Fall Landscape in the City 1

[nitroq2]

Welll I am definately not one to critique Hards but I see see a haze onhis image. The second pic even though it looks over processed and kinda harsh, it does remove most of the haze. The haze to me seems to be from the ground to the top of trees almost like a fog just really really light. I am using an LG 20" LCD not sure about it but will look tomorrow on some CRTs at work.But I like the shot, and I am jealous I have pretty trees close to me but they are in the middle of parking lots or next to buildings and I just dont see a shot.

Since we are on this subject does anyone use any hardware color correction, if so what kind and are you seeing this haze?

[vIZnquest]

Printed both shots on the same page. This definitely has me keepingmy CRT over an LCD. I tried some PP with my laptop and the printed results were not very good in comparison to my CRT which is a VeiwSonic g90fb (a graphics monitor). I am sure it can be done with an LCD but I am happy with what I have to work with and it comes down to that for anyone for that matter.

Dustin,

Good shot and I don't have much to say in the form of a critique. The cars do add to it rather than detract.


style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"In shots like these I see some CA and a bit of hot sky but nary a hint of any of that.

[nitroq2]

Gotta be my eyes printed his pic and the haze seems to still be there mostly present on the yellowish tree on the left and all that surrounds it from the ground to the top of the yellow tree.

[Geminichild]

I dont think its your eye's it's on my screen too, but the one that was redone by nymph looks 100% better no haze or cast through out the pic, so I dont know what is going on.

[E.S. Crawford]

color or b&w. i think the merrit is in the shot itself.

i really like the lines. from street to trees to rocks.

ps can take care of everything you can have with a shot, but it's the photographers

perspective that makes the image work.

d-man, i'm not kissing your butt or anything here, but i love the shot for what it is.

a great eye and an artistic heart.

looking foreward to your next example!


scot

[LBoy]

The original just needs a contrast boost...

[LBoy]

The original just needs a contrast boost...

[peripatetic]

LBoy wrote:

The original just needs a contrast boost...

Agreed.

When it comes to this forum I don't think it's worth making too much out of 1/2 stop exposure issues, general sharpness and minor contrast issues.

The reason I say this is that it's the print that counts and most people don't have colour-calibrated monitors.

I'm buying a spider soon, but for now what I see on my monitor isn't what everyone else sees.

What matters is the print and you should adjust your final sharpening, exposure and contrast to make the print look right. Everyone has different printers too and labs vary also.

I had some prints made at a Fuji lab recently, and compared to my R800 they came out maybe 1/3 stop darker and with a green cast - which was deja vu, because that's exactly the reason I didn't like Fuji film and always used to use Kodak. So next time I'll adjust for that before taking them in.

For me the most interesting comments here are about composition and general technique rather than minor tweaks for web output that will have to be changed for print anyway.

So with that in mind... I like the composition and it's a cityscape so I don't feel the cars detract at all. You have an interesting sky and good colours. I do think that perhaps the horizon might be better if you straightened it up a bit, and there is a 50/50 split sky to land, which doesn't work well in general; here though it doesn't bother me too much because the trees are good focal points and there is plenty of detail in both the foreground and the sky. Perhaps a good time to break the 50/50 "rule".

As with most landscapes you can't get a feel for the detail in the shot on a small web graphic, but I think an A4 or A3 sized print would be very pleasing.

[Hards80]

first off, thank you to all that have responded... comments are always much appreciated on this end!!

a bit of contrast boost to the original .tif really made the shot without overprocessed look, so thank ya LB for picking that out..

peripatetic- i figured someone would mention the horizon, this is actually set on a hill, and i was unsure whether to go with it, or try to straighten it.. i just went with the hill as if i tried to fix it the trees look a little funky.. and i did as well try to get the horizon out of the center, but then i lost foreground or trees.. so i think this is one where a 50/50 split was necessary..

once again, thanks to all for commenting!!

[nitroq2]

I dont think anyone was saying the shot was bad but we were in fact questioning whether the fog was our monitors or in the shot. If it is in the shot then no biggy if its in my monitor then I obviously need to get it replaced. As for the printing issue, my R1800 looks close to what I get from the lab. And usually is as close to what I see on the screen. It may very well be I have something somewhere in my color profiles wrong, and this was what I was getting at, I love the shot and its composition is as with all of dustins shots. I am new to this and simply wanted to ensure that my color profiles were not what was causing this. Sorry if it sounded as if I were attacking the image, I was only stating what I seen.That was the reason I ask if anyone was using spyder2 or any other hardware if they were seeing it.

Allen