Help with first print

[verdantsound]

Believe it or not, I have not made one print in my two years of photography because 1. poor college student scenario and 2. I just feel it's never good enough. Anyways, I just spotted that awesome deal on fullsizeposters.com and feel that I need to have something on my bare wall in my dorm.

I've basically come down with two different photos that I deem good enough to make a print that big. And I was looking for some C & C to make that this photo better.

Some questions: Do I sharpen too much? When is too much? What do you think I can improve on? Which is the best version? I provided the original for those who want to try to photoshop it as well.

I think I may want to print this:
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/2525/img3268dpsat8.th.jpg (http://img367.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img3268dpsat8.jpg)

Noise-Ninja-ed:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/7021/img3268dpbslx6.th.jpg (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img3268dpbslx6.jpg)

Noise-Ninja-ed and then sharpening, but not the sky:
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/4500/img3268dpbcsfr5.th.jpg (http://img212.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img3268dpbcsfr5.jpg)

The original:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/525/img3268ssw1.th.jpg (http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img3268ssw1.jpg)

The other contender:
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2204/img8456bpsmj9.th.jpg (http://img88.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img8456bpsmj9.jpg)

Thanks for all your help!

[johncolby]

Nice pic! Check out El-Co color labs...they might be a better choice since they're only $10 for 20x30, they use real photo paper, and they're actually a real photo lab so they know what they're doing.

[johncolby]

The NN really helped with the sky too! =)

[Walczak Photo]

Well, first to answer your questions...

"Did I sharpen too much?" - I'd have to say yes...it is very evident and the shot looks over processed in everything other than the origian...in part because of the sharpening but also in part because it now looks over-exposed.

"When is too much?" - This is a little more subjective. In my mind, an image that has been sharpened should not look like it has been sharpened as much as the image should simply look like it was a sharp image to begin with. When a given image starts to look like it's been processed...it's too much. The catch here is that really depends on the given individual image itself, the sharpening technique used, etc., etc..

I would add that this tends to apply to most processing techniques in general depending on the type of effect you are going for. For example a lot of folks now a days tend to really go overboard with saturation (myself included) and sometimes it just doesn't look right. Sometimes it's just a matter of saying "ok...put down the PC mouse and step away from the computer", LOL!!!

"What do you think I can improve on?" - Personally, the two biggest areas I see for improvement are on your processing techniques and on your compositional skills...which I'll address in a bit.

"Which is the best version? - In my opinion, the original.

I would also add that I feel the same is true of the second "contender" as well...it looks terribly over-processed to me. I would love to see the original on that one.

I would like to make an observation here. While I could certainly be wrong, based on your comment "I just feel it's never good enough", I almost get the impression that you over-compensated with the processing to try and make up for your lack of confidence with the original images. You really weren't that happy with the original(s) and tried to turn them into something other than what they are. That said, in regards to the first image (or set of images there) beyond the processing issues which I really feel did not add anything to this image at all, I think the #1 problem here is simply the composition. I'm not trying to be rude here, but to me it's just really not that interesting of a shot to begin with. It's a bunch of buildings in a city somewhere...honestly it could be any city anywhere. The mixed architectural styles of the buildings is really reminiscent of most larger American cities now a days. The lighting and exposure look good, it could be a tich sharper, but it's not bad and you have very nice usage of the rule of thirds here in regards to your horizon, but the central subject itself..."the city" is just cluttered and doesn't really hold much interest.

The one exception to that would be...if this is actually the view out your dorm room, then it would be kind of cool to print this at around the same size as the window itself and then hang it on the opposite wall. Of course this lends itself to "Interior Decorating" tips instead of a photo critique :D.

From a compositional point of view, I think the second shot (err...last shot...second contender) is much more interesting. -If it were me-, I'd go with this image, but I'd go back to the original and start over again keeping the processing (such as the B&W conversion) to a minimum. Once you do that, I think between the two choices, the second shot is the better candidate.

The one other thing I would add is that since you said you are looking to do a "big print" and you mentioned fullsizeposters.com, remember that any issues with processing are going to be VERY apparent. The general rule of thumb is that you can usually get away with murder with 4x6 prints, but for poster size or larger, less is usually more when it comes to processing (or at least over-processing). I would suggest blowing these shots up REALLY FREAKIN' BIG on your monitor and take a look at your processing up close and personal...that's what you are going to see with a poster sized print. With contender #1 for example...all that noise in the sky that came out when you brightened the image and those blown out highlights from the window lights...that's all going to stand out like a really sore thumb (and then some) on a large print.

Ultimately it is of course, your choice. If you're doing a poster sized print of this and hanging it on your dorm wall, you are the one who's going to have to look at it.....every day. What I or anyone else here says, doesn't really matter. Just choose the one you think you can live with :D.

Peace,
Jim

[acchildress]

You don't have "editing okay" turned on. Is it okay to edit to suggest some other way?

Also, where is this taken. It really looks like a location from the game"Ghost Recon". I saw this and had a flash back and had an episode of delayed stress syndrom!

[verdantsound]

sure, you can edit it. How do you turn on "editing okay?"

This was taken at my school, at Columbia University actually. Ghost Recon haha.

You don't have "editing okay" turned on. Is it okay to edit to suggest some other way?

Also, where is this taken. It really looks like a location from the game"Ghost Recon". I saw this and had a flash back and had an episode of delayed stress syndrom!

[acchildress]

sure, you can edit it. How do you turn on "editing okay?"

This was taken at my school, at Columbia University actually. Ghost Recon haha.

Change it under the "user CP", "edit profile".

[verdantsound]

Thank you for writing this extensive analysis on my work. I was wondering if you can show me a few examples that I should emulate. I feel my original picture is too dark and the colors contrast against each other. I understand why the first picture may be a bit boring to one not familar with the campus. Once again, thanks!

Well, first to answer your questions...

"Did I sharpen too much?" - I'd have to say yes...it is very evident and the shot looks over processed in everything other than the origian...in part because of the sharpening but also in part because it now looks over-exposed.

"When is too much?" - This is a little more subjective. In my mind, an image that has been sharpened should not look like it has been sharpened as much as the image should simply look like it was a sharp image to begin with. When a given image starts to look like it's been processed...it's too much. The catch here is that really depends on the given individual image itself, the sharpening technique used, etc., etc..

I would add that this tends to apply to most processing techniques in general depending on the type of effect you are going for. For example a lot of folks now a days tend to really go overboard with saturation (myself included) and sometimes it just doesn't look right. Sometimes it's just a matter of saying "ok...put down the PC mouse and step away from the computer", LOL!!!

"What do you think I can improve on?" - Personally, the two biggest areas I see for improvement are on your processing techniques and on your compositional skills...which I'll address in a bit.

"Which is the best version? - In my opinion, the original.

I would also add that I feel the same is true of the second "contender" as well...it looks terribly over-processed to me. I would love to see the original on that one.

I would like to make an observation here. While I could certainly be wrong, based on your comment "I just feel it's never good enough", I almost get the impression that you over-compensated with the processing to try and make up for your lack of confidence with the original images. You really weren't that happy with the original(s) and tried to turn them into something other than what they are. That said, in regards to the first image (or set of images there) beyond the processing issues which I really feel did not add anything to this image at all, I think the #1 problem here is simply the composition. I'm not trying to be rude here, but to me it's just really not that interesting of a shot to begin with. It's a bunch of buildings in a city somewhere...honestly it could be any city anywhere. The mixed architectural styles of the buildings is really reminiscent of most larger American cities now a days. The lighting and exposure look good, it could be a tich sharper, but it's not bad and you have very nice usage of the rule of thirds here in regards to your horizon, but the central subject itself..."the city" is just cluttered and doesn't really hold much interest.

The one exception to that would be...if this is actually the view out your dorm room, then it would be kind of cool to print this at around the same size as the window itself and then hang it on the opposite wall. Of course this lends itself to "Interior Decorating" tips instead of a photo critique :D.

From a compositional point of view, I think the second shot (err...last shot...second contender) is much more interesting. -If it were me-, I'd go with this image, but I'd go back to the original and start over again keeping the processing (such as the B&W conversion) to a minimum. Once you do that, I think between the two choices, the second shot is the better candidate.

The one other thing I would add is that since you said you are looking to do a "big print" and you mentioned fullsizeposters.com, remember that any issues with processing are going to be VERY apparent. The general rule of thumb is that you can usually get away with murder with 4x6 prints, but for poster size or larger, less is usually more when it comes to processing (or at least over-processing). I would suggest blowing these shots up REALLY FREAKIN' BIG on your monitor and take a look at your processing up close and personal...that's what you are going to see with a poster sized print. With contender #1 for example...all that noise in the sky that came out when you brightened the image and those blown out highlights from the window lights...that's all going to stand out like a really sore thumb (and then some) on a large print.

Ultimately it is of course, your choice. If you're doing a poster sized print of this and hanging it on your dorm wall, you are the one who's going to have to look at it.....every day. What I or anyone else here says, doesn't really matter. Just choose the one you think you can live with :D.

Peace,
Jim