Often, I will clone out a few distracting details from an image, but it's rare that I take out a whole building. In this case though, there was something about the original that suggested that those extra few miles would be worth the journey.
And in case you're wondering what I'm talking about, this is a reworked version of the image that I put up about three hours ago (i.e. my previous entry).
captured camera lens aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped?
1.23pm on 18/9/07
Canon 5D
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
f/4.0
1/800
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
C1 Pro
1x1
comment by Oscar at 12:03 AM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
I liked the first version better, I don't know if it's the crop or the building, mostly the crop I think.
comment byspoon at 12:05 AM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
I don't think you did, but it looks like you had removed some of the chains that go down the stairs, as well. This girls pose make me think, that she holds an invisible chain with her right hand. Anyway - both are interesting pictures, and you're right - it was worth to clone out the building.
Sorry Dave this one does not do it for me, that sky is completely superfluous. It just needed a simple crop. I don't think the toilet building was that obvious. The light section on the extreme left is a distraction. Do you ever wish you had not started something?
comment byLuisa at 12:45 AM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
Nonsense. This is a fantastic surreal picture, and the previous one is a bad composition of a good subject.
I have to agree with Luisa. This is quite surreal and very original shot from Dave's other works. I like the contrast between the light and darkness and little cute girl in the middle is great. I like it :)
comment byg at 08:05 AM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
I don't know how I feel about the color toned spotlight on an obese child. Poor thing. I'd rather see a photo of her lazy parents drinking Bud in front of their double-wide.
comment byJosef Renklint at 08:16 AM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
Interesting shot. I like the color mixed with the b+w.
comment byJennifer at 08:22 AM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
Dave
Ouch, now you see, you've created a split decision, and a difficult dilemna for me. First off I like off the hip shots, that work on certain levels, but that arent necessarily technically perfect, but yet have a unique juxtoposition, little girl (retro look) with portacabins, and the like in the background, it made me question, time and location. This new crop, albiet technically more sound is a shot of a little girl on some steps. Would a 2x1 crop with a little more of the pillar at the top of the frame, so that its not edging out of the frame have been better?, and possibly with a tad less colour drop on the steps and sand. Oooooo the debate. However because I'm sat questioning it, it means I obviously relate to it on one level or another.... good stuff. Craig@id7.co.uk
comment by Oli at 12:56 PM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
Much better - the desaturated colour and the expanse of space at the top give a really bleak feel to the photograph. It really is grim Oop North...
comment byfrisky? at 12:57 PM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
nice one dave... love the selective colouring.
comment byJoe Holmes at 01:04 PM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
This square version -- much superio.
comment byli at 04:21 PM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
I find the top part of the image too empty, although it is better than the last one which does not even have a top part. to be frankly, I dont really get it what is that makes this photo appeal to you, to me they are just dont work out, and the little girl looks like a small old lady from this distance.
comment byNigelC at 04:27 PM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
Of the two I prefer this second image. It seems to have a free-er and therefore more innocent feel. To me the previous is verging on the sinister - I don't know why, perhaps it is the buildings in the first image that give an 'institution' and therefore a more sombre feel; perhaps it is the crop which emphisises the concrete steps and the chains, perhaps the child is too dominant in the frame. For some reason, the toning (for me) sets both images in the 1940's - 50's - a time of hardship and misunderstanding - but whilst the second is 'the day we went to bangor' the first is something darker.
comment bydjn1 at 09:13 PM (GMT) on 24 September, 2007
Thanks all.
comment by Sharla at 12:46 AM (GMT) on 25 September, 2007
When I saw this shot yesterday, I had missed the day before and didn't have that reference. Now having seen both, I much prefer this one. My initial impression was something post-industrial from the 20's/30's, even the girl. It really works without the buildings and with a large sky because it all adds to the desolation and timelessness. The environment is cold, unfriendly, unforgiving, which all beg the question: why is this girl here? Who could let this happen?
comment bycrash at 01:51 AM (GMT) on 25 September, 2007
she doesn't look happy !
comment byAlison at 03:45 PM (GMT) on 25 September, 2007
Selective colouring is something I normally detest (seen it done wrongly in too many times!) but I didn't even question the use of it here. Well done.
comment by m at 09:36 PM (GMT) on 25 September, 2007
The extra effort wasn't needed. You didn't add anything advantage and the cold white sky takes away from the shot.
comment byRonald at 10:11 PM (GMT) on 25 September, 2007
Ai!
Totally missed out on this one, and several others I am afraid...as you are putting up your images at this fast rate...
I see i cannot afford to miss your blog for one day! ;-)
Must say this is another of my favorites though!
I do like the surreal and heavvy on contrasts shots..
And the extraordinary in the scene.
First thing that came to my mind was: Martin Parr.
Not because of the postprocessing but for the image as is...
Hope you are not offended, it is meant as a compliment!
It is almost a caricature and could easily be a "Parr-ish girl at the beach..."
comment byJamie at 01:29 PM (GMT) on 29 September, 2007
I like this one better. The white sky is a bit distracting, but all that negative space makes the little girl feel smaller and more overwhelmed, which goes well with her expression and body language. Kind of a "Well, I'm here to play ...I guess. Yay?" feeling.
Often, I will clone out a few distracting details from an image, but it's rare that I take out a whole building. In this case though, there was something about the original that suggested that those extra few miles would be worth the journey.
And in case you're wondering what I'm talking about, this is a reworked version of the image that I put up about three hours ago (i.e. my previous entry).
camera
lens
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
Canon 5D
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
f/4.0
1/800
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
C1 Pro
1x1
I liked the first version better, I don't know if it's the crop or the building, mostly the crop I think.
I don't think you did, but it looks like you had removed some of the chains that go down the stairs, as well. This girls pose make me think, that she holds an invisible chain with her right hand. Anyway - both are interesting pictures, and you're right - it was worth to clone out the building.
Sorry Dave this one does not do it for me, that sky is completely superfluous. It just needed a simple crop. I don't think the toilet building was that obvious. The light section on the extreme left is a distraction. Do you ever wish you had not started something?
Nonsense. This is a fantastic surreal picture, and the previous one is a bad composition of a good subject.
I have to agree with Luisa. This is quite surreal and very original shot from Dave's other works. I like the contrast between the light and darkness and little cute girl in the middle is great. I like it :)
I don't know how I feel about the color toned spotlight on an obese child. Poor thing. I'd rather see a photo of her lazy parents drinking Bud in front of their double-wide.
Interesting shot. I like the color mixed with the b+w.
I liked the other but this is miles better.
Dave
Ouch, now you see, you've created a split decision, and a difficult dilemna for me. First off I like off the hip shots, that work on certain levels, but that arent necessarily technically perfect, but yet have a unique juxtoposition, little girl (retro look) with portacabins, and the like in the background, it made me question, time and location. This new crop, albiet technically more sound is a shot of a little girl on some steps. Would a 2x1 crop with a little more of the pillar at the top of the frame, so that its not edging out of the frame have been better?, and possibly with a tad less colour drop on the steps and sand. Oooooo the debate. However because I'm sat questioning it, it means I obviously relate to it on one level or another.... good stuff. Craig@id7.co.uk
Much better - the desaturated colour and the expanse of space at the top give a really bleak feel to the photograph. It really is grim Oop North...
nice one dave... love the selective colouring.
This square version -- much superio.
I find the top part of the image too empty, although it is better than the last one which does not even have a top part. to be frankly, I dont really get it what is that makes this photo appeal to you, to me they are just dont work out, and the little girl looks like a small old lady from this distance.
Of the two I prefer this second image. It seems to have a free-er and therefore more innocent feel. To me the previous is verging on the sinister - I don't know why, perhaps it is the buildings in the first image that give an 'institution' and therefore a more sombre feel; perhaps it is the crop which emphisises the concrete steps and the chains, perhaps the child is too dominant in the frame. For some reason, the toning (for me) sets both images in the 1940's - 50's - a time of hardship and misunderstanding - but whilst the second is 'the day we went to bangor' the first is something darker.
Thanks all.
When I saw this shot yesterday, I had missed the day before and didn't have that reference. Now having seen both, I much prefer this one. My initial impression was something post-industrial from the 20's/30's, even the girl. It really works without the buildings and with a large sky because it all adds to the desolation and timelessness. The environment is cold, unfriendly, unforgiving, which all beg the question: why is this girl here? Who could let this happen?
she doesn't look happy !
Selective colouring is something I normally detest (seen it done wrongly in too many times!) but I didn't even question the use of it here. Well done.
The extra effort wasn't needed. You didn't add anything advantage and the cold white sky takes away from the shot.
Ai!
Totally missed out on this one, and several others I am afraid...as you are putting up your images at this fast rate...
I see i cannot afford to miss your blog for one day! ;-)
Must say this is another of my favorites though!
I do like the surreal and heavvy on contrasts shots..
And the extraordinary in the scene.
First thing that came to my mind was: Martin Parr.
Not because of the postprocessing but for the image as is...
Hope you are not offended, it is meant as a compliment!
It is almost a caricature and could easily be a "Parr-ish girl at the beach..."
I like this one better. The white sky is a bit distracting, but all that negative space makes the little girl feel smaller and more overwhelmed, which goes well with her expression and body language. Kind of a "Well, I'm here to play ...I guess. Yay?" feeling.