2 Shots Of Dallas...C&C Please!

Hey guys,

Here are 2 shots of Dallas that I thought I'd post up for C&C.

Thanks for looking!

1. The middle building had an antenna/satellite on the top that I wish I really did not cut.

I'll tell you what my instructor told me when I took a similar shot as #1.

The highway overpass does noting for the shot. Crop it out or get on the other side so you can get all of the building in the shot, or include more of it and make it you main subject.

The antenna tower is distracting. Shoot from another location to get it out of the way. You can keep it in the shot, just not in front of the tall building.

#2 I like the processing on this one. I just don't like the stop light there on the near corner. I would have moved up to get that out of the way of the building. Where it is makes it a picture of the back of a stop light.

Good luck.

I agree with you on both of your comments. I thought the tower might be a bit distracting especially right on the corner of that building. I'll go ahead and crop out the highway when I get home..for some reason I thought it added to the picture. These were just walk-arounds and I bet I can do better next time I go out.

On #2..my fiance didn't like the stop light there either so she tried to REMOVE the whole thing haha..a little impossible..and it might look a little funny since there is a cross walk with no light.

Thanks for the comments!

Well, the first thing I notice with both of these shots is that they appear to be tilted. In that first shot you have the road in the foreground straight but the buildings look like they're leaning to the right. Also the sky in the first shot really could be better. I would have used a CP here at the very least to give those clouds some detail. In the second shot, to me this shot is about "depth"...looking down the street, etc., and as such, I would have had the building front there on the left straight instead of the light pole and here the sky has too much contrast.

Beyond that, I don't want to sound rude, but to me these shots really just are not that interesting. In the first shot the buildings just look like plane ol' ordinary sky scrapers...nothing fancy or special about the architecture or anything else really to hold a viewers attention. Also having the bridge/roadway there really doesn't add anything at all to the shot. About the most I get from the first image is someone driving along a parallel highway, looking out their car window and saying to themselves "oh, look...buildings" and then taking a picture of it.

The second shot might have worked if you had of had some interesting central subject...a couple kissing by the light pole, a street bum with a money cup in his hand or in this case, even a dog sniffing that fire hydrant! LOL! Without some specific central subject however again the shot just doesn't really command any interest and as such the eye tends to just bounce around the image looking for something. Again I'm not trying to be rude here, just honest but to me this second shot looks like the kind of scene most city dwelling folk might see if they "stepped outside to have a smoke" on a nice day. Ya look up and down the street...maybe enjoy the sunshine for a moment, etc., but it's not really anything I think most people would actually stop and try and take a picture of (of course the guy who actually was having the smoke break would have made an interesting subject!).

The exposure and the sharpness look decent in both of these images, but that's really about it. There's nothing here really that could be considered as "composition". My advice would be to put more thought into your shots. Ask yourself "What is this shot about?" For example in that second shot, is it about the fire hydrant? The light post? The guy crossing the street behind the light post? The green mini-van taxi? The cross walks? What is this shot supposed to be about?? Once you've determined exactly what the shot is about, one of the first rules of photographic composition is to eliminate anything else that isn't relevant. For example, in this shot while it may not have made for a "great" photo, a close of up the fire hydrant would have had more impact because there would have at least been a central subject to the image.

Again I'm not trying to be rude or mean here and I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. These are just my opinions and should be taken as such. Hopefully you'll get something out of them.

Peace,
Jim

WOW! Thanks for your honest critique! I know what you mean about the first and it was crooked to start with lol, so I tried to straighten it the best that I could. To be honest with you..I was skeptical about posting these because as you said..these shots are not too interesting.

I also see what you mean in the 2nd one..there is so much going on that there is no point of interest anywhere..just a lot of random things going on at once. I like taking urban pictures and will try to go out there again as soon as I have a chance to. This time with putting more thought into my pictures before pressing the shutter. I do not find your comments rude just straight forward and honest.

Thanks again!

I am surprised that no one has mentioned that these shots are both seriously over-exposed. The highlights are washed out and have no detail. If they were taken in RAW there is a possibility of correcting and recovering a substantial amount of highlight detail. Other than that, the Shadow/Highlight tool in PSCS is about your only simple recourse.

I just started shooting RAW and unfortunately these both are not shot in RAW. The 1st one seems overexposed? Can you pleae tell me where. Also, in the 2nd one..if you are referring to the building..that is just because of the processing. The original shows more detail in the building than the processed version.

Thanks for the comment!

I am afraid neither do it for me, just too cluttered and busy. too much contrast imho lots of black and clipped highlights.

Way too cluttered in my opinion...neither photo has a clear subject, and the processing on the second is too overdone.

Thanks for the comments! Looks like it's back to the drawing board ..

As far as the blacks go..I adjusted levels a little because the blacks looked a little grey, but I guess I have over done it. I'll go back and lower them a bit.

DavidSR wrote in post #6471298
I just started shooting RAW and unfortunately these both are not shot in RAW. The 1st one seems overexposed? Can you pleae tell me where. Also, in the 2nd one..if you are referring to the building..that is just because of the processing. The original shows more detail in the building than the processed version.

Thanks for the comment!

When we say an image is overexposed, it is overexposed everywhere. However, the overexposure is usually most obvious in the highlights. So, wherever there are highlights, they tend to be featureless or without detail.

If the processing is responsible for the overexposure, then the processing was in error. Does that make sense?

I think I'm missing something here.

I think I get what you're saying..since the 2nd image appears to be overexposed due to the processing than there was an error with the processing at one point. Or am I missing something? haha..Thanks for the comment!

DavidSR wrote in post #6472408
I think I get what you're saying..since the 2nd image appears to be overexposed due to the processing than there was an error with the processing at one point. Or am I missing something? haha..Thanks for the comment!

I think we are having a minor problem with the language here.

In regard to the processing, you have to take the responsibilty for the processing.
If, during the processing, the image becomes too bright or too dark, overall, then it is because of something YOU did. Only YOU know for certain what processing you did.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #6472898
I think we are having a minor problem with the language here.

In regard to the processing, you have to take the responsibilty for the processing.
If, during the processing, the image becomes too bright or too dark, overall, then it is because of something YOU did. Only YOU know for certain what processing you did.

Ok, I get what you said..basically I overcooked the processing ..understandable..I'm not much into processing other than sharpening, contrast and saturation.

Thanks again for the comments!