# "Happy Hour" - C&C Please



## Scuba (Oct 12, 2012)

"Happy Hour"  C&C please
Canon 5D, 17-40mm, 1/40s @ f/4 1600 ISO handheld. Converted to B&W in LR4.


----------



## Matty-Bass (Oct 13, 2012)

I'm not sure what to think of the composition on this one, feels more like a point-and-click. Nothing strikes me as the subject or focus, aside from the bar as a collective. Ceiling is a little too underexposed, loses most or all architectural detail. It appears to be a difficult room to expose evenly, may benefit from cropping the roof out a bit and bringing the focus on the customers?


----------



## OLaA (Oct 13, 2012)

Matty-Bass said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what to think of the composition on this one, feels more like a point-and-click. Nothing strikes me as the subject or focus, aside from the bar as a collective. Ceiling is a little too underexposed, loses most or all architectural detail. It appears to be a difficult room to expose evenly, may benefit from cropping the roof out a bit and bringing the focus on the customers?



Technically I agree with everything said. But for some reason or another I like this photo.


----------



## Rick58 (Oct 13, 2012)

point and click...maybe...Nice vintage looking point and click? You bet. I like it :thumbup:


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 13, 2012)

I am constantly drawn to the sign.
Why the slow shutter speed? Why take that chance on the image? 
I ask because I think you might have a reason?


----------



## Matty-Bass (Oct 14, 2012)

You also mentioned it was converted to black and white. How did the colour one turn out?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2012)

It's simply too small to appreciate all of the details...the details, wherein lies the Devil, are all hidden by the down-sizing for the web...doggone it...I wanna see the Devil!!


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 14, 2012)

I think this would have much more impact if there was less ceiling and more chair legs. even floor.
The people are floating in mid air but there is nothing above to make the framing make sense.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2012)

I gotta disagree with The_Traveler that the above part of the framing makes no sense---this is EXACTLY the "new pub" feeling...a very high ceiling, open-beamed (often steel beamed), finished most often in black paint, with exposed pipes and conduit and HVAC ductwork...a huge, big, BLACK HOLE above the pub area...it is in one way, a good example of modern "negative space"...and no, I am not kidding one bit. THIS IS EXACTLY the way a lot of new beer joints in American strip malls and mini-malls are designed and decorated...and so it actually does make sense. It's both straightforward documentary, and also, almost a subtle form of social commentary, as well as that negative space we hear so much about.


----------



## Scuba (Oct 14, 2012)

Matty-Bass said:


> I'm not sure what to think of the composition on this one, feels more like a point-and-click. Nothing strikes me as the subject or focus, aside from the bar as a collective. Ceiling is a little too underexposed, loses most or all architectural detail. It appears to be a difficult room to expose evenly, may benefit from cropping the roof out a bit and bringing the focus on the customers?



I guess you could say it was a point and click as I was walking around at a festival and ran into this bar when it started pouring.  However, it was a little more than a point and click.  The ceiling was painted black and most of light came from the door/windows to the left so not much illumination up there.  Also, I thought the subtle hints of detail in the ceiling gave the feeling of a large room and openness.  



MLeeK said:


> I am constantly drawn to the sign.
> Why the slow shutter speed? Why take that chance on the image?
> I ask because I think you might have a reason?



The sign is also what drew my attention and between that and the vertical beam with the brewery name on the right are what made me decide to take the picture.  The reason for the slow shutter was because of the low light.  My ISO was nearly maxed out (@ 1600, 3200 is max expanded) and my lens was wide open so not a whole lot more I could do.  I didn't want to boost it any higher for the noise issue.  I took multiple shots and braced against the wall to help ensure getting a sharp image.  I think it worked pretty well.



Matty-Bass said:


> You also mentioned it was converted to black and white. How did the colour one turn out?



Honestly I didn't edit it as color at all.  I looked and thought I had.  By looking at the original color image I felt the different colors distracted and liked it in b&w better.  Maybe I will try a color edit.  Do you feel a color image would be better?



Derrel said:


> It's simply too small to appreciate all of the details...the details, wherein lies the Devil, are all hidden by the down-sizing for the web...doggone it...I wanna see the Devil!!



I could post a larger size if you like so you could see the Devil. 



Derrel said:


> I gotta disagree with The_Traveler that the above part of the framing makes no sense---this is EXACTLY the "new pub" feeling...a very high ceiling, open-beamed (often steel beamed), finished most often in black paint, with exposed pipes and conduit and HVAC ductwork...a huge, big, BLACK HOLE above the pub area...it is in one way, a good example of modern "negative space"...and no, I am not kidding one bit. THIS IS EXACTLY the way a lot of new beer joints in American strip malls and mini-malls are designed and decorated...and so it actually does make sense. It's both straightforward documentary, and also, almost a subtle form of social commentary, as well as that negative space we hear so much about.



Exactly the ceiling was black and you nailed it with the exposed utilities.  Thank you for the comment, I like the negative space as well.  I brought it up a little to pull a few details out so it wasn't just a complete black hole.  This is truly my first attempt at this type of image.  I don't know a lot about the "rules" of this type of shot but it spoke to me.


----------



## Scuba (Oct 14, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I think this would have much more impact if there was less ceiling and more chair legs. even floor.
> The people are floating in mid air but there is nothing above to make the framing make sense.



This image is cropped to 4x5, the original has a little more on the left side of the image that shows some floor.  Would that help in your opinion?


----------



## Scuba (Oct 14, 2012)

OLaA said:


> Technically I agree with everything said. But for some reason or another I like this photo.





Rick58 said:


> point and click...maybe...Nice vintage looking point and click? You bet. I like it :thumbup:



Thank you.  Glad you like it.


----------



## Matty-Bass (Oct 14, 2012)

Scuba said:


> Honestly I didn't edit it as color at all.  I looked and thought I had.  By looking at the original color image I felt the different colors distracted and liked it in b&w better.  Maybe I will try a color edit.  Do you feel a color image would be better?



On second thought, I think the black and white really brings out the detail. You're right, it might get too confusing in color. It finitely gives the impression of most American bar settings this year. It's the same up where I live. New pubs all have the black exposed utility. All going for that urban vibe


----------



## Scuba (Oct 16, 2012)

Ok so here is another edit in 2x3 and I boosted the shadows a little to bring out some of the ceiling.  The 2x3 allows a little more to the left and you can see some of the floor.  Oh and a little higher res for Derrel to see the devil.  Which do you like better?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2012)

Not trying to bust your chops, but these types of photos depend upon being able to literally SEE, and read, and guess at, the expressions of the people in the shot. Without the ability to CLEALRY see the faces of the peple, we have to look at body language and big,broad gestures...we cannot literally "see" enought to "get" the feeling, the vibe, the details. For example, the woman on the far left of the frame in the top photo appears to be looking out a window, but in the latest crop,we see that she has a man to her left..he appears to be standing...she might have a name tag on...soooo...I guess she might be a waitress...what APPEARED to be a window in the top photo NOW appears to be a big,open doorway leading to another room, or more likely to an outside patio seating area. Again, not trying to bust ye olde chops Scuba...it's hard to say which shot I prefer since I cannot really SEE this picture. some shots simply do not translate well to being down-rezzed for the web...

This type of street photography image, with around 30 people in the frame (yeah, I counted 30 people before I gave up) just can not be fully appreciated at web size. For me, that sad fact is one of the single most-disappointing things about displaying photos on the web...we make these neat photos that look GREAT at 2,506 pixels wide, but which when down-rezzed just...sort of disintegrate into tiny pin-sized faces and stuff...

So, summing up--I do not know which of the two I prefer. The later 2x3 ratio crop adds a whole 'nother interaction, and what appears to be a second room, there on the left...in some ways I think it might be a fascinating interaction if the camera can SHOW us that woman's expression. But here, I dunno...both seem equally good. Now, if this were to be printed poster sized...


----------



## Fred Berg (Oct 16, 2012)

If this was happy hour, just how ugly was the mood by chucking out time?


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 16, 2012)

OLaA said:


> Matty-Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Rick58 said:


> point and click...maybe...Nice vintage looking point and click? You bet. I like it :thumbup:



Those...


----------



## Scuba (Oct 17, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Not trying to bust your chops, but these types of photos depend upon being able to literally SEE, and read, and guess at, the expressions of the people in the shot. Without the ability to CLEALRY see the faces of the peple, we have to look at body language and big,broad gestures...we cannot literally "see" enought to "get" the feeling, the vibe, the details. For example, the woman on the far left of the frame in the top photo appears to be looking out a window, but in the latest crop,we see that she has a man to her left..he appears to be standing...she might have a name tag on...soooo...I guess she might be a waitress...what APPEARED to be a window in the top photo NOW appears to be a big,open doorway leading to another room, or more likely to an outside patio seating area. Again, not trying to bust ye olde chops Scuba...it's hard to say which shot I prefer since I cannot really SEE this picture. some shots simply do not translate well to being down-rezzed for the web...
> 
> This type of street photography image, with around 30 people in the frame (yeah, I counted 30 people before I gave up) just can not be fully appreciated at web size. For me, that sad fact is one of the single most-disappointing things about displaying photos on the web...we make these neat photos that look GREAT at 2,506 pixels wide, but which when down-rezzed just...sort of disintegrate into tiny pin-sized faces and stuff...
> 
> So, summing up--I do not know which of the two I prefer. The later 2x3 ratio crop adds a whole 'nother interaction, and what appears to be a second room, there on the left...in some ways I think it might be a fascinating interaction if the camera can SHOW us that woman's expression. But here, I dunno...both seem equally good. Now, if this were to be printed poster sized...



No worries you aren't busting my chops at all.  I completely understand what you are saying about the size.  I would love to post such a high res image to the web but I just worry then someone could certainly steal it and could even print it.  I don't know how to allow full critique without essentially giving away my image.  Not that it would cost me money as I don't sell anything at this time but it would just bug me to know someone could have my image printed on their wall if they wanted to.  Any suggestions to get around this issue?  Certainly I could plaster a huge watermark but that would defeat the purpose of showing the high res image and is obnoxious.


----------



## Scuba (Oct 17, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> If this was happy hour, just how ugly was the mood by chucking out time?



I don't get it.



Steve5D said:


> OLaA said:
> 
> 
> > Matty-Bass said:
> ...



Fair enough.  Thank you.


----------

