Kamala

On 3/18/2024 at 8:21 PM, wogears said:

It's a nicely composed picture, but the shadows are definitely blocked. I don't know if you can raise the values, but I think it would help.

Thanks @wogears. I can try and see how that will look. For most part, I thought this was the best tones I could get.

On 3/18/2024 at 3:26 PM, michael_kucinich said:

Very nice image, Kamala. Darkening down that light at the top center I think is wise. I would like to see the bright sheen on the floor on the right side darkenend down as to my eye, it takes away from the staircase.

Thanks Michael. That is true. Right side can be a little less brighter.

@dcstep @mikemorrellNL @hjoseph7 Thank you for all the comments, inputs and discussion.  I am attaching the image I worked on again, with a slightly more saturated skies and slightly overexposed foreground... I like this better ! One aspect I am missing in this picture are the sand textures and details, which is what I was trying to bring out. but unsuccessful. Most of my shots on this trip could not capture those details. 

The skies that day was amazing. I was scouting the landscape that evening and I got this one amazing shot I could share. I expected to get similar skies at least for a day to lock in my location, but skies did not cooperate.

I post process my pictures a lot and play with colors, tones and saturation quite a bit. I want to bring out my experience I had. My initial thinking was not to go with too much post processing. But I did learn that many professionals do post process to bring out the mood. So, I decided to post process my images, at times a lot! 

I used to oversaturate my pictures, and I did get inputs on those images by previous version of photo net members. 

I will play with these images again. I usually revisit images once in a few months and give it another look. At times a fresh look provides more/better ideas!

On 2/26/2024 at 12:23 PM, dcstep said:

I'm torn about the contrast. As is, I think it emphasizes the stair. If they hired you to take this image, you'd ditch the crowd control ropes and the sign, but you can't do that.

There's lots of natural light coming in. I wonder how that'd change earlier or later.

 

It's beautiful but reflects the "in use" status. Maybe someone going up or coming down the stair would pull even more attention to the stair, as is. As I said, "torn." I want to see the stair as a beautiful work of art, without the distraction of the sign and ropes, but if I can't have that, maybe I want to see it in use.

@dcstep, Thanks for the comments and inputs. Yes, I would keep the contrast just because there isn't much details. It is too shiny even if I reduce a little bit. 

I went there when there was too much light. Unfortunately, this was summer and Smithsonian's open and close when there is too much light and cannot do much about it.

Definitely like the idea about having someone on the staircase. Adds to the story. Ropes, I think I have to just leave it. They were all over! just couldn't avoid.

On 2/26/2024 at 8:29 AM, Tony Parsons said:

Very nice example of interior architecture - good composition, well exposed. Couple of minor suggestions - could the bright highlight top centre be eliminated or toned down, either by cropping or cloning? Also, would the image benefit from being less contrasty, retain more of the details in the shadows ? 

Thanks, Tony. I can eliminate the bright highlight. I tried playing with contrast, reducing contrast makes it shiny rather than extract details. There is not much texture to the 'railing' and hence the darker tones. Ropes, I could not help. I have a portrait version to get rid of ropes, but the composition isn't great. 

This is a picture of Smithsonian - Staircase architecture is beautiful. I want to submit this to a local gallery show (juried). Critique please and inputs for improvement is greatly appreciated. Thanks! 

@dcstep thanks for the inputs and feedback... Agreed, I was very focussed on the desert and foreground. I did capture some good sky but I was so overwhelmed with desert beauty, I might have missed capturing it.

Modified Picture... With all the comments, I reworked the picture. Some more cropping for modifications to the composition, increased contrast.

On 3/8/2023 at 7:10 PM, mickeysimpson said:

Kamala, what building is this.  Excellent shot!

Hi Mickeysimpson, This the inside architecture of National Museum of American Indian, Smithsonian in DC

On 3/17/2023 at 8:22 PM, michael_kucinich said:

This image is well exposed and processed. I believe the very center of the Rotunda is too close to the center of the image and that it might be more dynamic/ interesting if the very center of the rotunda was moved off the center of the image.

Thanks, Michael. Worth a try. I will try that.

On 3/27/2023 at 5:55 PM, marc_rochkind said:

A few suggestions:

1. This may be due to the limited reproduction here, but perhaps there could be some more definition in the upper-left part of the spiral. The bands are merging together.

2. The partial oval at the left isn't part of the main subject and is distracting. I'd crop it away.

3. Increase the contrast. This may also address #1.

I will definitely try the bullet 3. That could fix a lot of things.  I can play with composition by cropping... I did that but I thought this was the best. Will give it a try again.

On 6/1/2023 at 5:22 PM, Robin Smith said:

The composition is a classic rule of thirds with respect to horizontal placement, and it works well. You could change it, but I'd leave alone

Thanks, @Robin Simth. One thing I wonder is the details... I did like the composition, but I still think something is missing.

Exposure to get the colors of the sky. Not much sand features with this exposure. Comments/critique appreciated.

15 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

Up to you but FWIW, I think that your foreground, trees and the half-dome are 'dramatic' in their own right.

In addition to the points made above about light direction, for me the dramatic red/orange 'sunset' sky kind of dominates the photo. Or at least competes with the foreground for attention. As a results the half-dome looks pale and slightly 'uncomfortable' sandwiched between two bands of deep, warm color. So a different sky - even a 'dramatic' one - is fine. I would just consider whether the color and detail of the new sky complements the 'presence' of the half-dome or detracts from it. 

In terms of visual perception of depth, warmer (red/orange), more saturated colors tend to 'advance' in paintings and photos. Cooler and/or less saturated colors tend to 'recede'. So you might want to experiment with a cooler, less saturated sky.

 

 

Agreed. The original photo has clear blue sky and the light is quite harsh on the rock face. This was the reason why I wanted to modify the sky. Thanks for the inputs. I will try with the other sky backgrounds, may be not as dramatic.

4 minutes ago, William Michael said:

What Conrad wrote: The light illuminating the sky in the background, appears as a 'falsehood' to the light which is illuminating the rocks and the grass.

That's what my eye first saw, and I was jarred.

I expect I was jarred instantly because of this recent post.

Have a look at this Light House photo LINK - each of us has very similar sky lighting types and sky formations, albeit yours is a more dramatic sky. Both are synonymous with the sun rising (or arguably setting) in the background. Your middle-ground and fore-ground appears that the sun is front on; about 30 degrees off camera axis and at about 60 degrees downward, from camera right whereas my image depicts flat reflected lighting from the front.

Not suggesting that such an image could not be 'real' - but when the topic is "Composite, Modified Picture" one can't help but to initially look for 'flaws' - and my eye saw that, as a big one.

WW     

Thanks, William. I should have paid more attention to the light direction.... Will work on that. I have a few dramatic skies that I have shot over the years. Foreground at these locations were not amazing,... Any case, I will need to figure the right background to modify this.

25 minutes ago, conrad_hoffman said:

Technically it's not bad but the big flaw for me is the lighting that would have produced that sky doesn't seem consistent with the lighting on the scene. It's like the sun is setting (rising?) both behind me and over the rock formation.

Thanks, Conrad. Agreed. Did not pay good attention to that. The pinkish color may imply sunlight/sunset is somewhere towards the right (or left)-front  (southwest) of the dome. The presence of orangish color might also suggest that sunset is behind the dome. But the shadow definitely says sunlight is somewhere towards the southeast of the dome... Sky colors might not be consistent as well. colors suggest sunset (or sunrise) is being the rock.

Kamala

I modified this picture to alter the sky. I can see a few obvious flaws, which might seem minor. Real eyes may catch these flaws. Appreciate if you all can provide inputs. I have been trying to work on some of my pictures to modify the background... 

On 2/22/2023 at 9:23 PM, jc1305us said:

I love it. Sharp, nice tones, and very abstract. Well done!

Thanks, @jc1305us

2 hours ago, mickeysimpson said:

Kamala, what building is this.  Excellent shot!

Hi Mick,

Thanks for the compliments. This is the shot of the rotunda looking up, like you can see. The building is Smithsonian - American Indian Museum. The architecture of this building is very unique. Both internal and external!

20 hours ago, samstevens said:

I think the cropping will depend on how abstract the photographer wants it to be. Context is something often removed in order to create more true abstracts. Since this is titled with the word abstract, I assumed that was the goal, so I’d agree with the context being cropped out. If, on the other hand, the goal is less about abstraction, some context will provide a more filled-in narrative. Because I think the context here feels visually a bit awkward, there’s a good case to me made for removing it and sticking to the instinct the title suggests, which is abstract. 

Thanks, @samstevensGot it... As a novice in abstract, I now understand the thinking on cropping! Thank you both for the wonderful inputs.

I took this shot using a 14mm fish-eye lens. I liked the effect of columns curved a bit. Appreciate inputs.

8 hours ago, Marv Thompson said:

I'm sure you saw an image there that was worth exploring. This is the image that I coaxed out of the original. My eye was drawn to the people in the upper left but there is so much extraneous information that they fade into the background. This crop doesn't pull them to the front but they add an element of "chaos" the the geometry of the stairs, floor and stairwell. Maybe the shadow in the center could be a little darker but I don't think it would really make that big a difference. Otherwise the tonality is pleasing. I hope this helps.

Thanks, Marv, for the detailed critique. Agree with you that the people on the top of the image not add too much to stairs composition. I included that section of the image to provide context to the whole story. I also liked the bright squares to the top right that adds to the entire space. I honestly did not think of the shadow in the center. I can try and darken it and check how that will turn out.

Just now, Ricochetrider said:

A lovely, (and vertiginous) photo. Kind of mesmerizing, well done! 

Thank you, @Ricochetrider... if there was this continuous spiral movement, I would have ended up in 'twilight zone', :-). Building is amazing.

25 minutes ago, jc1305us said:

I love it. Sharp, nice tones, and very abstract. Well done!

Thank you, @jc1305us. I am planning to send it to a couple of local B&W photo contests. Hope it is competitive enough...