Many thanks, kiki, for taking the time and making the effort to work on one of my images! I do like the result and left my comment for you below your version in Pending. Thank you! -- db.
uploaded a *slightly* bluer version of #3 to pending. Is that the right direction? That's curves on channels (Lab) and some blend-if. You're shooting right into the smog on a late afternoon there, so the colors are probably quite correct in the original..
-k2
Many thanks, k2, for that detailed analysis and explanation of what I had not understood well. I, indeed, am not happy with most of my tries so far with the "curves" tool and prefer, therefore, to use the simple "levels" only. Finding "a suitably decorative mix of clouds and clear sky" is always the aim, but there is not enough I can do about it as I often stay just for some very few days in a city, with little possibility to chose the skies ;-) I try to be (that's right, though) in a place at *the right time of the day*, getting "the right angle in relation to the sun", even if that means one has to come back at a later time to where you are right now (not always easy if you are at the same time tourist--accompanied by your "fellow-tourist(s)"--and photographer...). Anyway: again, kiki: thanks a lot! -- db.
Elaborate.. Good density and depth, and never exaggerated. Which partly has to do with good exposures and the right angle in relation to the sun. And picking days with a suitably decorative mix of clouds and clear sky :) Anyway, you always make it look appealing. Never annoying. Often with interesting details, but never an "in your face" appearance. And that's where it is easy to step wrong with increased saturation or tweaked hues, even if the exposure is good: Colors can break the impression of depth very quickly, because the more saturated or alike the colors get, the more an image is "flattened". Sometimes desirable, but seldom in city/landscapes, where one often want to preserve a 3D feel.
What you possibly do not do yet, is using the Curves tool direct on channels. That, and "blend if" (with the original on a layer below) are IMO some of our best PS friends.
-k2
Thank you, k2, for your--once more--very kind words. You might want to elaborate on your remark about the skies: while this one is--as I "admit" with my well known lack of modesty--quite nice, I do find the other two need some "blueing up" which my post-processing skills are not good enough to allow me to do... BTW: Yes, London is definitely a fascinating city, worth seeing, at least!, once in your life-time; more, though, due to its cultural life than to its architecture, IMO ;-) If you'd like to see more of my quite limited "view" I had on my the last trip there: <http://www.pbase.com/bollag/london -- db.
Nice triplet, and I will have to visit London sometime - never been there! The Gherkin is a fun piece of architecture.
One thing about your pictures.. this triplet isn't all too typical you, but there's one thing I always recognize them by, and it's NOT your signature.. lol - it's the sky! Wonderful :)
-k2
