EPY 64T or E100VS for night work) and scan directly the film on a film scanner. Then I make prints on photographic papers from the retouched files.

This gives me much much more control for a very little work time. Ten years ago, I would have to work hours and hours to obtain the same result in a darkroom. Two years before I thought a lot about buying all the darkroom stuff, but I preferred the "digital" stuff, as it's easier for me (I'm a little lazy).

Mark Hansen: I probably would have been kinder if the manipulated box had been checked as no.

When I uploaded this picture, the "Manipulated" check box didn't exist. As I scan all my pictures on a filmscanner, you can assume that all my pictures are more or less "retouched" by masking zones and controlling contrast of different zones. But that's the same thing you do in a darkroom: masking.

Nice composition, but too homogeneous sky and with a disturbing colorcast.

And in b&w, how does it look like ?

This composition leads the eye out of the picture.

What did you want to explain ?

Good job.

A dark blue sky would have balanced the warm colors of the lightings.

Well seen.

I would prefer a little more texture in the all white sky at the bottom.

Le ciel ocre, ça passe pas très bien.

Au sol, il y a une dominante tungstène assez visible.

Je la convertirais en noir et blanc et assombrirais le ciel.

Quand au cadrage, j'en sais trop rien. C'est difficile de faire quelque chose d'original tant tout a été fait comme photos à cet endroit.

Bien vu.

L'oeil est emprisonné dans la spirale et les trous de lumière au sol.

The two people in the bottom center could better participate in the picture, but here they are almost unvisible.

Can you go and redo it ?

But it is too dark. And the blur bars are ugly.

The texture may have been interesting, but not the oblique bars.

Il suffit de poser à f16 ou plus.

Et d'avoir un tirage qui ne brûle pas les lumières. Dans mon cas, je scanne directement le négatif, donc pas de problème de perte d'information au tirage.

About retouching

Here is the original.

It may break the magic, but ... here it is.