What photo do you like better?

Which of these photos do you prefer?

  • Cropped

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Cropped with enhanced local contrast

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Uncropped

    Votes: 4 8.0%
  • Uncropped with enhanced local contrast

    Votes: 42 84.0%

  • Total voters
    50

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
114
Vancouver, BC
Which of these photos do you like the most (of the Madrid Post Office) and why? Or what else would you do?

1. Crop excludes traffic
2. As above with enhanced local contrast
3. Crop includes traffic
4. as above with enhanced local contrast







 

TheReef

macrumors 68000
Sep 30, 2007
1,888
166
NSW, Australia.
My vote would be for 4.

The crop of the first two doesn't sit well with me.
The foreground isn't particularly strong, but is better imo than cutting it right off.

I just tried cropping half way between the two crops you posted myself and think I prefer it:

EDIT, no I still prefer your version 4 :p
Having the building in the top portion of the frame puts emphasis on it's size, by the viewer looking up at it.

Nice shot VR! :)
 

btdpi007

macrumors member
Jun 9, 2009
45
6
North Carolina
As I viewed the first picture I thought, "This is really good, but would've been a lot better had he/she captured the street" and as I made my way to the 3rd and 4th pictures I thought, "Yep, I was correct!" ;)

3 and 4 are great... I'd say the subtle adjustments in 4 make it the best of the bunch. Great capture!
 

xStep

macrumors 68020
Jan 28, 2003
2,012
99
Less lost in L.A.
I like the first one. I find the traffic distracting from the subject of the building and also find the contrast over done. The first one is just more pleasing to my eye.
 

fcortese

macrumors demi-god
Apr 3, 2010
2,108
3,054
Big Sky country
I'm with the majority. 4 gets my nod. I like the lights of the flow of traffic which adds a dynamic quality to the picture. The enhanced brings out more detail in the building, the colors are richer and the sky looks much better. Overall, a much more pleasing picture and tells more of a story than the cropped ones.
 

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
114
Vancouver, BC
It's interesting hearing your feedback... I originally thought it would look better without the traffic, but then after pondering it some more, like many who have commented, I also prefer some added foreground even if it's not that great.

I was concerned that the enhanced local contrast added too much of an HDR look, but I like what it does... it really brings out a lot of detail in the building. Making it look much less flat. For those interested, It's a NIK filter that seems to work well with architecture in general called "Tone Contrast".

BTW, this was done with the camera resting on a trash can as I was without my tripod. :eek:

Keep the comments coming.
 

fcortese

macrumors demi-god
Apr 3, 2010
2,108
3,054
Big Sky country
How long of an exposure was this?
EXIF data says 12.3 sec. you can get an add on for your browser to reveal this info. If you are using Safari there is an extension called ExifExt. Firefox will have EXIF add-ons as well. by right clicking on a photo you can see the EXIF data unless the photo was uploaded from Flicker, for example.
 

Prodo123

macrumors 68020
Nov 18, 2010
2,326
9
#4, except you need to level it. I think around 0.2° counterclockwise.
(crooked photos are the bane of my existence)
 

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
114
Vancouver, BC
#4, except you need to level it. I think around 0.2° counterclockwise.
(crooked photos are the bane of my existence)
I agree... I generally can't stand crooked photos either! :)

I just checked it again in Aperture, and you're right it needs some adjustment, but by the guidelines in Aperture, I need to rotate the building about 0.2° clockwise :confused:. I'm using the main horizontal lines across the center of the structure. Note, there is a bit of lens distortion causing the towers on either side to lean in and an optical illusion going on with the traffic flowing down and to the right that may be causing the image to need to be balanced counter-clockwise to compensate?
 

Prodo123

macrumors 68020
Nov 18, 2010
2,326
9
I agree... I generally can't stand crooked photos either! :)

I just checked it again in Aperture, and you're right it needs some adjustment, but by the guidelines in Aperture, I need to rotate the building about 0.2° clockwise :confused:. I'm using the main horizontal lines across the center of the structure. Note, there is a bit of lens distortion causing the towers on either side to lean in and an optical illusion going on with the traffic flowing down and to the right that may be causing the image to need to be balanced counter-clockwise to compensate?
*gets left and right confused momentarily*
xD lol, you're right. My bad.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,617
438
Redondo Beach, California
I would top just a little off the bottom of the last image. Kep the foreground. But place corest the perspective and get the vertical line all parallel.

With a view camera you would correct this problem using a lens shift. With a small format camera like yours you can simply us a wider lens, keep the camera level and crop more. But it appears you tilted the camera upward and caused the converging lines. You can fix that in Photoshop.
 

100Teraflops

macrumors 6502a
Mar 1, 2011
616
0
Elyria, Ohio
I like number 4, but I voted for number 2. Don't ask why, as I had a blonde moment! Minus one from number two and add it to number four! Whew, I'm glad that's over! :D

VR, great photo by the way! I love the dark blue sky with the golden colored building!
 

alphaod

macrumors Core
Feb 9, 2008
22,167
1,212
NYC
#4

Cropped pictures #1 & #2 is like cutting the foot off of people in the picture. I hate it when I let someone else take a picture of me and I find my feet are missing and the background looks like a backdrop.

I'm going to assume this is HDR from the weird shadows going on.
 

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
114
Vancouver, BC
#4

I'm going to assume this is HDR from the weird shadows going on.
#2 and #4 use a NIK filter called Tone Contrast that increase (exaggerate?) the local contrast which tends to give the building an HDR like look. One benefit is that it brings out the textures of the stone work and facades however I'm not sure I like the effect because it seems a bit unnatural. I may play with it and see if I can tone it down.

#3 is pretty much straight out of the camera with a tad bit of sharpening applied.
 

Lunfai

macrumors 65816
Nov 21, 2010
1,378
282
Sheffield
I like number 4 the best because the tree has more depth then number 3. Theres more depth in the shadow and colours which makes it look more interesting. I find that number 1 and 2 looks good, but it feels like there's something missing (the traffic), and after seeing the later it just doesn't look right.

Just by looking at the tree, I liked #4 from #3.
 

Similar threads

  • gigapocket1
1
Replies
1
Views
119
  • oblomow
51
Replies
51
Views
2K
  • snipper
0
Replies
0
Views
123
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.