PHILADELPHIA | The Harper | 272 FT | 24 FLOORS - Page 49

TK2001 · #**961** Posted **Jul 8, 2018, 2:18 PM**

15/24, 63%

mcgrath618 · #**962** Posted **Jul 8, 2018, 3:20 PM**

The cladding looks very nice in person.

Jayfar · #**963** Posted **Jul 8, 2018, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayfar

Some of us are puzzled by that Boyd marquee signage. It's made of panels painted to give a 3D appearance of lighted neon tubes, a facsimile of the marquee during the Cinerama era. If that's just a mock-up then fine, but if that were to be the finished product, then it would be really lame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by allovertown

I walked by a few hours ago. It certainly does not look temporary. At this point I say they should keep it. If they actually had put up a grand marquee with period signage it would have been totally incongruous with this completely mediocre project. This middle of the road signage goes well with this middle of the road building.

I know you're not referring to the Boyd facade itself, which is anything but mediocre or middle of the road. Art Deco gem is the preferred descriptor for the original Chestnut St face. Diminutive though it is, in comparison to the overall size of the theatre, it is a really superb, well-executed example of classic Art Deco.

The marquee signage, as it stands, most definitely shouldn't pass muster with the Historical Commission. Hopefully, if Pearl Properties intended for it to be permanent, they'll realize, even without prodding, that it does look really, really, really crappy and do the right thing. This is right around the corner from their office, so it will be in their faces from time to time. This is a job that should have been contracted to Len Davidson or someone of similar capabilities.

It's amazing that they expended so much effort into salvaging and incorporating the previously invisible balcony truss-work in its entirety (which I heartily applaud; it's an admirable piece of engineering and workmanship), and so little effort into the most publicly visible portion of the theater.

El Duderino · #**964** Posted **Jul 8, 2018, 8:50 PM**

^if that’s the final product, i’d be both incredibly surprised and totally disgusted, because that is horrific. my guess it’s a temporary marketing piece and will be replaced as it wraps up. pearl has rehabbed many historical properties and has a pretty good track record of maintaining character, especially with exteriors.

TK2001 · #**965** Posted **Jul 8, 2018, 9:58 PM**

reparcsyks · #**966** Posted **Jul 9, 2018, 12:48 PM**

Nice watercolor paintings.

TK2001 · #**967** Posted **Jul 9, 2018, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by reparcsyks

Nice watercolor paintings.

They're real photos. And during this photo session, it was the first time I noticed the tower crane. Hopefully the tower will be seen with the whole skyline

Jayfar · #**968** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by reparcsyks

Nice watercolor paintings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK2001

They're real photos. And during this photo session, it was the first time I noticed the tower crane. Hopefully the tower will be seen with the whole skyline

I think the commenter was taking a subtle dig at what, quite frankly, is the extreme over-dependence on digital zoom, which fabricates extra pixels that just aren't there. Please accept this as constructive criticism. Digital zoom in a camera is a bug, not a feature, at least until the technology is able to incorporate advanced AI capabilities.

TK2001 · #**969** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 2:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayfar

I think the commenter was taking a subtle dig at what, quite frankly, is the extreme over-dependence on digital zoom, which fabricates extra pixels that just aren't there. Please accept this as constructive criticism. Digital zoom in a camera is a bug, not a feature, at least until the technology is able to incorporate advanced AI capabilities.

That's because I sharpened my photos a little bit to bring out detail on the buildings

Jayfar · #**970** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 10:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK2001

That's because I sharpened my photos a little bit to bring out detail on the buildings

Okay, and a *little* sharpening can be a good thing, but totally a different matter than digital zoom. In fact when digital zoom is used (which should be never), more than a tiny bit of sharpening tends to make things muddier and grainier. I'm no wizard at photoshop myself, far from it. Some experts recommend sharpening at three different stages – first sharpening of the digital raw image in Adobe Camera Raw, then again of the full sized image in photoshop, and then a final bit of sharpening after resizing the image to the final resolution for whatever medium it is to be reproduced in, such as print or computer screen. The exact parameters for sharpening need to be tuned to the resolution at each stage of the process and while previewing at 100%. Also, when sharpening in PS, fade on luminosity after applying the sharpening (From the Edit menu, "Fade smart sharpen…," then choose 100% and Mode: Luminosity).

Londonee · #**971** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 4:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayfar

I think the commenter was taking a subtle dig at what, quite frankly, is the extreme over-dependence on digital zoom, which fabricates extra pixels that just aren't there. Please accept this as constructive criticism. Digital zoom in a camera is a bug, not a feature, at least until the technology is able to incorporate advanced AI capabilities.

Never use digital zoom = amateur hour. If you want to get closer, just buy longer glass (assuming you are using a 5D or the like, you can get a nice piece of glass for $30/day from rental houses). I'm ok with it in this context as he's trying to show certain detail and not necessarily paint pretty pictures. I agree though that going through the process of sharpening an already degraded image is a bit silly. Also, if we're constructing criticism - lose the tacky cursive trademark - go small, elegant, helvetica/futura something sans in a lower corner and compress your photos before posting so they aren't ridiculously large on the website.

mcgrath618 · #**972** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 4:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Londonee

Never use digital zoom = amateur hour. If you want to get closer, just buy longer glass (assuming you are using a 5D or the like, you can get a nice piece of glass for $30/day from rental houses). I'm ok with it in this context as he's trying to show certain detail and not necessarily paint pretty pictures. I agree though that going through the process of sharpening an already degraded image is a bit silly. Also, if we're constructing criticism - lose the tacky cursive trademark - go small, elegant, helvetica/futura something sans in a lower corner and compress your photos before posting so they aren't ridiculously large on the website.

I think judging by the huge watermark he's slapped on that he's not trying to go for the certain detail you've described.
While I'm here, I second the notion of the watermark being eliminated or at least made smaller. You had no watermarks before, why have them now? I don't think anyone on SSP is going to try and steal your photos...
If you're trying to monetize your photos, I would at least recommend posting your second or maybe third best shots without a watermark so that people can appreciate your photos for all that they are, and then if they want to they can purchase your best one sans watermark.

reparcsyks · #**973** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 5:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK2001

They're real photos. And during this photo session, it was the first time I noticed the tower crane. Hopefully the tower will be seen with the whole skyline

I was joking, I know these are photos with an obscene amount of digital zoom. Please take the advice of the commenters above, all of it is spot-on. I make my living shooting professional video and would give you all the same advice. Please don't take offense to any of it, use it to grow and get better. Your passion is evident.

TechTalkGuy · #**974** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 9:51 PM**

Personally, I find it amusing when an amateur photographer uses a tacky huge watermark on a skyscraper forum because now we will criticize it unmercifully!

Contributions to the forum should be free from silly distractions.

jackster99 · #**975** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 11:02 PM**

^Never ceases to amaze me when people who don't contribute anything meaningful to the forums have the nerve to criticize those who do. TK2001 continually makes the effort to take the pictures and upload them to the forum for our enjoyment; he can do anything he wants with them

mcgrath618 · #**976** Posted **Jul 10, 2018, 11:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackster99

^Never ceases to amaze me when people who don't contribute anything meaningful to the forums have the nerve to criticize those who do. TK2001 continually makes the effort to take the pictures and upload them to the forum for our enjoyment; he can do anything he wants with them

He can, and he has. I meant no insult by what I said; I was simply offering constructive criticism.

allovertown · #**977** Posted **Jul 11, 2018, 4:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackster99

^Never ceases to amaze me when people who don't contribute anything meaningful to the forums have the nerve to criticize those who do. TK2001 continually makes the effort to take the pictures and upload them to the forum for our enjoyment; he can do anything he wants with them

No one is stopping him from doing whatever he wants. They're trying to help someone who clearly has a passion for photography.

The photo he took with the plane taking off in the foreground in particular is really cool looking. I think TK has a real knack for finding excellent angles and well composed photos. A camera expert who is also well versed in photoshop doesn't necessarily take good, interesting photos, they may just take technically proficient photos. If you're going to try to be a good photographer, (which from the watermark it seems TK is at least trying this as a serious hobby, if not a career) you're going to need to be technically proficient AND you're going to need to develop an eye for how and what to shoot.

Luckily for TK it's easier to learn technical skills than it is to develop artistic vision. I appreciate TK's contributions and the forum would be a worse place without them. But it's impossible to ignore the fact his photos are enormous and blurry. Enormous blurry photos are basically the last thing you want posted on a forum you normally read on your phone. I think he got some really good advice and I hope he takes it. He has the potential to be a really good photographer.

jjv007 · #**978** Posted **Jul 11, 2018, 5:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackster99

^Never ceases to amaze me when people who don't contribute anything meaningful to the forums have the nerve to criticize those who do. TK2001 continually makes the effort to take the pictures and upload them to the forum for our enjoyment; he can do anything he wants with them

I think this was specifically in response to TechTalkGuy's comment, not the others who gave suggestions on potential photographic improvements.

jsbrook · #**979** Posted **Jul 11, 2018, 12:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

The cladding looks very nice in person.

Walked by yesterday. Agree. Looking good!

jackster99 · #**980** Posted **Jul 11, 2018, 1:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjv007

I think this was specifically in response to TechTalkGuy's comment, not the others who gave suggestions on potential photographic improvements.

Yes sir that is correct