London, 1975

[eob]

Started as a B&W negative with plain white-washed out sky. Then, added some color. Simple trick, but it brought an old, plain and drab image to life.

[habakuk]

Hi eob. My first reaction was not very enthusiastic. Looked like too much playing with a rather boring subject. Then I spent a second and third look, and suddenly it started to appeal me. But... I had to make a small change to your picture: I cut it so the second, higher dark area was no longer in the composition. Then, oh my, all the power comes from the lower right corner and explodes outwards. I like how the lamp post follows the lines of light, and once cropped, the windows really work very well within the dark area.

It has so much magic in it, so muc thoughts start to flow just like the lines are flowing... very powerful. BUT, this is only true for the cropped version. The original as you posted it doesn't work nearly as much for me.

cheers
®

[eob]

You mean, you cropped it in the square? How odd!    But, yes, you're right. The right side of the building is too overwhelmingly black and heavy. I should have worked a bit more on this image instead of just trying to see what can I do with an old, boring and unwanted negative. Thanks!

[eob]

OK, I did two different versions of cropping. I think, Roland, you had something like that in your mind?


   


Personally, I like even better the second cropping. So, what do you think? Is it any better?

[habakuk]

I'd go with the first crop. It is square and has to be better just by that, no? <just kidding> I like that crop better because the radiant clouds work nicely. They lead to the lower right corner and the lamp post also aligns with them. In your second crop, the lamp post feels very squeezed in to me. However, imho the second crop is still a definite improvement compared to the original post.

cheers
®

[Ted Byrne]

I like the square... And I like it that you posted it in sufficient size for me to reeeeeeely enjoy it. And I hate your copyright mark in such a key spot. Maybe someone will steal a 72dpi image of this quality... but it is so unlikely and you can always beat the hell outta them if they do. Meantime... get a nice signature and hunt for the inconspicuous spot where it actually enhances the image. AAAAARGH! These are too good to deface.... Grumble... grble... grb.....

[eob]

Ted, I understand you hating the copyright markings on the photo itself. I have the same feeling, but after years of resistance, I decided to use those markings on all photos I publish on the net. And not only to prevent theft (I doubt any measure against photo-image theft works sufficiently), but mainly in anticipation of the new copyright law that is slowly creeping into our reality. I am talking about the proposed "orphan image" law that says: if you can't determine the copyrights holder for any image whatsoever, you can use that image free of charge for any purpose you like (including commercial use). That law is being implemented in the U.S. and the U.K.

So, as you see, marking the image and imbedding metadata makes sense. Metadata sometimes gets truncated or obliterated in the process of converting the image for the web, so visible markings on the photo itself are actually even more important.

As to the hunt for the inconspicuous spot within the image, I think I got the most inconspicuous one possible. I let my software place the copyright note for me automatically - always in the same spot. That saves me a lot of time that I can use for more important things.