Canon 5DMkIII, Canon TS-E 24mm F/3.5L II lens, 1/20 sec at f/16, ISO 100
I just did a quick re-edit to a “Before & After” photo I just posted to my Google+ stream (the one on the right) by removing the texture (here’s my original post about it: https://plus.google.com/u/0/113097851206100618060/posts/dAV3BJtQdXQ).
I like them both … the one on the right would make a cool movie poster or something like that, and the one on the left would look nice hanging on my wall. :)
What do you think … ?
Send to Kindle
I think the texture takes away from this. I prefer the left one.
I think the texture takes away from this. I prefer the left one.
The textured one is far more atmospheric.
The textured one is far more atmospheric.
I prefer the one on the left. Though your point about the movie poster right version is well taken. :)
I prefer the one on the left. Though your point about the movie poster right version is well taken. :)
I like the textured one better +1 for that :)
I like the textured one better +1 for that :)
I like this latest (left) edit a lot better, and (given my stated biases) I think it reads much better. I noticed there is more discernible detail in that broken sign to the left of the building (and roof) and the effect that has on reducing the strength of the building's leading lines pretty much resolves the conflict I was feeling reading the front of the building.
And now that the texture in the sky is gone but you kept the smoothing, I am enjoying what seems to be a well balanced contrast between a smoothed sky and a rough old textured building. I think it works really well that way, adding some depth to the whole scene beyond my personally relatable experience, it adds a more interesting and balanced abstract nature to the image itself.
I like this latest (left) edit a lot better, and (given my stated biases) I think it reads much better. I noticed there is more discernible detail in that broken sign to the left of the building (and roof) and the effect that has on reducing the strength of the building's leading lines pretty much resolves the conflict I was feeling reading the front of the building.
And now that the texture in the sky is gone but you kept the smoothing, I am enjoying what seems to be a well balanced contrast between a smoothed sky and a rough old textured building. I think it works really well that way, adding some depth to the whole scene beyond my personally relatable experience, it adds a more interesting and balanced abstract nature to the image itself.
I like the p e without the texture. The emptiness of the sky adds to the isolation. The texture I find distracting
I like the p e without the texture. The emptiness of the sky adds to the isolation. The texture I find distracting
I'm kind of torn…I like both. I think I like it without the texture a little better but I like the tonality and harshness of the slightly darker sky on the right with the texture better. I'm guessing that is a byproduct of the texture being added :)
I'm kind of torn…I like both. I think I like it without the texture a little better but I like the tonality and harshness of the slightly darker sky on the right with the texture better. I'm guessing that is a byproduct of the texture being added :)
I prefer the one without texture, but I like both in a different way.
I prefer the one without texture, but I like both in a different way.
All good comments … I guess it just shows that there's no right or wrong when it comes to art.
All good comments … I guess it just shows that there's no right or wrong when it comes to art.
+Dave Veffer Yes, I had to darken the sky a bit when I removed the texture. I didn't want to push it too far or I'd add banding to the image (already had to nip that in the bud once with the motion blur).
+Dave Veffer Yes, I had to darken the sky a bit when I removed the texture. I didn't want to push it too far or I'd add banding to the image (already had to nip that in the bud once with the motion blur).
Ah yes that makes sense :) Friggin banding ugh
Ah yes that makes sense :) Friggin banding ugh
My vote is for untextured.
My vote is for untextured.
I wouldn't say any one of these is better per se – but I guess the right one is more attractive to people that don't look at photos very long, because the texture is another eye catcher that draws them in immediately. The left one takes a bit more time to captivate.
As for prints, I noticed that when doing large format (45x30inch and bigger) texture becomes a more and more important factor, so I could well imagine the right one to have an additional bonus when printed huge :)
I wouldn't say any one of these is better per se – but I guess the right one is more attractive to people that don't look at photos very long, because the texture is another eye catcher that draws them in immediately. The left one takes a bit more time to captivate.
As for prints, I noticed that when doing large format (45x30inch and bigger) texture becomes a more and more important factor, so I could well imagine the right one to have an additional bonus when printed huge :)
I love that sky – so, I probably never would've thought to have even try a texture on a shot like this. That being said, I do love the texture you used here and it does add another layer (har har) to an already great shot.
I love that sky – so, I probably never would've thought to have even try a texture on a shot like this. That being said, I do love the texture you used here and it does add another layer (har har) to an already great shot.
Prefer the one on the left…may be a different texture would work better.
Prefer the one on the left…may be a different texture would work better.
+holger feroudj Ah but printed large, the subtleties of the sky would be more apparent as a texture, even with the motion blur.
+holger feroudj Ah but printed large, the subtleties of the sky would be more apparent as a texture, even with the motion blur.
I like them both. I think that the one on the right will look good hanging on a wall too, printed on canvas for example :)
I like them both. I think that the one on the right will look good hanging on a wall too, printed on canvas for example :)
I like the one on the right mostly because with so much sky the texture makes more interesting. The darker tones also make it more pleasing with the storm or what ever is coming.
I like the one on the right mostly because with so much sky the texture makes more interesting. The darker tones also make it more pleasing with the storm or what ever is coming.
I understand it's fun to Instagram* photos, but in my opinion the cracks and pseudo imperfections really take away from the effort to make a good original photo. Why not take photos with a instant film camera rather than masking over all those great modern optics we spend so much money on. The photo on the left is really nice and requires (and shows) some effort and knowledge needed to create. The photo on the right says, look at the filter I applied.
PS- I don't know how my text is reading… but I'm not trying to be Internet Jerk. I think the left photo is really nice that requires effort and skill to create.
I understand it's fun to Instagram* photos, but in my opinion the cracks and pseudo imperfections really take away from the effort to make a good original photo. Why not take photos with a instant film camera rather than masking over all those great modern optics we spend so much money on. The photo on the left is really nice and requires (and shows) some effort and knowledge needed to create. The photo on the right says, look at the filter I applied.
PS- I don't know how my text is reading… but I'm not trying to be Internet Jerk. I think the left photo is really nice that requires effort and skill to create.
i like the origenal one. but i am keen to know how the texture is attached. that may works with others. good effert
i like the origenal one. but i am keen to know how the texture is attached. that may works with others. good effert
Same. All for the original non-added texture
Same. All for the original non-added texture
Original :-)
Original :-)
+Zachery Jensen That's true of course, the sky in itself can already be a wonderful texture for large prints :)
+Michael Seneschal First of all – I agree with you. But just as some food for thought, we all know them, the people that are pleased by extreme texture-effects (same as e.g. saturated colors, contrasts, vignettes, etc) – usually 'normal' people that don't know much about photography nor necessarily want to know much about it. So why is this?
I'm on your side, I prefer photos that require and show effort and knowledge, but also if somebody has no clue about the effort and knowledge it takes, someone who just looks at the result and prefers e.g. a photo that took no skill and knowledge to take, edited with a premade filter with texture and color effects, to the photo that at least we know took lotsa skill – then is this a bad thing? Not sure myself what to think about this situation so just want to throw this into the room.
+Zachery Jensen That's true of course, the sky in itself can already be a wonderful texture for large prints :)
+Michael Seneschal First of all – I agree with you. But just as some food for thought, we all know them, the people that are pleased by extreme texture-effects (same as e.g. saturated colors, contrasts, vignettes, etc) – usually 'normal' people that don't know much about photography nor necessarily want to know much about it. So why is this?
I'm on your side, I prefer photos that require and show effort and knowledge, but also if somebody has no clue about the effort and knowledge it takes, someone who just looks at the result and prefers e.g. a photo that took no skill and knowledge to take, edited with a premade filter with texture and color effects, to the photo that at least we know took lotsa skill – then is this a bad thing? Not sure myself what to think about this situation so just want to throw this into the room.
I prefer the left. The one on the right looks like someone applied a texture to it in some software, whereas the effect you probably want is to make it look like an old photo. The two are not the same, and the result you have is too obviously manipulated.
I prefer the left. The one on the right looks like someone applied a texture to it in some software, whereas the effect you probably want is to make it look like an old photo. The two are not the same, and the result you have is too obviously manipulated.
left for me
left for me
I prefer the non textured image. I really like the smooth look of the sky.
I prefer the non textured image. I really like the smooth look of the sky.
Left for sure
Left for sure
get rid of the glassy texture, otherwise great shot!
+holger feroudj Exactly. That's exactly how I feel. Non-photography interested people eat this stuff up.
What do you think about the archivability of textured photos? In other words, in 30-years from now, do you think we'll look at all these pseudo textured photos of our kids etc. and wish there were better versions?
I personally think we'll look at all these filters and borders and try to find the originals. That's just my opinion, not saying I'm right or wrong. I can't imagine looking back in 30 years and thinking, 'sweet, I Photoshopped it to look torn even though it's a digital photo and getting torn is pretty much impossible'.
It does, though, speak to a fun side of digital photo manipulation. As an example, I don't think any wedding photographers are doing this to the formal photos… at least I hope not. haha Even if the non-photography-interested bride may request their wedding photos all instagram-filtered up… in 30-years she's going to look back and wish she has great photos of her wedding.
It's all subjective, no right or wrong.
+holger feroudj Exactly. That's exactly how I feel. Non-photography interested people eat this stuff up.
What do you think about the archivability of textured photos? In other words, in 30-years from now, do you think we'll look at all these pseudo textured photos of our kids etc. and wish there were better versions?
I personally think we'll look at all these filters and borders and try to find the originals. That's just my opinion, not saying I'm right or wrong. I can't imagine looking back in 30 years and thinking, 'sweet, I Photoshopped it to look torn even though it's a digital photo and getting torn is pretty much impossible'.
It does, though, speak to a fun side of digital photo manipulation. As an example, I don't think any wedding photographers are doing this to the formal photos… at least I hope not. haha Even if the non-photography-interested bride may request their wedding photos all instagram-filtered up… in 30-years she's going to look back and wish she has great photos of her wedding.
It's all subjective, no right or wrong.
Prefer the shot on the left.
Prefer the shot on the left.
wow, i like the shot on the right
wow, i like the shot on the right
I like the one on the left, more natural….
I like the one on the left, more natural….
I have to vote for the non texture one also. Great dramatic shot.
I have to vote for the non texture one also. Great dramatic shot.
WOW..! You are no Internet Jerk! :-)
WOW..! You are no Internet Jerk! :-)
the right one is better
the right one is better
would of liked to been there it lookes like an interesting moment
would of liked to been there it lookes like an interesting moment
The image on the left, without texture, is great as is. I think the one on the right, with texture, is distracting without context. Meaning, that I believe it should only carry the pseudo-texture if within, as you said before, a movie poster or something. Without the context, the texture is meaningless, and distracting.
The image on the left, without texture, is great as is. I think the one on the right, with texture, is distracting without context. Meaning, that I believe it should only carry the pseudo-texture if within, as you said before, a movie poster or something. Without the context, the texture is meaningless, and distracting.
I agree with Matt, the texture on the right detracts rather than enhances. Perhaps a different approach to the texture? It might work with a more generalized, finer grained, "sandy" type of texture, rather than something that draws the eye up away from the main subject.
I agree with Matt, the texture on the right detracts rather than enhances. Perhaps a different approach to the texture? It might work with a more generalized, finer grained, "sandy" type of texture, rather than something that draws the eye up away from the main subject.
I like no texture. The texture photography remind me some kind of beer ad.
I like no texture. The texture photography remind me some kind of beer ad.
Although the textured one looks cool, I prefer the one on the left.
Although the textured one looks cool, I prefer the one on the left.
I prefer a mixture no texture in the sky but texture on the ground and building works well. X
I prefer a mixture no texture in the sky but texture on the ground and building works well. X
No texture the smoothness gives a pleasant feeling..love to hear from all of you..
No texture the smoothness gives a pleasant feeling..love to hear from all of you..
Sin "textura" … para este cielo
Sin "textura" … para este cielo
I prefer no texture myself!
I prefer no texture myself!
God …. With these pictures it can be concluded that the man who drew this picture.
The first reason: The picture is very strange, and this effect was obtained by the camera dirty.
Other reasons include:
-the man was drunk
-the man was drunk a lot
Drunken-made two images of the same, except that the camera broke on the second camera :-)
God …. With these pictures it can be concluded that the man who drew this picture.
The first reason: The picture is very strange, and this effect was obtained by the camera dirty.
Other reasons include:
-the man was drunk
-the man was drunk a lot
Drunken-made two images of the same, except that the camera broke on the second camera :-)
I tend to prefer the one on the left, too. The one on the right looks a bit like a neglected and poorly handled print, and in case it's not one, aka a scan of a wrinkled and weathered print, it looks just like a rather pointless fake gimmick. The end result looks fine and almost authentic, though.
On the other hand, had it been the other way around, the one on the right being the original and the one on the left the end result, that would have been equally cool too. Actually even more so. Here's why I think so.
Even though the one with the texture is showing commendable level of Photoshop skills, and it is a matter of taste of course, but what's the point of making a photo look like (a scan of an) old and battered (photo), if it really isn't one?
I agree that they both look kinda cool and the one on the left might make a nice print to be hanged on the wall. However, I think the one with that particular texture would only make a fine print in a frame or even as a poster if the subject in the photo was something or someone of great emotional value. A loved one already passed on, or in case it's a place or building, it should be a one of great importance, something that no longer exists, like from one's childhood. It should be something worth preserving, even as a battered copy, with the crackles and all.
That photo of an old building could of course be just that but, if it wasn't, it would be just a pointless gimmick, wouldn't it. More so than many other obvious gimmicks. All about showing off photo editing skills, little about content.
Not that there's anything wrong with that per se, though, we all tinker and play at times, just for the heck of it.
Suppose the point I'm trying to make is that, real crackled photo is usually not saved and copied for just the sake of the battered and crackled look. Quite the opposite, the crackles and other damages are the unwanted features we try to avoid and hide at all cost, rather than enhance. People pay money to get rid of real defects like that in real old photos. I, too, have salvaged such old photos for other people. That's why I think the wrinkled and aged photo texture should be used very carefully, for it so easily ends up looking a bit daft.
Having said all that, however, I do appreciate the effort and skills, and I kinda like both of the photos. I do see the point of the technique, if/when one actually wants (or needs) to fake the past for fiction. They do it all the time for the movies, for example.
It just that this particular effect is a bit tricky, for the aforementioned reasons. However good you are with Photoshop. If you do it, and especially as a print, make sure your subject has (or looks like it does) a reason powerful enough to be saved, copied and reprinted even with the wrinkles of age and abuse still visible, and that the end result looks un-gimmicky enough.
Just saying, since you asked… ;-)
PS.
I think the one on the right, with the texture, it might look even better as a b&w version. Could be worth experimenting.
I tend to prefer the one on the left, too.
Even though the one on the right with the texture is showing commendable level of Photoshop skills, and it is a matter of taste of course, but what's the point of making a photo look like (a scan of an) old and battered (photo), if it really isn't one?
That photo of an old building could of course be of a great emotional value to someone but, if it wasn't, adding the texture would be just a pointless gimmick, wouldn't it. More so than many other obvious gimmicks. All about showing off photo editing skills, little about content.
Not that there's anything wrong with that per se, though, we all tinker and play at times, just for the heck of it.
Suppose the point I'm trying to make is that, real crackled photo is usually not saved and copied for just the sake of the battered and crackled look. Quite the opposite, the crackles and other damages are the unwanted features we try to avoid and hide at all cost, rather than enhance. People pay money to get rid of real defects like that in real old photos. I, too, have salvaged such old photos for other people. That's why I think the wrinkled and aged photo texture should be used very carefully, for it so easily ends up looking silly.
However, I do see the point of the technique, when one actually needs to fake the past for fiction, for example. They do it all the time for the movies, for example.
It just that this particular effect is a bit tricky, for the aforementioned reasons. However good you are with Photoshop. If you do it, especially as a print, make sure your subject has (or looks like it does) a reason good enough to be saved, copied and reprinted even with the wrinkles of age and abuse still visible, so that the end result looks un-gimmicky enough.
Just saying, since you asked… ;-)
PS.
I think the one on the right, with the texture, it might look even better as a b&w version. Could be worth experimenting.
WOW!
WOW!
I saw your post last night and looked at again this morning. As many have said, I think I prefer the version without the texture. In my mind a print is so much different than what you "see" on a digital display. Some treatments work well in both media, others only one. I find that I still have to print certain photographs to stare at for a while, to see if I really like them.
I saw your post last night and looked at again this morning. As many have said, I think I prefer the version without the texture. In my mind a print is so much different than what you "see" on a digital display. Some treatments work well in both media, others only one. I find that I still have to print certain photographs to stare at for a while, to see if I really like them.
I like the one on the left.
I like the one on the left.
I agree with you.
If I was just to pick my favorite of the 2, without the texture….
If I was a client and I wanted to use it for a poster hell yeah I like the texture – if it fit with my theme. So It really comes to usage. nice work.
I’m in agreement with your initial analysis of the right making more sense as some sort of movie poster or even an album cover with a recrop. As it stands now, the garage is the main element of the photo, and on the non-textured one, its presence draws your eyes down to it. The heaviness of the texture draws your eyes away from the interesting element of the image, which would be perfect of there was a title up there, but not so much when it’s just sky.
Left
Left
On the left.
On the left.
I like them both, too, but the one on the right is my favorite. The texture makes me see a story emerging within, Love it.
I like the one on the left. People used to pay me to fix those cracks on their old photos ;] I say, print it and in time it'll find it's way to the photo on the right eventually.
I like the one on the left. People used to pay me to fix those cracks on their old photos ;] I say, print it and in time it'll find it's way to the photo on the right eventually.
Without texture please :P
Cheers.
I love the one on the left. Nice work.
I love the one on the left. Nice work.
Had to come by, Was just browsing NewsGator and this blog post made
my day. Keep it up!