Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Light on tree in fall  (Read 4721 times)
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« on: June 10, 2009, 08:26:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Dale's photo made me think of this one of mine. I saw this shot out the kitchen window one fall morning. It looked like a shaft of gold streaking through a tree just beginning to be lit. Any suggestions to make it better?
[attachment=14440:Lorraine...iPhoto_1.jpg]

Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2009, 08:39:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Dale's photo made me think of this one of mine. I saw this shot out the kitchen window one fall morning. It looked like a shaft of gold streaking through a tree just beginning to be lit. Any suggestions to make it better?

It's funny how the peculiar ways computers work sometimes illustrates a point in an unpredictable way.  For example, since this image is larger than my screen, when it was loading and filled the screen, my immediate reaction was "wow!", this is great.  Then when the download was complete and it got sized to the screen, the impact fell away somewhat.  So, it's still very good, but that initial "cropped by loading" perspective spoke loudly (to me at least) that some selective cropping would enhance this greatly.  But I'm not going to try to be a party pooper, so crop or don't crop as you wish, and I'll wait and see what other folks have to say.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2009, 09:04:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
It's funny how the peculiar ways computers work sometimes illustrates a point in an unpredictable way.  For example, since this image is larger than my screen, when it was loading and filled the screen, my immediate reaction was "wow!", this is great.  Then when the download was complete and it got sized to the screen, the impact fell away somewhat.  So, it's still very good, but that initial "cropped by loading" perspective spoke loudly (to me at least) that some selective cropping would enhance this greatly.  But I'm not going to try to be a party pooper, so crop or don't crop as you wish, and I'll wait and see what other folks have to say.

What I'm really unsure about is the trunk coming up on the right side. Opinion please.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2009, 09:07:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
It's funny how the peculiar ways computers work sometimes illustrates a point in an unpredictable way.  For example, since this image is larger than my screen, when it was loading and filled the screen, my immediate reaction was "wow!", this is great.  Then when the download was complete and it got sized to the screen, the impact fell away somewhat.  So, it's still very good, but that initial "cropped by loading" perspective spoke loudly (to me at least) that some selective cropping would enhance this greatly.  But I'm not going to try to be a party pooper, so crop or don't crop as you wish, and I'll wait and see what other folks have to say.


Dale,
Russ just let me know on my other photo that I need to keep the size down. I think that goes along with what you're saying here. I have a 24 inch monitor so I don't notice it. I'm learning here.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2009, 10:44:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Dale,
Russ just let me know on my other photo that I need to keep the size down. I think that goes along with what you're saying here. I have a 24 inch monitor so I don't notice it. I'm learning here.

Tell ya what - I sometimes post large if I think it needs to be to show certain detail, but when I do I make sure to save the JPEG at 72 DPI so as to minimize the size.  In fact, all the images I post are saved at 72 DPI.

You said something about the trunk on the right side.  I don't know what "coming up" means, so all I can say is yes, I would crop the photo, and cropping off of the right, mainly that trunk, would be a good test.  BTW, I think those leaves look really good, with that lighting.

BTW #2, I resaved your photo, downloaded at ~1,280,000 bytes, and the resave size was 561,000 bytes, same size.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 10:47:09 PM by dalethorn » Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2009, 11:47:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
Tell ya what - I sometimes post large if I think it needs to be to show certain detail, but when I do I make sure to save the JPEG at 72 DPI so as to minimize the size.  In fact, all the images I post are saved at 72 DPI.

You said something about the trunk on the right side.  I don't know what "coming up" means, so all I can say is yes, I would crop the photo, and cropping off of the right, mainly that trunk, would be a good test.  BTW, I think those leaves look really good, with that lighting.

BTW #2, I resaved your photo, downloaded at ~1,280,000 bytes, and the resave size was 561,000 bytes, same size.


Dale,
I am at a technical loss. You say you save your jpegs at 72 dpi. What program are you doing that with? The only post-processing I have available to me at this time is Aperture. I need to investigate this more thoroughly I think.

It is all about the light, isn't it?
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3917



« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2009, 02:35:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
Tell ya what - I sometimes post large if I think it needs to be to show certain detail, but when I do I make sure to save the JPEG at 72 DPI so as to minimize the size.  In fact, all the images I post are saved at 72 DPI.
If you post an image that's x pixels by y, it will display on screen at x pixels by y (unless the browser resizes it). You can set whatever dpi you want: it will still look the same in a browser.

Jeremy
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2009, 06:11:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Dale,
I am at a technical loss. You say you save your jpegs at 72 dpi. What program are you doing that with? The only post-processing I have available to me at this time is Aperture. I need to investigate this more thoroughly I think.
It is all about the light, isn't it?

I use Paint Shop Pro to make the final JPEG, which is always 72 DPI, an internal setting. I don't know if any software can set different DPI's for each image conveniently without reconfiguring the software.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2009, 06:18:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kikashi
If you post an image that's x pixels by y, it will display on screen at x pixels by y (unless the browser resizes it). You can set whatever dpi you want: it will still look the same in a browser.
Jeremy

True, and the RAM memory consumed may be the same regardless of DPI, but the file size will be much smaller, hence fewer bytes to transmit and load. Now whether load times will be proportionately less or not, I don't know, since different transmissions may pre-compress the data differently.
Logged
cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2009, 10:03:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
True, and the RAM memory consumed may be the same regardless of DPI, but the file size will be much smaller, hence fewer bytes to transmit and load. Now whether load times will be proportionately less or not, I don't know, since different transmissions may pre-compress the data differently.

Dale, file size in Bytes or Kilobytes has nothing to do with the DPI settings. Kikashi said it, I will explain it with more detail.

Pixel size, DPI and Inches are 3 values wich all define image size. Pixels are the size in the Computer, Inches are a real world size and DPI tells about the density the pixels are printed.

Each alone is meaningless. If you say: This computer image is in 72 dpi, I will wonder how big it is. It could be 2x2 meters, or just 1x1 inch, I dont know.
Same with the Real world size: If I assign a file to be printed at 10x10 Inches thats fine, but how many pixels it has? Has it 300x300, or only 20x20 pixels? I cant know. Or if I have a file 640x480 pixels, that says nothing about real world size.

So in order to state size in real world and size in pixels, you need 2 of these 3 values.

Pixels together with dpi gives you a fixed output size in inches.
Pixels together with inches tell you about the dpi the file must have.
And finally DPI and Inches together tell you the size in pixels the computer file will have.

So while it CAN be true that a 72dpi file is smaller on the harddisk than a 200 dpi file, it tells only half of the story!

Indeed it might be a big print, wich had been reduced from 200 dpi to 72 by reducing its pixel size. In this case, the file size in KB gets smaller.

But it also could be that one only changes the dpi value without touching pixel size, then the file size in KB will of course be the same, but the print size would change.

So, summing it up, saying that saving a file at 72 dpi reduces its size is ambiguous, and dont relates coactive to file size.

Hope thats more clear,


Christian
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 10:11:10 AM by cmi » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6085



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2009, 10:04:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Dale,
Russ just let me know on my other photo that I need to keep the size down. I think that goes along with what you're saying here. I have a 24 inch monitor so I don't notice it. I'm learning here.

Pup,

I wasn't talking about the dimensions of the picture. I was talking about the size of the file in terms of how long it takes to load. Nothing wrong with posting large dimensions, but on a 72 ppi monitor keeping the .jpeg compression low (which keeps the file size large) doesn't improve what people out there see. It just delays being able to see it. If you hold the file size to around 500K it makes life easier.

Regards,
Logged

shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2009, 10:59:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Pup,

I wasn't talking about the dimensions of the picture. I was talking about the size of the file in terms of how long it takes to load. Nothing wrong with posting large dimensions, but on a 72 ppi monitor keeping the .jpeg compression low (which keeps the file size large) doesn't improve what people out there see. It just delays being able to see it. If you hold the file size to around 500K it makes life easier.

Regards,

Russ,
I have figured out what I need to do to keep my file sizes about 500K. Thanks to everyone for the help.
Now, does anyone have anything to say about this particular shot of mine? Critique please.
Logged
MR.FEESH
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132



WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2009, 11:18:08 AM »
ReplyReply

My 2 cents = noise reduction.  Noise is causing that grainy look in the darker parts of the picture such as the tree on the right hand side of the picture.  Compare this to your original to see what I mean:
 


(I used LR for noise reduction in case you were wondering)


Elby
Logged

Sigma SD14 w/ PG-21
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX Macro
Sigma 70mm F2.8 DG EX Macro
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2009, 11:20:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cmi
Dale, file size in Bytes or Kilobytes has nothing to do with the DPI settings. Kikashi said it, I will explain it with more detail.
Pixel size, DPI and Inches are 3 values wich all define image size. Pixels are the size in the Computer, Inches are a real world size and DPI tells about the density the pixels are printed.
Each alone is meaningless.
Christian

True enough.  Not a simple calculation.  Whatever the final arbiter of size is, I find that I almost always get the minimum file size in the copy of PSP I use, and I assumed that the DPI setting was it.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6085



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2009, 11:29:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Russ,
I have figured out what I need to do to keep my file sizes about 500K. Thanks to everyone for the help.
Now, does anyone have anything to say about this particular shot of mine? Critique please.

Okay. Here's my critique: I see what you were trying to do. Looking out the window and seeing that shaft of sunlight is an uplifting experience, especially in the morning. I get the same kind of uplift from the rocks outside my dining room windows in the morning:

[attachment=14452:25_Jul_05_01.jpg]

But the beauty of a scene like that -- the way it strikes your eye, and your psyche -- doesn't necessarily translate directly into a photograph. I think the picture fails by being too specific. You've pointed your camera at the bright leaves and zoomed in on them to the exclusion of the background. What background there is is nicely muted and makes a good contrast with the leaves, but there's no sense of place in the picture. Since I can't see outside the bounds of the picture, I can't tell whether or not it would have been possible to back off and give the leaves location. But without location the leaves are just some bright leaves.
Logged

shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2009, 11:35:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MR.FEESH
My 2 cents = noise reduction.  Noise is causing that grainy look in the darker parts of the picture such as the tree on the right hand side of the picture.  Compare this to your original to see what I mean:
 


(I used LR for noise reduction in case you were wondering)


Elby


I can actually see the noise better in my original in Aperture than I can here. I have my settings set for auto noise reduction, and apparently in this case, it is not sufficient. I think I am right in saying that noise is commonly going to be more apparent in dark areas of a photo. One more thing to look for more carefully when I am post-processing.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2009, 12:51:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Okay. Here's my critique: I see what you were trying to do. Looking out the window and seeing that shaft of sunlight is an uplifting experience, especially in the morning. I get the same kind of uplift from the rocks outside my dining room windows in the morning:

[attachment=14452:25_Jul_05_01.jpg]

But the beauty of a scene like that -- the way it strikes your eye, and your psyche -- doesn't necessarily translate directly into a photograph. I think the picture fails by being too specific. You've pointed your camera at the bright leaves and zoomed in on them to the exclusion of the background. What background there is is nicely muted and makes a good contrast with the leaves, but there's no sense of place in the picture. Since I can't see outside the bounds of the picture, I can't tell whether or not it would have been possible to back off and give the leaves location. But without location the leaves are just some bright leaves.

Russ,
How true, how true. Do you think that backing up substantially so that you get a sense of the tree beside the deck would have given "a sense of place?" Or did I misunderstand you? If I did, can you clarify? And thinking about this matter of a sense of place, would you agree that this is what's lacking in so many sunrise/sunset shots that makes them just another sunrise/sunset.

I have always been one to zoom in, crop close, a lot of macro. I think it may be time for me to challenge myself to see the place as well as the detail; the forest and the trees if you will.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6085



WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2009, 01:03:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Russ,
How true, how true. Do you think that backing up substantially so that you get a sense of the tree beside the deck would have given "a sense of place?" Or did I misunderstand you? If I did, can you clarify? And thinking about this matter of a sense of place, would you agree that this is what's lacking in so many sunrise/sunset shots that makes them just another sunrise/sunset.

I have always been one to zoom in, crop close, a lot of macro. I think it may be time for me to challenge myself to see the place as well as the detail; the forest and the trees if you will.

Pup,

I can't tell whether or not backing up would solve the problem since I can't see the whole scene. That's something you'd have to decide. But I do think that a lot of shots like this one fail because the sense of place isn't there. If you're going to shoot trees or branches, Ansel Adams probably is the best teacher of all. Just off hand I can't think of a single one of his shots of trees that didn't place the tree in its surroundings. Here's a URL with an example: http://cday89.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/...ms-yosemite.jpg.

There are a lot of situations where close cropping is the right thing to do. Unfortunately I don't think anyone can come up with a rule of thumb that would help make that decision. It's something your trained eye has to tell you. That's why I keep harping on the idea that to train your eye you need to spend a lot of time looking at pictures by the masters. There are good reasons why they're masters, and one of them is the amount of practice they put into their art.
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2009, 01:09:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Russ,
How true, how true. Do you think that backing up substantially so that you get a sense of the tree beside the deck would have given "a sense of place?" Or did I misunderstand you? If I did, can you clarify? And thinking about this matter of a sense of place, would you agree that this is what's lacking in so many sunrise/sunset shots that makes them just another sunrise/sunset.
I have always been one to zoom in, crop close, a lot of macro. I think it may be time for me to challenge myself to see the place as well as the detail; the forest and the trees if you will.

Cropping close isn't necessarily a problem, but it tends to be, since more often than not, it gets too close.  Backing up can also be a problem when the stuff that's not in the current frame doesn't fit anyway.  What really matters is framing the original to get the *best* shot, or if you don't have several images with different zoom-in perspectives, just getting the best crop from what you have.  That doesn't mean you'll get what you want, but you can experiment all you like.

The biggest improvement I made since posting here for the first time was backing up and getting more of a scene than just a particular thing.  Russ should be able to explain that as well as anyone.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2009, 01:17:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Pup,

I can't tell whether or not backing up would solve the problem since I can't see the whole scene. That's something you'd have to decide. But I do think that a lot of shots like this one fail because the sense of place isn't there. If you're going to shoot trees or branches, Ansel Adams probably is the best teacher of all. Just off hand I can't think of a single one of his shots of trees that didn't place the tree in its surroundings. Here's a URL with an example: http://cday89.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/...ms-yosemite.jpg.

There are a lot of situations where close cropping is the right thing to do. Unfortunately I don't think anyone can come up with a rule of thumb that would help make that decision. It's something your trained eye has to tell you. That's why I keep harping on the idea that to train your eye you need to spend a lot of time looking at pictures by the masters. There are good reasons why they're masters, and one of them is the amount of practice they put into their art.

Russ,
Your reference of an Ansel Adams shot clarifies everything for me concerning "sense of place." And would you then agree that successful photos, whether they are close-cropped, macro or anything else, would convey that "sense of place?"

I've read in other threads here what you have said about studying the masters, not just of photography but of art in general. I must say that as I make the effort to develop myself as a photographer, not just as snapshooter, that I can see the wisdom in studying the masters. I know some others here beg the question by saying they don't want to be copying what they see in the masters. I don't think you can go wrong by copying the basic rules of composition, color, form, sense of place. By knowing the rules and being able to apply them makes you stronger  as a photographer, not weaker. Understanding and application do not result in copying.

Off my soapbox.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad