The Old Bank Theatre
- Thread starter keasla
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,381
- Location
- Bucks
whats going on with the blacks?
Looks like its been done as an HDR / tone mapped only badly with a relatively poorly exposed shot.
Not a fan I'm afraid, the contrast between poppy and grass is fine (although processing technique spoils it) but the building behind distracts (even though its meant to be the main focus?) from the image a whole.
Nothing wrong with shooting the popies as foreground interest they actually suit the scene really well given that they are used to remember the fallen which is exactly what that theatre is and the tatty nature of that poppy plant only serves to further highlight the decay.
The HDR process is horrible though.
Sadly I don't agree. If you have a foreground that is the focus point, you don't want a distracting background and vice versa. In this photo there are two separate photos fighting for attention with the poppys in the foreground and the HDR theatre in the background. They just don't work in the same photograph.
So your basically saying you don't think you can shoot a scene with forgroud interest or a photo with multiple subjects?
Foreground interest in particular is a classic tool of composition and to rule it out seems rather odd to me and the idea that if you shoot an object it can only have a plain background is incredibly limiting.
Not when both are completely in focus with completely different processing styles and colour schemes. Looks like two different photos layered together to form one. Doesn't work.
I understand that foreground focus is a method of composition, yet it doesn't mean that ANYTHING in the foreground automatically makes great composition and a good picture. Plus when you say plain background, thats very misleading as a shot of a flower can have a far more interesting background than a boring cityscape as red, green, blue and yellow tones are far more attractive than dull grey every will be.
That is only true for certain types of photography like portraiture. In other types like landscapes and cityscapes you want a a continuous range of interest and subjects form immediate foreground to the distant background, and preferably some kind of leading line to draw the viewer form the foreground to the background. The classic example would be the snake river creating that lovely S-curve in Ansel Adam's epic photograph of the Teton range.
Any wide angle photo that include both a foreground and a background must have sufficient interest in both the fore-, mid- and back-ground layers, otherwise you end up with a very boring photograph. Hence many people using ultra wide angle lenses in landscape scene produce boring photos.
With respect to this actual photo I think the scene itself has a lot of potential, and the fact that you can contrast the beautiful colourful red poppies against the dark drab gray man-made structure in the background gives for a wonderful juxtaposition of elements. In this regard I firmly believe you are completely wrong in your assertion of mixing the foreground and background elements, this mix is exactly what could make the photo work. This is actually a very classic photography composition, the iconic red poppy against a drab wasteland, so epitomised after WW1, and in general bright colourful flowers contrasting gray urban decay is ubiquitous.
Where the photo fails is the horrific and vomit inducing processing and HDR.
Last edited:
Because we cannot see the original file, it means that what we are left with is the image in the OP, which has a horrible contrast between the ultra vibrant poppys and a multi contrasted decrepit building in the background. If you think thats the making of a nice photo, you might need to go back to the drawing board in terms of taste.
Adding to this, the composition would still be slightly off anyway as the road is more distracting then half of the poppys and thats not even classed as foreground. The gap in the flora forces the eye to it, which isn't great is it. The shot needs to be taken at an angle that gets that gap out of the frame, whilst still preserving the background of the theatre. Obviously not being in HDR helps this massively.
Saying I'm just completely wrong and mentioning "classic" composition isn't exactly helpful to the OP in terms of producing a better photo is it. If we all did classic composition, photography would be utterly boring and never progress.
I agree that different angles should be experiment here but you were claiming some nonsense about having the poppies and the theater in the same shot does not work,which is complete ignorant. No one has said the photo in its present form is in anyway a good photo due to the processing.
If the major processing issue gets resolve then one can argue some finer technicalities of the composition. As it stands, the ideology of the photograph is perfectly fine.
You said "Either do a shot of the poppys or do a shot of the theatre", that is just plain bad advice.
As to your bizarre comments dissuading the use of classical compositional techniques, this is utterly daft. Photography is a progression of artwork and many of the same compositional techniques are just as valid during the Italian renaissance as they are now because what makes a pleasing and balanced photograph or piece of art has a neurophysiology basis in the way the human brain perceives structure. If half the photos plastered online had compositions a fraction as god as a 15th century artists then the internet would be full of far more inspiring photos.
If the major processing issue gets resolve then one can argue some finer technicalities of the composition. As it stands, the ideology of the photograph is perfectly fine.
You said "Either do a shot of the poppys or do a shot of the theatre", that is just plain bad advice.
As to your bizarre comments dissuading the use of classical compositional techniques, this is utterly daft. Photography is a progression of artwork and many of the same compositional techniques are just as valid during the Italian renaissance as they are now because what makes a pleasing and balanced photograph or piece of art has a neurophysiology basis in the way the human brain perceives structure. If half the photos plastered online had compositions a fraction as god as a 15th century artists then the internet would be full of far more inspiring photos.
Last edited:
Keasla seems to post a horribly processed HDR image, gets a load of comments, but doesn't reply him/herself. Then somewhere along the line will post another one.
I wonder if he/she has even looked at this thread again?
Might be worth taking some of the comments about HDR processing onboard.
I wonder if he/she has even looked at this thread again?
Might be worth taking some of the comments about HDR processing onboard.
And it also would have zero progression, so yeah congrats on that observation. We have different opinions as we obviously have vastly different ideas of what makes a good photograph. We both sell photographs and are successful in what we do, yet claiming my view is bizarre is rather daft in itself. Lets just agree to disagree and move on as this will come to nothing more than squabbling.
thanks for the comments and everyone can think what they like about photos its there choice and i dont mind people saying they hate it because it help me see what people like and dont like also nexus (dont take this the wrong way but) would you say this is a horribly done HDR image as it got 1st place at my camera clubs annual competition in print mono and also came 2nd place in the monthly competitions
Manchester Bridges by KEASLA, on Flickr
one i did at the same time as the other
The Old Bank Theatre Mono by KEASLA, on Flickr
Manchester Bridges by KEASLA, on Flickr
one i did at the same time as the other
The Old Bank Theatre Mono by KEASLA, on Flickr
Last edited:
Sadly I can't agree that it's a case of agreeing to disagree purely because of this comment:
That is terrible advice, while I'm all for inovating throwing 500 years of established composition technique in the bin is perverse expand on it move it forwards yes but decide its wrong? If people take you seriously you could set there development as a photographer back, all 'rules' of composition are there to be broken but while your learning adhering to one or two of the basics will improve your pictures.
I also find it baffling that a clearly talented photographer can't see beyond his own style and appreciate a different approach which ignoring the vile HDR processing has the potential to be a decent photo (not world beating but better than the average snapshot)
Those are both much better but only because you've removed the hideous colours from the HDR, I'd still say they are way too cooked but as with all things photography it's a subjective personal opinion if you are happy with them and winning competitions then thats all good.
I think the first one has potential especially toned down and straightened, out of interest do you ever try any non-HDR processing just for comparison to see what you could produce that is more natural? I think it would really help with the development of your style.
Interesting, everyone is entitled to their style though. Personally I do think just easing back on the processing would improve the end result even if it was just to remove the halos around every object.
Last edited:
Personally I really love this style but appreciate it is very 'marmite'.
Maybe the mono ones are slightly better but that can be true of many photos as tou tend to see the detail more when there's no colour.
I've been having a go myself, along with selective colouring but think I need to try a bit harder!
Keep 'em coming
Maybe the mono ones are slightly better but that can be true of many photos as tou tend to see the detail more when there's no colour.
I've been having a go myself, along with selective colouring but think I need to try a bit harder!
Keep 'em coming