Architecture Retouch

subxaero · #1 01-31-2008, 10:59 AM

nothing fancy. just me being glad when having it finished

Full View (Updated)

(add. info.: based on a 3-sot-HDR, merged with photomatix, edited in Photoshop for 10-15 hours...see the 3 aparture-shots as the basic reference)

DannyRaphael · #2 01-31-2008, 12:06 PM

Nice job... I can see why this took so long. The bright lights were definitely a challenge.

Added clouds are a real plus.

Did you intentionally leave out the ads in the final edition.

subxaero · #3 01-31-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DannyRaphael

Nice job... I can see why this took so long. The bright lights were definitely a challenge.

Added clouds are a real plus.

Did you intentionally leave out the ads in the final edition.

yes i did, and this consumed lots of time

(little hint: c,m,y,k

)

and with the lights: i made an improved version real quick...just refresh the blogsite

AdamZx3 · #4 01-31-2008, 12:49 PM

Wow very nice!...Impressive!

Do you have any links to your other (if any) architecture work?

subxaero · #5 01-31-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamZx3

Wow very nice!...Impressive!

Do you have any links to your other (if any) architecture work?

actually i never ever worked on any architecture before...i just thought of the picture as if it were a portrait ^^

but i resolve making it a series, so hopefully i find the time to do two other pieces in that way

...so far i'm a busy student and this goes off my free-time

pixelzombie · #6 01-31-2008, 01:02 PM

interesting shot...what did the image look like just after merging to HDR?

subxaero · #7 01-31-2008, 01:18 PM

these are the exposures Exposures

and this is what photomatix spat out

Photomatix Merge (already with corrected perspective...my new best friend-filter

)

pixelzombie · #8 01-31-2008, 01:36 PM

i just noticed that the highlight detail seems to be blown out, is that intentional?

ktg222 · #9 01-31-2008, 03:14 PM

I'm sorry not to be on the band wagon here, but the lights are blown out, the sky looks like it has been dropped in i.e not realistic, no colour in the wall-----billboard ads; you took out the color which I liked, but that's a style/taste thing . There is nice detail in the steel under the bridge. You say it took 10-15 hrs. It's hard for me to see that amount of work. I'm not flaming, just commenting.

k

Damo77 · #10 01-31-2008, 10:48 PM

A nice job, OP, just let down by some inaccurate masking around the railings near the TLH corner, and an odd black spot beneath a small light near the BLH corner. Otherwise, great work!

Markzebra · #11 02-01-2008, 07:39 AM

Yes - good start, nice composition, I think people are being unfair in the last couple of posts.

As said you need to sort out the fringing on the railings at the top, and you need to burn them very slightly darker, to make them sit against the sky.

I like the blown highlights, but its a good idea to break those with some slight noise - flare breaks up slightly and is never pure like that, even if your high aperture shots look that way, a little noise there, or maybe a grain overall, will look more natural

Theres a very slight color inconsistency where the sky is a subtly different grey value to the foreground - and I would look again at overall weights, shadows should be more or less consistent with each other to look unified. But having said that I do like the way that you have chosen to make under the bridge more smoky with quarter tones slightly lighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system

subxaero · #12 02-10-2008, 08:14 AM

i did a second one - check it out!

Full View

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markzebra

Yes - good start, nice composition, I think people are being unfair in the last couple of posts.

As said you need to sort out the fringing on the railings at the top, and you need to burn them very slightly darker, to make them sit against the sky.

I like the blown highlights, but its a good idea to break those with some slight noise - flare breaks up slightly and is never pure like that, even if your high aperture shots look that way, a little noise there, or maybe a grain overall, will look more natural

Theres a very slight color inconsistency where the sky is a subtly different grey value to the foreground - and I would look again at overall weights, shadows should be more or less consistent with each other to look unified. But having said that I do like the way that you have chosen to make under the bridge more smoky with quarter tones slightly lighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system

quite a read, the link

thx for your effort in commenting.

Markzebra · #13 02-10-2008, 02:52 PM

Looks good, what about a bigger one?

pixelzombie · #14 02-10-2008, 03:23 PM

looks good, but did you intend to blow out the highlights?...i thought HDR would have better HL detail...

subxaero · #15 02-10-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markzebra

Looks good, what about a bigger one?

just klick on my "full view" link

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixelzombie

looks good, but did you intend to blow out the highlights?...i thought HDR would have better HL detail...

well HDR makes you gain control over everything, but this is exactly how i wanted it

(all i'm going to do the following days is to implement some more color at certain places)