What photo do you like better?

[VirtualRain]

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]

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
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!

 

[docx]

Number 4

 

[maflynn]

Number 4 for me

 

[ericvmazzone]

Number 4. The contrast helps the building stand out and the traffic emphasizes the tallness of the building.

 

[btdpi007]

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!

 

[snberk103]

Number 4.... for reasons stated above....

 

[I AM THE MAN]

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

Image

Image

Image

Image

Number 4.

 

[xStep]

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]

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.

 

[Dhelsdon]

Definitely #4

I love traffic streams, and the contrast and exposure are more appealing to me.

 

[r.harris1]

Definitely #4. The contrast looks good, plus the juxtaposition of the dynamic motion of the traffic with the lit up massive building adds interest.

 

[VirtualRain]

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.

Keep the comments coming.

 

[Dhelsdon]

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

Keep the comments coming.

How long of an exposure was this?

 

[fcortese]

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]

#4, except you need to level it. I think around 0.2° counterclockwise.
(crooked photos are the bane of my existence)

 

[VirtualRain]

#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 . 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]

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 . 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]

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]

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!

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

 

[alphaod]

#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]

#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.

 

[joepunk]

I like the ones with the traffic included. Perhaps cut a little of the bottom street off.

 

[Lunfai]

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.