DSLRUsers.com

Two very different perspectives of the same clump of bricks also both very different processing, keen for thoughts on how they work, improvements, good bad or fugly more than welcome.

They're more a pile of rocks than a clump of bricks aren't they?

I have a strong preference for #2. The negative space works really well for this subject. The colur's not too shabby either.

I quite like them both, but theres aspects in each that I prefer, for example in the first image the grass needs more natural colour as it looks lifeless, but the building looks great, where as in the second, I love the sky and the grass but the building just doesn't look right,I also like the second image probably a tad more due to the colours, but i am drawn to the horizon on the left, i find it a tad distracting, but I still like it!! but thats my opinion and it doesn't hold much value, but thought i'd share!!

The first is my preference for the treatment and composition. The composition in the second is just as good but the colours aren't to my taste.

Individually, they work well. As a series, they clash.

#1 Good use of the negatives (space, I mean). The reason that I would make this my second choice is the distraction in the foreground. My eyes keep focussing on the apparent clarity.

#2 Would be my choice. The panorama heightens the negative space along with the distance from the object. The colours are devine.

Ok... my 2c worth... they both work in their own distinct way... which is clearly what you were looking to achieve.
#1 feel maybe a little cramped (but maybe I'm just looking for fault) I would play around with the sky and see if a little more desat enhances the cold isolated feel to the composition.
#2 is good just as it is... you could play with cropping some of the lower grass to increase the pano feel.
I don't have a preferred image... both are entirely different shots with a different outcome in mind... therefore a comparison is not appropriate (IMHO).

Hi Gerry... my thoughts....

#1 - meh...

#2 - I like but it looks like it has a little too much saturation (and clarity/detail in the grass) and it's probably only that strange blue cloud with some "dirtyness" above on the left of the horizon which makes the whole thing look over saturated (and perhaps adds to the detail). Crop the left 20-25% off if it can't be fixed?

My preference is the first, and, whilst I like the second, I think the first has greater impact, particularly around the texture and colours in the building.

Hmm... I agree with all the above comments despite some contradictions!

I prefer the composition of the second but the processing of the first, but with the saturation of the greens being brought back to give a more natural look.....not as much as in the second as this is oversaturated for me. B&W's of both of these would be worthy of consideration.

It’s the saturation of colours + the colours themselves that I really like in #2

Mr Darcy wrote:I have a strong preference for #2. The negative space works really well for this subject. The colur's not too shabby either.

Love the colours in it.

#2 works much better as a colour image but #1 may be better as a monochrome.

I am going to join the consensus...#2 is my pick...however I wouldn't mind seeing a monochrome conversion of this as well.

Thanks for all the feedback guys and gals, the general consensus is... there is none its great to see how different images (from a processing point of view) appeal to different people, very cool.

Mr Darcy wrote:They're more a pile of rocks than a clump of bricks aren't they?
I have a strong preference for #2. The negative space works really well for this subject. The colur's not too shabby either.

well i guess technically a pile would be more accurate...thanks Greg.

bigsarg7 wrote:I quite like them both, but theres aspects in each that I prefer, for example in the first image the grass needs more natural colour as it looks lifeless, but the building looks great, where as in the second, I love the sky and the grass but the building just doesn't look right,I also like the second image probably a tad more due to the colours, but i am drawn to the horizon on the left, i find it a tad distracting, but I still like it!! but thats my opinion and it doesn't hold much value, but thought i'd share!!

everyones opinion is valid, simple as that! Thanks for the feedback, it is appreciated. The main intention with these two was to present two sides, mainly from a processing POV, the first is deliberately de-saturated which is certainly where that lifeless feeling comes from and I guess if you feel that way then the processing has achieved the right goal.

sirhc55 wrote:#1 Good use of the negatives (space, I mean). The reason that I would make this my second choice is the distraction in the foreground. My eyes keep focussing on the apparent clarity.

#2 Would be my choice. The panorama heightens the negative space along with the distance from the object. The colours are devine.

Thanks Chris.

PiroStitch wrote:The first is my preference for the treatment and composition. The composition in the second is just as good but the colours aren't to my taste.
Individually, they work well. As a series, they clash.

good point, Piro, if you like the processing of the second, I would be worried Thanks for taking the time to have a look and comment.

Mj wrote:Ok... my 2c worth... they both work in their own distinct way... which is clearly what you were looking to achieve.
#1 feel maybe a little cramped (but maybe I'm just looking for fault) I would play around with the sky and see if a little more desat enhances the cold isolated feel to the composition.
#2 is good just as it is... you could play with cropping some of the lower grass to increase the pano feel.
I don't have a preferred image... both are entirely different shots with a different outcome in mind... therefore a comparison is not appropriate (IMHO).

Cheers Mj, the idea of further cropping the second to pano is a good one and I have already done that, it does remove just enough of that grass to prevent it holding too much interest from the viewer. I will have look at further desat of teh first, that admittingly is not something I considered.

Remorhaz wrote:Hi Gerry... my thoughts....
#1 - meh...

i love how that 3 letter word can sum up sooo much.

Remorhaz wrote:#2 - I like but it looks like it has a little too much saturation (and clarity/detail in the grass) and it's probably only that strange blue cloud with some "dirtyness" above on the left of the horizon which makes the whole thing look over saturated (and perhaps adds to the detail). Crop the left 20-25% off if it can't be fixed?

The saturation looks ok from my end, but I certainly do not have a calibrated or quality monitor, the dirty little cloud at the end, I think i will actually look at just cloning that out, otherwise as suggested, the crop will sort it out, there is plenty of megapixels to play with there. Thanks mate.

Reschsmooth wrote:My preference is the first, and, whilst I like the second, I think the first has greater impact, particularly around the texture and colours in the building.

sirhc55 wrote:It’s the saturation of colours + the colours themselves that I really like in #2

Chaase wrote:Love the colours in it.

Thanks for having a look

Geoff M wrote:Hmm... I agree with all the above comments despite some contradictions!

I prefer the composition of the second but the processing of the first, but with the saturation of the greens being brought back to give a more natural look.....not as much as in the second as this is oversaturated for me. B&W's of both of these would be worthy of consideration.

Murray Foote wrote:#2 works much better as a colour image but #1 may be better as a monochrome.

aim54x wrote:I am going to join the consensus...#2 is my pick...however I wouldn't mind seeing a monochrome conversion of this as well.

to be honest I did not even think of going full mono, i will have a look as that as a option shortly, thanks for the feedback.