craftysnapper
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 184 
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by craftysnapper on May 29, 2015 15:15:12 GMT
As I brought it up in my post Selfridges I thought i would show it. The first one is the old and new library side by side.  The next are the new ones interior.   |
|
Madame
Established Forum Member
Posts: 504 
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by Madame on May 29, 2015 15:20:56 GMT
Very interesting pictures, Paul!
I think it's a fascinating building, but I'm curious about how it's maintained.
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on May 29, 2015 15:25:13 GMT
The old building says "come in and enjoy our collection of books" The new eyesore says "if you come in here, you will walk your legs off and not find a thing you are looking for" I just hate it when they "new & improve" anything; the new is seldom as good as the old. You did a good job portraying both inside and out.  |
|
|
|
Post by davehagg on May 29, 2015 17:27:42 GMT
No matter which shot the crystal clear focus, contrast and sharpness is fantastic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 6:54:20 GMT
Nice photos, but for me photos have to look realistic.
Just a few points.
1- The area around the clouds where they meet the sky doesn't look right. It appears highlights have been lowered considerably to compensate for a possibly overexposed sky originally.
2- Details in the shadows have been lost, especially in the 3rd shot.
3- pse and DxO do a great job in removing lens distortion which is obvious in all the photos. I'm sure the pillars are not at the angle they appear in the photos.
|
|
craftysnapper
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 184
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by craftysnapper on May 30, 2015 8:12:15 GMT
Thanks for the comments guys.
|
|
craftysnapper
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 184
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by craftysnapper on May 30, 2015 8:50:43 GMT
Thank you for the comments Bokeh. Let me comment on some of your comments. No 2 & 3 are virtually record shots (and grab shots as photography is not allowed inside) which I did little work on as you can see from the original untouched raw images so apart from some lens distortion I would argue they are realistic and your comments are based on a subject you have never seen.  Agreed to a point but as you can see from the raw image the highlights in the brightest part of the image are exposed correctly and exposing for the shadows would have burnt them out irretrievably and pulling the shadows back in processing does not look right and increases noise in them unacceptably. Actually the highlights were not lowered as the shot was taken so as to not to overexpose the sky and get as much detail as possible as you can see from the original untouched raw image. In fact the edited version resembles the scene at the time which was a bright sunny contrasty day and I had to increase contrast not pull it back. Indeed you are correct and the verticals are out due to the angle it was taken which I should have taken more care with and I did what I could with it but correcting the vertical on the right any more would have distorted the others, a shame I did not have some tall step ladders with me to avoid distortion from the 28mm lens at to low a position.   Anyway than you for your comments and allowing me to reply.and saying that we all have different views and opinions and yours are just as valid as mine. I look forward to seeing some of your images in the future. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 2:30:54 GMT
Hi craftysnapper. No problem I just call/describe things as I see them, just like everyone else can if they choose to, and offer food for thought. Human nature being what it is, some will agree with me, some will agree with the author of what I am commenting on and some will simply not care what either of us thinks  I'm not sure what you mean by I think you mean unprocessed jpeg files because your posted images are jpeg, not RAW files as can be see in the html code (which anyone can view in their browser). If you did actually upload RAW files then the web site you uploaded them to has converted them to jpegs.   It's a pity it's not practical to upload the original RAW image files onto forums like this  |
|
dicklaxt
Established Forum Member
Posts: 397
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by dicklaxt on May 31, 2015 7:31:53 GMT
It's a pity it's not practical to upload the original RAW image files onto forums like this Bok,,,why would you want to do this? dick |
|
craftysnapper
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 184
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by craftysnapper on May 31, 2015 7:55:57 GMT
No I mean Raw files those are screen grabs of the unprocessed raw files hence the designation DNG and ORF in the file names in the screengrabs and of course you cannot upload raw files here hence the screen grabs of them so you can see what the raw unprocessed file looks like.
|
|
bokeh
New Forum Member
Posts: 25
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by bokeh on Jun 1, 2015 4:22:31 GMT
Normally I prefer to deal with actual RAW files and not jpeg representations (compressed data) of RAW data. But obviously that can't happen in this environment so we'll just have agree to disagree on this thread |
|
