Comments please

mctiny · 3 Apr 2007 at 23:33

A)Original shot, auto levels and straightened.

or
B)Auto levels, straightened, contrast and saturation edits.

Which would you choose to have printed at 30X20 inches?

Anything else ?

paddy · 3 Apr 2007 at 23:40

hmm, probably the 2nd - but I am on a rubbish laptop screen.

I would strongly suggest a rule of 1/3s crop.
Crop the picture so the sea takes up the bottom 1/3 of the image, I think that would make the whole thing feel more balanced - in my opinion of course

themask70 · 4 Apr 2007 at 00:11

As has been said, you need to crop to the rule of thirds and out of interest which camera were you using when you took this? It may be that you have compressed the image so it has lost pixel quality but to my eyes these would look very pixalted at 30x20.

mctiny · 4 Apr 2007 at 20:01

themask70 said:
As has been said, you need to crop to the rule of thirds and out of interest which camera were you using when you took this? It may be that you have compressed the image so it has lost pixel quality but to my eyes these would look very pixalted at 30x20.

I never thought about "the rule of thirds" :confused:

Camera is a Canon Powershot S2 IS, I have upsampled the photo ready for 30x20, these are just smaller versions and now way the orinial.

Bolerus · 4 Apr 2007 at 23:32

for me, I prefer number 1

number 2 is just a little too bright, and my first reaction is to want to squint, could be because the sun is centre stage so to speak, if it was off to one side it might be different, dont know.

but number 1 is my choice

Spuds · 5 Apr 2007 at 00:08

1 looks a little washed out on my monitor so I'd say 2 and definatly crop either the sky or sea to put the horizon on a third

pixie_ladyxx · 5 Apr 2007 at 00:29

i really like number two, i think that if you cropped the sea to the rule of thirds, then i think you would loose the vastness, and the sun shimmmering down on it is a big part of the picture which is beautiful so it would be a shame to loose it.

ranarama · 5 Apr 2007 at 01:17

The 2nd is better. It has a bit more impact than the first, the colours and contrast are a little more vibrant.

The one big downer for me is the sun is smack in the middle of the photo and it is so bright it just overtakes the rest of the shot. My eyes are so drawn to it whenever I start looking at the landscape on the left or the cityscape on the right I'm just drawn right back to the middle and the big burnt out exposure of the sun.

As other have said think about the rule of 3rds on both horizontal and vertical planes. It's not the be all and end all of photography but it's a good start. Rules are there to be broken. They are broken here but it doesn't work IMO.

BTW I take it that is that Rio from Niteroi. I went to Brazil last year - amazing place.

s2pro_snuggles · 5 Apr 2007 at 13:09

i would use 2 and just try and back off the brightness and perhaps sharpen, mind i am just learning the ways of adobe photoshop so i might not be one to talk

mctiny · 5 Apr 2007 at 17:38

ranarama said:
The 2nd is better. It has a bit more impact than the first, the colours and contrast are a little more vibrant.

I like the 1st one as it is the original, but these reason alone are why I edited it.

ranarama said:
The one big downer for me is the sun is smack in the middle of the photo and it is so bright it just overtakes the rest of the shot. My eyes are so drawn to it whenever I start looking at the landscape on the left or the cityscape on the right I'm just drawn right back to the middle and the big burnt out exposure of the sun.

That approach I wanted for it, I wanted the impact of the shot to be powerful, after all this is shot will be placed on a wall for all to admire from afar.

ranarama said:
As other have said think about the rule of 3rds on both horizontal and vertical planes. It's not the be all and end all of photography but it's a good start. Rules are there to be broken. They are broken here but it doesn't work IMO.

Something I didn't think of but I'm going to try the "Thirds".

ranarama said:
BTW I take it that is that Rio from Niteroi. I went to Brazil last year - amazing place.

Who did you guess that?

It indeed is Rio from Niteroi (my new home soon

) taken from next to the MAC if you know it).

ranarama · 5 Apr 2007 at 23:35

mctiny said:
Who did you guess that?
It indeed is Rio from Niteroi (my new home soon) taken from next to the MAC if you know it).

The odd pixel where the Christ the Redeemer statue is gave it away - very distinctive piece of rock, even at that distance. Our guide in Rio said the best thing about Niteroi was the view

. I don't know the MAC - is that the enormous bridge that connects the two.

I loved Brazil. It's a messed up place but I'd be quite happy living there for a couple of years, particularly as I'm more into my photography than I was when I was there. Having said that it'd have to be in Rio. We stayed in Salvador for a while which was an interesting place and great for photography but I really felt on edge all the time. In Rio I was much more relaxed and the rumours of crime I think are greatly exaggerated. You just have to be careful.

mctiny · 6 Apr 2007 at 15:04

ranarama said:
The odd pixel where the Christ the Redeemer statue is gave it away - very distinctive piece of rock, even at that distance. Our guide in Rio said the best thing about Niteroi was the view . I don't know the MAC - is that the enormous bridge that connects the two.

I loved Brazil. It's a messed up place but I'd be quite happy living there for a couple of years, particularly as I'm more into my photography than I was when I was there. Having said that it'd have to be in Rio. We stayed in Salvador for a while which was an interesting place and great for photography but I really felt on edge all the time. In Rio I was much more relaxed and the rumours of crime I think are greatly exaggerated. You just have to be careful.

the MAC is the strange UFO style museum in Niteroi. looks like