|
|
i posted these pictures in the comments of "ATL Rooftops" but i wanted to get some critiques (the scans came out weird so i tried to edit them as best as i could.)
rooftopping by scott_semler, on Flickr
rooftopping by scott_semler, on Flickr
| |
Awesome shots. Keep it up.
| |
Nice shots! What kind of critiques are you wanting?
| |
Posted by Oelky
Nice shots! What kind of critiques are you wanting?
|
i guess compositional type, as i dont really shoot roof top things much, and i just kinda lucked out with these. (like should i have tried to make the building straight in the frame on the first shot?)
| |
Very nice, the first one really looks like its drawn from pencil.
The Flickr shows a scanner for the source, were theses film?
[last edit 4/30/2015 2:17 AM by FrostyExchange - edited 1 times]
I enjoy photography , exploring, and computers/tech
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cybernight/
Support me and Order prints and such!/ | |
I'm digging the grain. That's all I know ;)
"Actually, this was an all male girls school. That's why it's empty." - HipsterKitty | |
That first shot is pretty sick. The composition is bold yet pleasing and the high-contrast B&W from the film scan(?) gives it a super retro look. I'm not sure how intentional it was, but it seems you placed the uprights (ie, where the lines of the building are straight up-and-down) about 1/3rd off from the right-hand side of the photo. That's a v. nice composition, slightly asymmetrical with the subject just off-center. The converging lines of the skyscraper (while not always a good compositional choice, particularly if there are horizontal lines in the lower half of the photo), work out quite well in this as the pyramid at the apex of the tower guides the eye to the spire at the top of the frame. Powerful shot, reminds me of Margaret Bourke-White's work 
The second seems a bit aimless to me... I think it could be improved by ensuring the camera is level, and panning slightly to the left so the highway, instead of entering the frame from the corner, rises from the left-bottom of the frame. A bit more exposure (a stop or two) would help as well I think. This would be a fantastic shot to make at dusk, when there is still some light in the sky but the ground is dim enough to allow a long exposure (8-30 seconds)that draws the car lights out into a stream of implied motion, while blurring the cars themselves.
Keep up the good work!
Technical questions- which camera/lens/film/scanner did you use, and what is your post-processing workflow?
| |
Posted by FrostyExchange
Very nice, the first one really looks like its drawn from pencil.
The Flickr shows a scanner for the source, were theses film?
|
yes! HP5 on my Canon A1!
| |
Posted by ATLviewer
I'm digging the grain. That's all I know ;)
|
thanks!! the beauty of film. 
| |
Posted by Quarantine
That first shot is pretty sick. The composition is bold yet pleasing and the high-contrast B&W from the film scan(?) gives it a super retro look. I'm not sure how intentional it was, but it seems you placed the uprights (ie, where the lines of the building are straight up-and-down) about 1/3rd off from the right-hand side of the photo. That's a v. nice composition, slightly asymmetrical with the subject just off-center. The converging lines of the skyscraper (while not always a good compositional choice, particularly if there are horizontal lines in the lower half of the photo), work out quite well in this as the pyramid at the apex of the tower guides the eye to the spire at the top of the frame. Powerful shot, reminds me of Margaret Bourke-White's work
The second seems a bit aimless to me... I think it could be improved by ensuring the camera is level, and panning slightly to the left so the highway, instead of entering the frame from the corner, rises from the left-bottom of the frame. A bit more exposure (a stop or two) would help as well I think. This would be a fantastic shot to make at dusk, when there is still some light in the sky but the ground is dim enough to allow a long exposure (8-30 seconds)that draws the car lights out into a stream of implied motion, while blurring the cars themselves.
Keep up the good work!
Technical questions- which camera/lens/film/scanner did you use, and what is your post-processing workflow?
|
thanks! i really like how the first shot looks although the scans were pretty difficult to work with.. the second shot is actually not as dark as the scan makes it out to be, maybe I'll print it, scan it and send it to you just so you can see it as i think it should be.
answers to your technical questions- camera: Canon A1, 50mm 1.8, HP5, Epson v700. and i mostly just use photoshop, occasionally lightroom. I'm pretty new to the scanning and editing workflow, as i usually do darkroom printing and find that dodging and burning are so much easier in printing than in photoshop. hope that answered those questions for you. (my other main shooter is a Yashica 635)
| |
Nice pics from one of my favorites here in Atlanta!
 Foggy Night in the A by LukeCrawford, on Flickr
Insta: @L_Craw | |
looks good! I'm also in Atlanta just btw.
| |
Posted by sweater_boy
looks good! I'm also in Atlanta just btw.
|
I know, I was referring to the rooftop you took that picture from being one of my favorites in Atlanta.
Insta: @L_Craw | |
Posted by sweater_boy
thanks! i really like how the first shot looks although the scans were pretty difficult to work with.. the second shot is actually not as dark as the scan makes it out to be, maybe I'll print it, scan it and send it to you just so you can see it as i think it should be.
answers to your technical questions- camera: Canon A1, 50mm 1.8, HP5, Epson v700. and i mostly just use photoshop, occasionally lightroom. I'm pretty new to the scanning and editing workflow, as i usually do darkroom printing and find that dodging and burning are so much easier in printing than in photoshop. hope that answered those questions for you. (my other main shooter is a Yashica 635)
|
Ahh! Canon A1 is a great camera- I used that one for awhile. And FD lenses are excellent and inexpensive now.
As far as the scanning workflow, if you are using VueScan I recommend exporting the images as inverted but not exposure-corrected DNG (the VueScan manual will tell you how to do that) and doing all the adjustments in Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom.
I'm not too familiar with the Epson software, but there should be an option to set the white point and black point- set those to the lightest and darkest parts of the image respectively. This will result in a fairly flat image, but one that retails detail and may be easier to work with in PhotoShop.
I find that getting more contrast right out of the scanning app is undesirable- contrast can always be added, but taking it away from B&W film scans can be problematic. Inverse goes for exposure- out of the scanner, the best results seem to come from making the output as bright as possible without mangling highlights. An ideal scan that's to be processed further in LR or PS should be flat and a bit overexposed.
As far as dodging & burning, I've found the Adjustment Brush in Lightroom far superior to the dodging and burning tools in PS. Just create a mask with it, and the type and intensity of filter can be tweaked to get the desired result.
Happy shooting!
| |
An addendum- I processed and printed B&W in a darkroom for awhile before switching to scanning my film, so I'm familiar with the print vs scan quality thing. Scanning is certainly a very different workflow, but if the bulk of the adjustments are done in Lightroom instead of the scanning app, the process will start to seem more intuitive (IMHO)
| |
Posted by Quarantine
Ahh! Canon A1 is a great camera- I used that one for awhile. And FD lenses are excellent and inexpensive now.
As far as the scanning workflow, if you are using VueScan I recommend exporting the images as inverted but not exposure-corrected DNG (the VueScan manual will tell you how to do that) and doing all the adjustments in Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom.
I'm not too familiar with the Epson software, but there should be an option to set the white point and black point- set those to the lightest and darkest parts of the image respectively. This will result in a fairly flat image, but one that retails detail and may be easier to work with in PhotoShop.
I find that getting more contrast right out of the scanning app is undesirable- contrast can always be added, but taking it away from B&W film scans can be problematic. Inverse goes for exposure- out of the scanner, the best results seem to come from making the output as bright as possible without mangling highlights. An ideal scan that's to be processed further in LR or PS should be flat and a bit overexposed.
As far as dodging & burning, I've found the Adjustment Brush in Lightroom far superior to the dodging and burning tools in PS. Just create a mask with it, and the type and intensity of filter can be tweaked to get the desired result.
Happy shooting!
|
yeah i will definitely try that for scanning. i have used the adjustments brush in lightroom and i do really like it, maybe i'll give it another go.
| |
rooftopping by scott_semler, on Flickr
| |
Love the view in the second one. The filter and angle reminds me a bit of old pictures of Atlanta's skyline.
| |
I am also in ATL if you are interested in linking up with me and my buddy we do alot of exploration down here.
| |
wow so beautiful!! i hope you enjoyed your first rooftop experience
|
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is currently Public. Anyone, including search engines, may see it. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 125 ms
|
|
Ethics
