Wat Chedi Luang C&C

alb

Click for larger version

This is an old temple in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand. I was lucky to get such a nice sky for it during rainy season I did photoshop out a cable running from the top down to the ground.

kensutz

Whoa this I like. Can't really fault it and no sign of where the cable was cloned out. Nice colours and nice tones.

Now I hope that's enough comments made about the photo :rolleyes:

alb

Thanks for the feedback Ken

af_thefragile

I really like it!
I've got little experience of photography but my artistic eye says its flawless!

superflyninja

me likey!!!!!

CabanSail

Very nice indeed.

It looks a tad dark at the front where the tree is, but that's probably the cheap monitor I am on at work. Would like to see it as a print.

AnimalRights

Looks too little like a picture to me, I understand it may be the artie type look you wanted but even the clouds on each side don't correspond.
Green looks over Saturated too, it's a classic case of a nice picture over done.
Middle of the building is not sharp either, I find it interesting that the water matches the clouds above?
So maybe you didn't touch the sky or else you're very good at doing the water reflections?
Would like to see the original picture.

Calina

AnimalRights wrote: »

Looks too little like a picture to me, I understand it may be the artie type look you wanted but even the clouds on each side don't correspond.
Green looks over Saturated too, it's a classic case of a nice picture over done.
Middle of the building is not sharp either, I find it interesting that the water matches the clouds above?
So maybe you didn't touch the sky or else you're very good at doing the water reflections?
Would like to see the original picture.

Okay, before I deal with the OP, I have to deal with this. We like constructive C&C here. By constructive, it helps if it's also comprehensible:

1) Looks too little like a picture to me. What on earth do you mean by this?
2) It may be the artype you wanted but even the clouds on each side don't correspond - sorry? What do you mean they don't correspond. Do you expect clouds to be perfectly symetrical or something?
4)I find it interesting that the water matches the clouds above: Please why wouldn't they when the water is perfectly still?
5) why are you assuming he digitally created either the reflection or the sky?
He's admitted to cloning out a cable...from whence your ideas that he's done other work? If it's because of techical issues I'd like to hear about them.
_________________________________

Now, for the attention of the original poster.

I like this photograph. It's pure picture postcard and I am not sure if that was what you are aiming for.

From what I can see, you took it from a lower angle, shooting up, and also, by the looks of things, a fairly wide lens so I like the way the sky is stretching away left and right - left in particular.

The foliage on the bush dead centre (on the corner straight in front of you as you look at the photograph) is a little indistinct, the edges lack contrast. This may be because I've a slightly darker screen here and can't see the edges or it could be because they are slightly under exposed. You'll need to make a call on that.

There's a part of me would crop left and right to take the fence out of the shot but the result of that would be to cut the palm tree left in half which would also not be ideal.

Overall I like the composition of the photograph but feel the colours are a touch on the dark side (bear in mind what I said about my monitor though). Given a choice I would shoot from a slightly higher elevation (don't know how possible that is though as I've never been there). I would also look at lining up the corner edge of the building with dead centre of the photograph - it's ever so slightly right of centre.

This is the short of picture I feel that would look great in at least A3 size if its sharp enough.

AnimalRights

Look a picture was for C&C and not everyone has the same likes/dislikes.
I said what I see/felt, hence C&C
Maybe I'm not good with words but that certainly doesn't give you the right to dissect one of my C&C's or to stop me giving a C&C on a public C&C. :rolleyes:
But since if I don't explain myself you'll prob try to get me banned or report it to another moderator here is my explanation.
#It doesn't look like a natural picture.
#Clouds on the left don't look real, the ones on the right do.
#because the clouds on the left don't look real.

If the OP says I am wrong so be it, but I replied to a C&C of how I seen it.

Calina

C&C is supposed to be helpful for all AnimalRights, not just the OP. If I can't understand it, how am I going to derive any benefit from it? Regardless of what you might think, I don't just read your posts for the entertainment. I've been on this forum and I have learned a huge amount from other people's C&C threads, not just my own.

The clouds on the left are distorted because the lens was very wide. It's normal for clouds taken with, for example, a 10-20mm lens. You can actually see the clouds on the right are similarly affected if you look carefully. I can't remember if you shoot with a wide angle but I do, frequently. This is normal. PS even has a function for dealing with barrel distortion which I don't personally use because I like the effect. If you had made it clear in your previous post that this was why you saw it thus I or anyone else with a wide angle could have answered it. Instead, you implied that the OP did a whole lot of digital art work on his photograph. Do you think that's fair when he's owned up to what he did? Obviously if he comes on and explains that he constructed the reflection out of a dropped in sky despite already explaining the picture was taken in a break from the rainy season I will stand corrected but if he did, I can tell you there isn't anyone here who will better his PS skills.

As to what looks like a natural picture - you could argue that some of the stronger colours are over saturated but I stand back from that because of the monitor I'm looking on right now.

AnimalRights

On iPhone now and read 1st paragraphh just so far. You are correct on cc for everyone but I couldn't explain it any better.
Back to ya after I read the rest.

AnimalRights

K read rest, I don't know the tech side In's and outs and to tech heads may look like I'm a noob who doesn't know what he is talking about but photography is for all walks of life people and not just the arty/middle class types.so diff view points will come across which is not necc a bad thing。
Met someone recently and we apparently do have 1 thing in common, we both speak our minds and call a spade a spade.
I will leave it at that.
xx

alb

Well if the clouds on each side don't correspond take it up with God not me I took it as it was. It's interesting to see the debate that emerged over this. For the record here's the original pic before any PS work:



Calina is spot on, it was taken with a 10-20mm lens, which led to the cloud distortion.

I will take the fact that it doesn't look like a natural picture as a compliment

Thanks for all the comments everyone

Phototoxin

I agree with animal rights here though... it looks more like a picture and less like a photograph.

Then again 'what is a photograph' is a different thread. [shoot film and avoid the argument!]

I actually prefer the original to the photoshopped version although I think it could be maybe darkened 5 notches and saturated up 5.

edit : looked at the side by side.. the middle tree looks off but I cannot place why... i think its the green beside the black whcih isnt' 'black' enough or something.

melekalikimaka

AnimalRights wrote: »

But since if I don't explain myself you'll prob try to get me banned or report it to another moderator here is my explanation.

don't bite the hand that mods you

AnimalRights

lol Mel

OP thank you for taking my C&C.
It would be easy for me now to cover my ass and to say I prefer the original but if I had to pick one of the two it's the PP one (2nd)
The Green def is messed up in the PP version though, as for the sky I will eat humble pie!
The funny thing is the original picture looks just as postcardish as the 2nd. wierd.
Bottom line and I am not a landscape expert is I still think the 2nd pic was over saturated but it is better than the original.

Phew!

Fionn

whats all this anti post card stuff???


the photograph/picture that was first posted is very appealing and attractive. If we go pixel peeping yeah, there might be some complaints but - overall tis (imho) darn good!!

well done!!

alb

Phototoxin wrote: »

I agree with animal rights here though... it looks more like a picture and less like a photograph.

A photograph is a picture, so I don't understand what you mean, do you mean a painting? Is so, is it a bad thing if a photogrpah looks like a painting, or does it matter as long as it's interesting and aesthetically pleasing?

Phototoxin wrote: »

I actually prefer the original to the photoshopped version although I think it could be maybe darkened 5 notches and saturated up 5.

edit : looked at the side by side.. the middle tree looks off but I cannot place why... i think its the green beside the black whcih isnt' 'black' enough or something.

All i really did to the PS version over the original is darken parts and boost the colours a little so I'm not sure why you prefer the original but state those suggestions to improve it. I don't understand what you mean about the middle tree.

Thanks for the comments, I do appreciate the feedback!

alb

AnimalRights wrote: »

lol Mel

OP thank you for taking my C&C.
It would be easy for me now to cover my ass and to say I prefer the original but if I had to pick one of the two it's the PP one (2nd)
The Green def is messed up in the PP version though, as for the sky I will eat humble pie!
The funny thing is the original picture looks just as postcardish as the 2nd. wierd.
Bottom line and I am not a landscape expert is I still think the 2nd pic was over saturated but it is better than the original.

Phew!

Hey, big of you to say so, I appreciate it. Your original post was great in that I hadn't considered that anyone would think the clouds were fake etc and didn't think posting the original would be of any value. Looking again I do think maybe parts of the 2nd image have been darkened to lose too much detail (the water in the centre for example) but I was trying to move emphasis to the top centre of the image.

AnimalRights

Thing is I really look forward to your next few pics!

Phototoxin

the small shrub thing in the centre of the image. It looks like some sort of tree. the differnce in the two seemed a bit noticable to me.

as for picture vs photograph, a photograph is something the average person would expect to be able to look at , go to where it was taken and see more or less the same. the picture aspect is that its more like a 'painting' of a landscape which , while it is the same place, is not a realistic interpretation.

I'm not criticising the style I'm just giving feedback!! **ducks*