* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #850 / Revived #070 on 2024 07 31 *

Thank you minniev 🙂

This style normally has a strong impact on most people when they view it the first time - both positive and negative.

Minnie, you scare me. This isn't the first image of mine you have critiqued and absolutely nailed every change I wanted to make if I could reshoot.

The shot was just a grab while I was shooting the Oceanside pier, which is just to the left of this scene. People were walking along the low tide water line and I glanced over and got a few shots while my mind was on the other task. I didn't even remember these few shots until I looked at my SD card in ACR.

As soon as I saw the image, I knew that I had to reshoot it. Not only that, I'm going to have to reshoot it a LOT! Because I see several different results I want to create. As you say, it needs major reframing. I need much more of the reflective foreground. I need to be at a much lower angle of view. The light is great, but it needs to be a little later. More glancing, warmer.

To reshoot this, I need several major conditions and events to happen and cooperate. The time of day has to be early evening. The sky has to be clear with the setting sun close to the horizon. There have to be some small puffy clouds present, catching a magenta glow and reflecting that. There have to be cooperative people strolling along. And the tide has to be very low to get the wide reflective beach "mirror." Not much to ask!

I've got several weeks of tide charts laid out. It's amazing how different the tide can be at places just a few miles apart on the coast!

One of the images I see in my head is somewhat different as it has fog and haze, but still has the low tide reflective beach.

All in all, it might take me a year to get what I want!

Rich

Thanks David!

GFX 100S, GF 110/2, f/4.5, 100, 1/1250

Thank you minniev.

@minniev
Thank you.

I like your image, I tried something quite similar last year on a beach in Portugal.
It also had people walking along with some of them looking at things on the sand.
For some reason I preferred my shot when processed in B&W. The reflections in the wet sand were what attracted me to the shot together with the almost silhouettes of the people
Here's that shot,...

Yes, such a scene can have so many interpretations. There's a series of atmospheric paintings of this subject with the "subjects" dancing on the wet sand with servants standing by that I'm trying to recall but I can't remember the artist.

Edit: Found it!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singing_Butler

www.jackvettriano.com/shop/dance-me-to-the-end-of-love/

www.jackvettriano.com/product-category/open-edition-prints/open-editions/

www.jackvettriano.com/shop/mad-dogs/

Rich

Just a short distance from the famous bustling and very modern Nanjing Road shopping strip in Shanghai you can easily step through a "time warp" into a very distant past time in Shanghai's history not found on any tourist map or route.

This is a part of "modern" Shanghai as it was a few hundred years ago where time and development has virtually stood still.

"TIME WARP"

Nice shots but the lighting doesn't look harsh on my screen. If anything the images lack "punch" on my screen.

This version "pops" more for me.

Anyway, just some food for thought.

You misinterpret my comment about harsh light. The harsh light present in the real scene, necessitated dialling down EC. So of course the sky is more dark in the capture and is something I mostly leave alone as I am not looking for a glossy magazine shot. There are other effects that the harsh light creates, hence my comment.
I prefer to use pp judiciously. Those with a keen eye may notice the other shot is a touch over sharpened. Something I didn't notice until after I had completed the edits and couldn't be bothered redoing.
Another point is that if you are going to edit someone's photos, at least leave the resolution as it was. What's the point of someone taking a photo that can be viewed with good detail at 1:1, only to have the resolution reduced and lose the detail???

The edits I suggest are mainly to offer food for thought, not necessarily to produce a new final image at the original resolution.

If the original image creator likes the suggested edit they have the option to make similar edits to their taste and preference at whatever resolution they like.

Not everyone is into pixel peeping.

I don't see the point in wasting my allowed upload allowance on dprevived posting high resolution edits when I don't know if they will be helpful or not to the original image creator

I posted what imo looks better on my screen.

Bryan, Dan,
I agree that proposed edits do not have to be shown in as much resolution as the original. They are merely to better illustrate what the commentator is trying to say or suggest.
In fact I even prefer a lower resolution to be shown by the commentator.
It avoids all confusion about who is the only “owner” of the original photo. It makes clear there is no appropriation of the image, but rather just an illustration of a proposed edit that the original owner may or may not follow up on.
Roel

You shouldn't need to do all the edits again if you do them all, including the sharpening, on a separate layer.

Just replace the sharpening layer with a resharpened image. The other edits can remain the same.

Roel,

The aspect of this thread (forum?) that I've enjoyed the most has been the willingness of (most) participants to talk about the photographic qualities of the images, the motivations for them, the way they came into being, the background story.

There have always been suggestions for technical changes, but those were in the minority and there was a minimum of reposting to demonstrate those suggestions.

Lately there has been an emphasis on technical "advice" and repostings with all kinds of edits and recommendations about how to alter images in Photoshop. There are those who emphasize that aspect of photography and other computer-related aspects of this craft.

I would not like to see this trend continue. The Internet is dominated by image-editing sites. But photography discussion has disappeared.

I would like to encourage participants here to resist the urge to repost the work of others. Make whatever recommendations you like about any technical issues you want.

But verbally, only.

Everyone has the means to alter any image. Just because you can does not mean you should.

I hope we can get back to more discussion of why and how we make our images, and what they mean to us.

Rich

Everyone has that option now by posting a request to not edit their photos as described in the op.

There are also several other threads here on dprevived that operate as you suggest.

People who don't want their images edited have the option to post in those threads.

People who are happy to see suggested edits have this thread they can come to.

Roel is running his thread as he likes to see it run. Instead of trying to dictate to others how they should run their threads and how members should contribute to those threads, why not start your own thread and run it how you would like.

In other words why not practise what you preach.

Finally I have some bandwidth and I can get back to participating again. Nope Dan, that is not how this group works and I have been part of it for many years.
Yes, Rich is correct in that the thread is primarily for the discussion of the images. That means a lot more than pushing a "like" button.
Neither do we shout at participants with capitals and bold type.

I disagree.

Yes, I agree with

which means the discussion of images including both their aesthetics and technical attributes.

but Roel also says

Which sentences in my post are not consistent, in your opinion, with the way Roel describes how this thread works in his O.P.?

If people do not want edited versions reposted then it is very quick and simple to follow the above instructions to notify other members and I will abide by them.

** I use bold type for emphasis and as a summary of my post. It is not considered shouting by everyone and not by me. Capital letters apart from headings is commonly interpreted as shouting.