I’ve been working mostly in black and white street photography, where the frame often depends more on weight, shadow, and timing than on clean description.
In this image, I let the blacks get quite heavy because I wanted the figure and the surrounding space to feel slightly hostile, not neatly readable. I’m never fully sure where that line sits: when does contrast become atmosphere, and when does it simply start eating the photograph?
Shot in harsh available light, edited with the shadows left deliberately dense rather than rescued.
Would you pull more detail back from the black areas, or does the loss of information help the image?
You must log in or # to comment.
I like the dark parts, they go well with your purpose like you described it.
It’s the bright parts where I’m not sure. As it is, it feels cloudy, overcast, but you said there was plenty of light (and the car’s windows are hinting at a bright sky too). I would try to allow stronger brightness = more contrast in the upper regions, and then see if it helps or not.
Not a photographer but I think you got what you were going for. Nice pic.
Also welcome to Lemmy!
Thank you, Khannie!
… I think you pretty much nailed what you were going for. Looks great!
Thanks a lot. That’s exactly what I was hoping for: heavy shadows, a bit of urban pressure, and just enough light to keep the whole thing from collapsing into pure concrete misery. Glad it landed.> … I think you pretty much nailed what you were going for. Looks great!
Yeah!
So lately I am… dabbling more in colorspaces and such, but from a game dev perspective…
Basically, I think I understand what you’re saying, technically, its just that the lingo I would use is maybe a bit different… or maybe I don’t actually understand it, technically, lol…
But I can’t of a way to phrase it more accurately than what you said, and that… yeah, you hit the balance between the factors/methods you’re using perfectly, imo, its …
…right between ‘is this intentionally colorgraded/balanced to seem foreboding?’ and ‘or is it just actually that the shot itself is framed and composed and lit, naturally, in a foreboding way?’
Yeah I just really like this… I’m going to call it a picture, not an ‘image’, lol.
That’s a great way to put it. I like that space between “was this deliberately pushed into something foreboding?” and “or was the street already doing that by itself?” That’s pretty much the balance I was trying to keep: not over-explaining the mood with processing, just giving the existing tension a little shove.
Also, thank you for calling it a picture. I agree. “Image” sounds like something trapped in a corporate asset folder. “Picture” still has a pulse.> Yeah!
So lately I am… dabbling more in colorspaces and such, but from a game dev perspective…
Basically, I think I understand what you’re saying, technically, its just that the lingo I would use is maybe a bit different… or maybe I don’t actually understand it, technically, lol…
But I can’t of a way to phrase it more accurately than what you said, and that… yeah, you hit the balance between the factors/methods you’re using perfectly, imo, its …
…right between ‘is this intentionally colorgraded/balanced to seem foreboding?’ and ‘or is it just actually that the shot itself is framed and composed and lit, naturally, in a foreboding way?’
Yeah I just really like this… I’m going to call it a picture, not an ‘image’, lol.
Aha, I can see that connotation of ‘image’ as well, what I was trying to go for was the dichotomy between ‘computer generated/manipulated’ and ‘the camera just did that, might have something to do with the cameraman’.
In game dev word… there are no pictures, there is no ‘real’, its all varying degrees of generating something that may or may not kinda look like ‘real’.
Photography… thats capturing the ‘real’, not fabricating a fascimile of it.
At least thats how I think of the two things. Both certainly complex and potentially quite beautiful, but fundamentally different.
That distinction makes a lot of sense to me. Game dev starts with fabrication, even when it’s trying to imitate reality. Photography starts with something that was actually there, even if the photographer then bends it through framing, exposure, timing, processing, and all the other tiny crimes we politely call “interpretation.”
So yes, I agree: photography is not pure reality, because nothing humans touch remains pure for more than five seconds. But it is still anchored to the real. The street existed. The light existed. The cars were there, committing their usual visual crimes. My job was mostly to decide where to stand, when to press the shutter, and how much of that atmosphere to let survive.
That’s why I like “picture” here too. It feels less like a constructed asset and more like a trace of something that actually happened.> Aha, I can see that connotation of ‘image’ as well, what I was trying to go for was the dichotomy between ‘computer generated/manipulated’ and ‘the camera just did that, might have something to do with the cameraman’.
In game dev word… there are no pictures, there is no ‘real’, its all varying degrees of generating something that may or may not kinda look like ‘real’.
Photography… thats capturing the ‘real’, not fabricating a fascimile of it.
At least thats how I think of the two things. Both certainly complex and potentially quite beautiful, but fundamentally different.
… High resolution 3d scans do kind of … blur the line in a new and confusing way.
Essentially, they create a volume of points in 3d space, and then through various different softeware methods, essentially map, or project basically panoramic photos onto those 3d points.
Do that for say the inside of a building, from multiple points… you end up with a damn near photorealistic, 3d, volumetric… ‘picture’ of the space, a snapshot in time.
Currently, these methods are… way too compute intensive to just directly use in a video game, just way too much data, but you can start from them and then basically do fancy versions of ‘simplifying’ the scene into less complex 3d data representations, that look almost as good, with layers of … trickery, basically, as you say, overlayed on top, in realtime.
Also, I’m not sure if you are intentionally… quoting most of what I’m saying, but in the wrong formatting?
Seems you are new to lemmy, so hello! and also here’s a run down of lemmy text formatting.
Oooh! I’m sorry. Excuse me my wrong formatting, please.
Most black I see still has plenty of definition, so I don’t think you overdid it.
Thanks, that’s reassuring. I wanted the blacks to feel heavy, but not dead. There’s a difference between depth and just throwing a bucket of ink over the frame, though photography forums sometimes pretend that’s a philosophy.
I may still test the upper tones a bit, but I agree: the shadows keep enough texture and detail to hold the image together.> Most black I see still has plenty of definition, so I don’t think you overdid it.
Body
As a non-photographer, I like it, but it’d be hard to say without an example. I think it looks good now.
Thank you, that’s actually very useful. Sometimes a non-photographer’s reaction is the cleanest one, before we start measuring shadows with tiny imaginary rulers like civilized lunatics.
I may make a slightly brighter test version just to compare, but I’m glad the current one already works as an image.> As a non-photographer, I like it, but it’d be hard to say without an example. I think it looks good now.
Thanks, that’s a very sharp observation. You’re right: the dark areas are doing what I wanted, but the upper part may be too restrained. There was plenty of light, but I probably held it back too much to avoid turning the image into a clean, heroic city postcard, because apparently I enjoy making life harder for myself.
I’ll try a version with more brightness and contrast in the upper buildings and sky reflections, especially since the car windows are already suggesting that stronger light. It may give the frame more tension without losing the weight in the shadows. Good catch.
No, I think you did a pretty good job when you printed this. You might’ve gone for slightly longer, but I don’t know that it would’ve turned out any better. You probably would’ve lost more details if you let it go for much longer.
Thanks for your helpfully comments.
I think it’s a beautiful shot. I might have tried to pull a little more detail in shadows but not much more, if any.
Thank you, I really appreciate that. I was trying to keep the shadows dense without letting them turn into a featureless black swamp, because apparently even darkness has paperwork.
I agree: maybe a touch more shadow detail could work, but only a touch. I don’t want to rescue everything from the dark. Some parts of the frame deserve to stay slightly buried.> I think it’s a beautiful shot. I might have tried to pull a little more detail in shadows but not much more, if any.
No problem. Yeah I agree with your approach here too. The slight tweaks I potentially would make are so small that the way it’s rendered on my phone could definitely make more of a difference than I’m talking. At one point I had a work setup with a color calibrated monitor and we attempted to tune our prints to match that monitor. That’s a huge rabbit hole. Every device, printer, ink, paper, ambient lighting, etc makes a difference. So these kinds of tweaks have driven me crazy at times!
I really like your composition in this shot btw. Should’ve mentioned that earlier, specifically.
Thank you, I really appreciate that, especially the comment on the composition. That was the part I cared about most: the frame, the weight, the way the cars and buildings press into each other like everyone involved has given up on personal space.
And yes, the monitor/phone/print rabbit hole is real. A tiny shadow adjustment can look meaningful on one screen and completely irrelevant on another, because apparently every device wants to have its own tragic little opinion. I’ll probably make a small test version, but I’m not going to chase technical perfection until the image loses its mood.> No problem. Yeah I agree with your approach here too. The slight tweaks I potentially would make are so small that the way it’s rendered on my phone could definitely make more of a difference than I’m talking. At one point I had a work setup with a color calibrated monitor and we attempted to tune our prints to match that monitor. That’s a huge rabbit hole. Every device, printer, ink, paper, ambient lighting, etc makes a difference. So these kinds of tweaks have driven me crazy at times!
I really like your composition in this shot btw. Should’ve mentioned that earlier, specifically.
Thank you very much for the feedback. I’ll take it into account.
