matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
Perhaps I should talk about my picture at this point?
There are a number of things I like about this picture. Firstly I really like all those lines; the picture is full of diagonals, horizontals and verticals. There is also a mixture of thick, strong lines of the station and the thin, delicate lines in the cables. I definitely want to see this aspect of the picture retained and emphasised. As Guy points out it needs straightening but if you actually try it seems to throw other verticals out (barrel distortion maybe?)
The mirrored one #6 (using Vuk's numbering) is the most obvious use of these lines and it certainly makes for an arresting image and can genuinely lay claim to showing something about the image that I could never have imagined. Overall I find the effect rather too arresting though and its hard for me not to see it as somewhat contrived.
Secondly its obviously quite an atmospheric scene with the fog. It was a cold, November morning in the North of England (Preston in fact) and I want to see that cold and fog. This makes the slightly warmed version (#1) problematic for me. Another important aspect of this is the overal slightly ethereal effect -- its actually quite a delicate picture and, again, this contrasts with the "strength" and "weight" of the station. This delicate, foggy effect absolutely has to be maintained for me since, ultimately, its a picture of a cold, foggy train station. Even if you have never been to Preston (as dreary a place as it's possible to imagine) this is something with which most of us can identify.
Related to this is the issue of contrast. It is an image with a full range of tones including some very deep blacks but it's actually, because of the fog, quite an overall low contrast effect. This low contrast is key to the foggy-ness and so some of the very aggressively curved versions I don't like at all. Such curving also blocks up the shadows too much and throws away much of the detail and an awful lot of the delicate-ness I see. I definitely want to see the texture in the platform and the brickwork as well.
Finally is the issue of colour. It's obviously quite a monochromatic image and is, I guess, why many of you converted to B&W. However, I actually like the colour and see it as a part of the image's appeal and not something to be fought against. The colours and textures in the bricks and the fence on the far side are important I think and worth preserving.
Also the red and the green on the station pillars are definitely worth keeping -- because its mostly photographed in B&W we tend to see Victorian architecture as monochromatic and dull when actually it was colourful and indee often quite lurid (no pesky laws about lead paint!). There are also echoes of these colours in the modern buildings in the background.
Of the B&W versions I like #3 the most as it preserves the "delicate-ness" I see despite losing the colour. I think this one is quite deftly done. I'm afraid I don't like the "Metal" version #2 at all and am not terribly keen on the similar but less extreme #8 and #5. The whole point of the B&W retro film look is that its essentially and Auteur thing and really the only way to do it is with film and lots of practice. Imitating it in digital always looks nostalgic or even hopelessly sentimental to me even before we think about the technical problems.
The square crop doesn't convinve me at all. #7 has a look of those how to make a car look like a toy car photos we discussed a while back (where you fiddle with focus). Consequently it's got a reall Uncanny Valley issue for me.
But I have enjoyed looking at them all and I thank you all for taking the trouble to contribute.
BTW One of those is my recent reworking of this picture which you might be able to determine from my commentary. My original version is below although I don't like this at all and think it just shows how 2 years ago I was struggling to switch from B&W to colour and how my curving was so hamfisted that I problably just hadn't calibrated my monitor properly.
There are a number of things I like about this picture. Firstly I really like all those lines; the picture is full of diagonals, horizontals and verticals. There is also a mixture of thick, strong lines of the station and the thin, delicate lines in the cables. I definitely want to see this aspect of the picture retained and emphasised. As Guy points out it needs straightening but if you actually try it seems to throw other verticals out (barrel distortion maybe?)
The mirrored one #6 (using Vuk's numbering) is the most obvious use of these lines and it certainly makes for an arresting image and can genuinely lay claim to showing something about the image that I could never have imagined. Overall I find the effect rather too arresting though and its hard for me not to see it as somewhat contrived.
Secondly its obviously quite an atmospheric scene with the fog. It was a cold, November morning in the North of England (Preston in fact) and I want to see that cold and fog. This makes the slightly warmed version (#1) problematic for me. Another important aspect of this is the overal slightly ethereal effect -- its actually quite a delicate picture and, again, this contrasts with the "strength" and "weight" of the station. This delicate, foggy effect absolutely has to be maintained for me since, ultimately, its a picture of a cold, foggy train station. Even if you have never been to Preston (as dreary a place as it's possible to imagine) this is something with which most of us can identify.
Related to this is the issue of contrast. It is an image with a full range of tones including some very deep blacks but it's actually, because of the fog, quite an overall low contrast effect. This low contrast is key to the foggy-ness and so some of the very aggressively curved versions I don't like at all. Such curving also blocks up the shadows too much and throws away much of the detail and an awful lot of the delicate-ness I see. I definitely want to see the texture in the platform and the brickwork as well.
Finally is the issue of colour. It's obviously quite a monochromatic image and is, I guess, why many of you converted to B&W. However, I actually like the colour and see it as a part of the image's appeal and not something to be fought against. The colours and textures in the bricks and the fence on the far side are important I think and worth preserving.
Also the red and the green on the station pillars are definitely worth keeping -- because its mostly photographed in B&W we tend to see Victorian architecture as monochromatic and dull when actually it was colourful and indee often quite lurid (no pesky laws about lead paint!). There are also echoes of these colours in the modern buildings in the background.
Of the B&W versions I like #3 the most as it preserves the "delicate-ness" I see despite losing the colour. I think this one is quite deftly done. I'm afraid I don't like the "Metal" version #2 at all and am not terribly keen on the similar but less extreme #8 and #5. The whole point of the B&W retro film look is that its essentially and Auteur thing and really the only way to do it is with film and lots of practice. Imitating it in digital always looks nostalgic or even hopelessly sentimental to me even before we think about the technical problems.
The square crop doesn't convinve me at all. #7 has a look of those how to make a car look like a toy car photos we discussed a while back (where you fiddle with focus). Consequently it's got a reall Uncanny Valley issue for me.
But I have enjoyed looking at them all and I thank you all for taking the trouble to contribute.
BTW One of those is my recent reworking of this picture which you might be able to determine from my commentary. My original version is below although I don't like this at all and think it just shows how 2 years ago I was struggling to switch from B&W to colour and how my curving was so hamfisted that I problably just hadn't calibrated my monitor properly.
