Apple Store, NYC

[Andy]

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/162630372-L.jpg

[DavidTO]

:thumb

I likey. Cool interplay of the people walking around.

[illuminati919]

I think its a very busy photo and I'm not sure if my attention is supposed to be drawn to the people or the apple, it's probably all of the crossing lines. The tones of the photo are very nice though.

[Jeroen]

I would never be able to shoot this. I try to stay away from Apple stores. They're very bad for my bank account. I alway want to take home what I see there...

Anyway, I'd mirror it to have the logo correct and to have that diagonal going up.

Cheers, Jeroen

[Gary Glass]

Good eye to see this composition. I like the way the various lines interact: different grids at different angles, and straights and curves. Likewise I like the contrast of geometry and people, and grids and clouds. I think the square crop was a smart choice here and emphasizes these interplays.

Nits: I think it could use more contrast. (On the other hand, I've been told I overdo it with contrast.) And I think the Apple logo detracts from the compositional force of the image. Not much you can do about that though.

[HoofClix]

I looked at this earlier, and I come back to it now, and I still agree with my initial impression. I think that the composition as is impeccable. I like that the crop is square, as it fits somehow with the entirety of the image as well as the fact the the joist glass is in a square format. I also have no problem with the Apple in there pointing right or left...

I do think that the contrast overall is too narrow (flat?) across most of the frame. It seems that all of the total black is in the lower left. I wonder if you could play with the color before the BW conversion to give a bit darker tone to the holes in the clouds.

I'm also a motion freak, so I'm also surprised at how there is no motion in the photo. The depth of field is so deep, the focus on the people is so sharp. Not sure if that's a distraction or an enhancement. Is the subject the people or the logo, or both?

[Richard]

Interesting shot. My first impression reminded me of a church: the figure on the right seems like a statue; you are looking up toward the heavens; and of course, Apple is a bit of a religion. :D

I agree that it is a bit lacking in contrast. There also appears to be a person missing a face on the left--not sure what to make of that, but perhaps I am misinterpreting something else.

Regards,

[wxwax]

I'm glad I came back for a second look. I didn't care for it at first. I like it much more, now.

I like the composition very much. To me, it looks like the people are the exhibits behind glass in the Apple display case. I like the different layers of glass, they add depth and complexity, they make you think.

For my taste, there's not enough range in the B&W. I understand that this is a deliberate choice. Is it intended to add to the unreal feel of the image? Would it look too real with a more traditional treatment? I couldn't say until I saw an alternative.

The squares and circles make a nice contrast, add another element to the shot.

There's more to this image than I had originally thought. As I said, I'm happy I came back for a second take.

[LiquidAir]

I am wishing it had been shot with a polarizer to cut the reflections off the front piece of glass. I think those reflections are taking a bite out of the contrast so the shot doesn't have the snap it deserves.

[BeachBill]

Anyway, I'd mirror it to have the logo correct and to have that diagonal going up.

I agree. The apple logo really jumped out at me as being wrong when I first viewed this image.

I would like to see a bit more contrast as well.

[HarlanBear]

Very interesting and thought provoking POV. I agree with what Sid says about the people looking like they are an exhibit in the Apple store. I also agree it could use some pop, but since I usually need help in that area myself, not sure where and how, except perhaps using the methods expertly explained here (http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1126557/1) by .... oh, wait.:wink

All seriousness aside, like Sid, my second, third, etc., look really let me see more.

[ShepsMom]

I would never be able to shoot this. I try to stay away from Apple stores. They're very bad for my bank account. I alway want to take home what I see there...

Anyway, I'd mirror it to have the logo correct and to have that diagonal going up.

Cheers, Jeroen

:rofl I was gonna say the same thing.

As far as photo goes, i was expected and looking for an apple to be a main subject, then i saw all the people walking and apple kind of got lost. I like the prespective of the image though.

[pathfinder]

I tremble as I take pen to paper and write this about an image of Andy's....

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/162630372-Th.jpg

I like the square comp and the use of diagonal lines. Cool.

The people offer an Henri Cartier-Bresson flavor to the image. Kind of like the fellow jumping over the puddle. Maybe that is part of the reason for the sepia.

But when I look at this image, it looks flat to me. Too little contrast.

Maybe it is the sepia. Maybe not.

When I measure the pixels( I can't help it:huh :huh - the numbers merely verify what I am seeing ), I can find none higher than 240,240,240 in the very brightest areas of the clouds and they are VERY small areas. Most of the sky reads 220,220, 220 or less. The rest of the image ( non-sky) is in the lower half of the tonal range, less than 128,128,128.

I think this image needs more pop in the forground, even at the expense of some small blown highlights in the clouds. The forground needs some of the range that went to the sky.

I full well know the aversion to blown highlights in the pixel peepers on the web, but I can find lots and lots of images from world names in photography who do have selected blown highlight pixels in their images.
( I have clocked some in Marc's images, and I'm sure he knew they were there also - specular reflections)

I think this is one of those times when we need to increase the contrast in the forground,even if we lose a bit of detail in the sky. Which is the subject here, the sky, or the forground people and architecture? I do not think the subject is the sky. The sky is the stage, but the people are the players.

For may taste, I think this might be better in a straight B&W, or even a blue platinum toned image. I could be wrong about this.

But then my bias is toward B&W images with contrast and drama; that is my preference and I'm sticking to it:D

Or reduce the forground to a silhouette and strongly increase the contrast of the sky, and make the sky clearly the subject here.

[Andy]

:wave hi everyone! Hm.... interesting comments about the contrast, from a few of you. That's great input, I'll see what I can do 2nd go round.

[albeeeeny]

The different lines and different planes are very interesting and goes well with the hustle and bustle of the people. The people in the foreground are very sharp. Maybe next time try a slow shutter speed (down to 2 secs even) for a motion blur.

http://albeeeeny.smugmug.com/

[Andy]

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/163276891-L.jpg

A quick version based on some more feedback - I tried the flip trick suggested, and beefed the contrast more. I'm not sure though. I think you can see why I chose the square crop initially, but for some reason, I'm drawn the full image now. Go figure.

[wxwax]

It feels more balanced this way.

[Snarcher]

its sort of a wierd picture because when you think of apple you think of fruity colored ipods and happy little nerds but that shot is so drab and deary it makes me want to hang myself lol

[pyrtek]

Take the crop from the first version, add the contrast of the second version
and throw in a pinch of salt and you've got a winner.

[David_S85]

The second 3:2 image's perspective with those buldings on either side adds a better dimension on the shot. The one-building original didn't seem balanced. Additionally, my attention is more easily directed to the Apple logo (if that is the subject) - an object that is very high, just out of reach, and almost unobtainable :wink

[Gary Glass]

The 2nd version is far better. Now you've got a shot that's not only well-composed, but arresting. I liked the initial crop, but the full frame beats it. And the B&W is a lot far more engaging than the sepia.

But then my bias is toward B&W images with contrast and drama; that is my preference and I'm sticking to it

You and me both, brother.

[saurora]

The second 3:2 image's perspective with those buldings on either side adds a better dimension on the shot. The one-building original didn't seem balanced. Additionally, my attention is more easily directed to the Apple logo (if that is the subject) - an object that is very high, just out of reach, and almost unobtainable :wink

The 2nd shot really rocks, the added contrast and B&W are big improvements. In the first shot I see the Apple logo and Mr. Comman Man with his protruding belly, I barely notice the tall fellow on the right. But in the 2nd full-frame shot, the lines and height of the tall building, seem to bring my attention to Mr. Successful Businessman as well and my eyes travel around the entire frame and a story starts to unfold. There's an upward feel to that left side of the frame, along with the glass ceiling, that suggests success. Like David_S85 suggested, a feeling of Apple being out of reach for the comman man. It's always so interesting to me how a crop can have so much impact on how I interpret a shot. My 2 cents for what it's worth. :D