Gonna order a print of one of these photos (actually it will be either two 5x18s or three 4x12s to fit the full image).
Which looks better; A or B?
A
B
Which looks better; A or B?
A
B
which do you like better?
- Thread starter surfstar
- Start date
- Status
I like A better, personally.
I like something about the clarity of A better than B. Something about the definition in A makes it stand out.
I liked B at first but the center stump doesn't look good with the bluish purple cast. So A.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
I'd go with B&W instead of color, because the image is near monochromatic to begin with. Color is not adding anything essential. The bottom picture is (on my monitor) too magenta. Printing the image in B&W allows various interpretations of the image, many of which can work well. It could wok printed very high key or low key. I hope you don't mind what I did to your image, just to show two sloppily cobbled together examples:
This is the image converted to B&W (always do this by using "lab color" in PS -- never save the image just as a grey scale image, because you lose so much tonality!):
This would be a more dramatic and maybe sinister interpretation:
Also, you should frame your print with a matte board in a color other than white. Or you could have a dark grey or black border printed, so the bright sky will remain confined.
This is the image converted to B&W (always do this by using "lab color" in PS -- never save the image just as a grey scale image, because you lose so much tonality!):
This would be a more dramatic and maybe sinister interpretation:
Also, you should frame your print with a matte board in a color other than white. Or you could have a dark grey or black border printed, so the bright sky will remain confined.
I would break the bank and get a copy of each ...
Mori, I used lightroom2 for the post processing and the greyscale conversion in there uses a method similar to lab color in PS, from what I understand. Then I added some color to the highlights and shadows - pretty easy to do and learn.
Something about just B&W didn't do it for me, at least when I compared them on my monitor.
Good idea on the matte board.
What I think I'll end up doing is getting one done with 3 4x12s and one with 2 5x18s - the prints are quite cheap. Then I can see which looks better in print.
I have also thought of adding some noise and trying to antique it a bit - just too many options.
Thanks for everyones input so far.
Something about just B&W didn't do it for me, at least when I compared them on my monitor.
Good idea on the matte board.
What I think I'll end up doing is getting one done with 3 4x12s and one with 2 5x18s - the prints are quite cheap. Then I can see which looks better in print.
I have also thought of adding some noise and trying to antique it a bit - just too many options.
Thanks for everyones input so far.
I agree color doesn't add anything to this photo. Here is the original I stitched together last year with a free program. You can see where the exposure didn't blend well and some ghosting of a couple trees. Photoshop CS3 stitched and blended it much better.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Well, if you have a good inkjet or dye sub printer you can print your own image at decent quality for a few dollars. Those who want to print their own images, remember that image resolution should be no less than twice that of printer resolution for best result. To achieve near photographic print quality, you need at least true 300 dpi printer resolution. That means that any image you want to print in near photo quality has to have at least 600 dpi.
If you require traditional custom B&W prints, then you are talking about relatively high cost.
If you require traditional custom B&W prints, then you are talking about relatively high cost.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: surfstar
I have also thought of adding some noise and trying to antique it a bit - just too many options.
I'm always in favor of the KISS principle. I wouldn't fiddle around too much with the image. I'm not in favor of adding fake grain. I love (real) grain, but in this case I'd rather go for a creamy tonality and texture. Instead of antiquing (sepia, or whatever you have in mind) the image, you may consider having the image printed on a warm tone paper. Of course, I have no idea what kind of printing service you have available, so your choice may be limited by what they offer. Since you take so many pictures that are worth printing, you should probably get a good printer.
I have also thought of adding some noise and trying to antique it a bit - just too many options.
I'm always in favor of the KISS principle. I wouldn't fiddle around too much with the image. I'm not in favor of adding fake grain. I love (real) grain, but in this case I'd rather go for a creamy tonality and texture. Instead of antiquing (sepia, or whatever you have in mind) the image, you may consider having the image printed on a warm tone paper. Of course, I have no idea what kind of printing service you have available, so your choice may be limited by what they offer. Since you take so many pictures that are worth printing, you should probably get a good printer.
I've used AdoramaPix before and they came out good IMO, and they're quite cheap which I really like. These are just going around the house, so no high end requirements. I rarely print, so I definitely don't want to invest in a good printer right now.
I was thinking of this paper for these:
"Kodak Professional Endura Supra Silk
Delicate linen-like texture that gives a vintage feel to your images. Especially suited for weddings and portraiture."
I was thinking of this paper for these:
"Kodak Professional Endura Supra Silk
Delicate linen-like texture that gives a vintage feel to your images. Especially suited for weddings and portraiture."
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
If you like that type paper, go for it.
A
- Status
