Shanghai by Night 2

[Frogfish]

Part of the on-going series I'm putting together - I apologise in advance for the Copyright notices but you do realise where I live !

Any C&C welcome.

#1 - 43 Ltd


#2 - 77 Ltd


#3 - 15 Ltd


#4 - 15 Ltd


#5 - Zeiss 35-70


#6 - Zeiss 35-70


Thanks for looking.

[Ron Kruger]

Maybe the lighting and/or atmosphere, but daylight shots look flat, sort of like you shot them with a Canon. he, he, he.

[tcom]

Nice photos but most would suit well for a bit of post processing, especially enhancing the contrast.

[tcom]

Hope you do not mind. I just gave a few of them a try at getting out more contrast, tell me if you want me to remove them.

[Mike Pearson]

Nice captures Frogfish but I agree with Dominique on the use of increased contrast. Nice use of the Ltd's.

Mike

[Frogfish]

Thanks for commenting Ron - no Canons in this household thank you very much

Thank you for taking the time to modify these Dominique, much appreciated.  For the first one I actually have about 5 PP'd versions but I keep coming back to the least processed one (that posted above) probably because it's closest to what I actually remember I saw. I even have a HDR version (tried 3 different programs) !  I just can't make my mind up over the first one but since Ron & Mike both also find it lacking in contrast I am sure you must be right.  I definitely like your Mirae version better so I need to go back to the PP room again.

Thanks Mike ! The 43 Ltd was the first lens I bought for Pentax (before I had even bought a Pentax camera) and the 77 Ltd the last one I bought just a week ago (it's superb - though not as sharp as the Zeiss 85/1.4 I have too but it renders very differently and is wonderful for portraits and street shooting - a couple of threads on those to come soon once I've processed the shots).

[tcom]

I do fully understand that you prefer to show photos the manner you saw the scenes yourself, I do that as well. But, I had to learn that a post processed photo can be much more appealing.

A few months ago, I submitted an article together with a few photos of an air show to the press association where I publish some of my work. The photos were not much post processed and showed pretty much what the public was able to see. There was in particular this shot:



I liked that photo, but I was asked to post process it to bring out the details. I gave it a try and submitted a new version of it:



Well, the original photo has been clicked 124 times and faved twice on flickr. The post processed photo has been clicked over 1100 times and faved 99 times!

This makes me really think if I should show the photos like I saw the scene or post process them to boost contrast and details.

[Frogfish]

That's a very interesting comparison Dominique. There are elements in each that I prefer over the other. Whereas, to me at least, the main difference seems to be not so much a change in contrast as a lightening of the whole shot, and in particular the shadows. I definitely prefer the 'after burners' (is that right ?) in the original but the under belly in the second.  Maybe that is why people chose the second by a huge majority - the visible detail ?

[davidhampshire]

i love just about all dominigue's work,    however the original plane shot looks more real to me,   the second ,  though more detailed,   looks more plastic, or toy-like.     maybe that's what people want,   but i like stuff that sometimes isn't all there,   like me.
   

[blackcloudbrew]

Yes, he is a great photographer for sure and I've run out of superlatives for his images. My goal would be to be half as good as he is, I could live with that.

When he originally presented those two shots we had some discussion about them at the time. It may be a matter of taste as I prefer the second one at this point. The second one just has more detail visible on the plane. Bottom line is it's a good shot, whichever one you prefer.

[tcom]

Yeah, we already had the discussion. I just wanted to stress with these two photos that a processed photo might please more than what it closer to reality. Until this experience, I wanted to have my photos looking as close to what I saw myself, but the viewers have not seen the scene themselves and seem to prefer post processed ones.

[JIMBO]

Photographs have been manipulated from the first shutter dropping. There were times it would take someone, like Ansel Adams, months to complete the processing in their labs. Many pros say "THEY" did not alter their photo only to find out their assistant did. For me the whole process is Art. From the click to the processing we look for that look that is pleasing to the sole and it is truly a rare we ever get  there.

Dom, Both images look great but I am sure the second one would look way better printed. Lately I have been trying to not force the processing side. If it is not there its never going to be there. I have had times where [and it is rare] that I go back to the original, after procssing and said, I should have left it alone. Again, very rare that happens.

Always appreciate you insight and for me its all about the learning experiance. Cheers JIMBO

[davidhampshire]

so,   which of the two shots do you personally like the best,  dominique ?    dave

[tcom]

I prefer the original, it looks like I did saw it, the post processed one looks too artificial to me, but I have to agree, printed or as thumbnail, the post processed works better.

[calsan]

I what has happened in the last few years is that everyone has got used to the high 'pop' of phone and/or cheap cameras - they're set to have high contrast to make up for the poor contrast and quality of the tiny lenses.  I have my camera set to either natural or portrait (I especially like portrait for landscapes...), but the colors often look a bit subtle compared with the 'woo hoo!' bright and punchy fake look you see by default everywhere these days.
On the other hand, people often tell me 'wow, I look normal in your photos'...