Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Evening shots  (Read 1766 times)
John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031


« on: July 08, 2009, 09:30:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Took a couple of 'grab' shots while on two walks in the park. Decided to try high ISO on my Pentax just to see the results. Had no tripod, so had no choice, in any event. The reflection is shot about ISO 400, if I remember correctly; the other image is just a point and shoot at about 1600 ISO, F4, and the camera would not focus electronically, so I had to quickly switch to manual. My poor eyes! Hard to tell where the focus is. I don't think I will be using high ISO too often, except for a certain look.

JMR
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 12:51:49 PM by John R » Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5744



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2009, 11:08:04 AM »
ReplyReply

The second one has an interesting feel to it.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6248



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2009, 11:12:41 AM »
ReplyReply

John,

Stop worrying so much about technical perfection. #2 reminds me of the ominous night photographs made by Brassai in Paris in the thirties. I agree that it's too noisy. I ran it through a fairly light pass in Noiseware. Most of the noise is gone but there are some pretty ugly artifacts left behind and it's still soft. If you're interested in this kind of street work, save up and get one of the Nikon or Canon cameras that can handle ISO 1600 or better without pain. This is a well-framed photograph, though technically it's a loser. The point is, you looked and you saw. Technical limitations can be overcome with better equipment. Blindness to what's out there in the world can't.

[attachment=15221:July_5_0...x_bwcopy.jpg]
Logged

button
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2009, 11:39:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
This is a well-framed photograph, though technically it's a loser.

I'm glad you beat me to this, Russ, because I had started to write a reply before you posted but was interrupted- I'm going to disagree with you on this point.  As I think we've seen before, you and I have different tastes.

I find this one of the best "noire" shots I've seen in quite awhile.  I was going to include "ominous" in my origianl post, but I think the word "eerie" best sums up this shot.  When I put myself into this image, I feel like something vaguely bad has happened-  the composition you've chosen and the backlighting you've captured gives the departing dark figure a power of uncertain measure, and the insects around the light contribute to a sense of malice.  The noise in the photo isn't a bug, it's a feature: it helps veil detail, further supporting the mood.

I believe art should stir emotion, and you really got me with this one.  I'd buy this one and put it on the wall.

John
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6248



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2009, 11:54:01 AM »
ReplyReply

John, I'm not so sure we disagree. The thing struck me the same way. Have you ever seen the stuff like this that Brassai did in Paris back in the thirties? Bill Brandt did some of the same kind of thing in London in the forties and fifties. I do wish the shot were less noisy, but I'm not sure the noise is a deal-breaker.

I'd really like to see more of this kind of thing. As far as I'm concerned, people are where the action is. (Easy, now, everybody, that's a personal opinion.)
Logged

cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2009, 12:20:02 PM »
ReplyReply

The second also appeals to me more.

Just commenting on the technique, I have found sometimes that amplifying the noise in such examples can help to get a more interesting look. e.g. in Lightroom cranking up the sharpening to max values and radius combined with no noise reduction / max noise reduction. (Just playing on all sliders and see if it gets more interesting.) So, trying also the opposite of what Russ suggested might be an option.

Not to say that one version would be better over the other. I imagine I could like it both in ultrasharp and noisy.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 12:26:25 PM by Christian Miersch » Logged
John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031


« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2009, 08:58:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the comments everyone. I am using the Pentax K10D and am considering selling it for the K20D, as I have read the ISO works fairly well to 1600 and goes up to 6400 ISO. Unlike most people on this site I never save in RAW. Too much hassle and work for me, not to mention the amount of space required to save all the file copies.

The colour version on the second image is ghastly, that's why I converted it to BW. Russ, sorry if I sounded like I was overly concerned with technical appearances, because I can assure you, I am not. Just recognized I could not overcome this particular noise deficiency. I did clone out two small spots of stray light, probably caused by my filter and the boucing light. Se la vie.

JMR
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 09:00:03 PM by John R » Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3990



« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2009, 02:40:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R
Took a couple of 'grab' shots while on two walks in the park. Decided to try high ISO on my Pentax just to see the results. Had no tripod, so had no choice, in any event. The reflection is shot about ISO 400, if I remember correctly; the other image is just a point and shoot at about 1600 ISO, F4, and the camera would not focus electronically, so I had to quickly switch to manual. My poor eyes! Hard to tell where the focus is. I don't think I will be using high ISO too often, except for a certain look.

JMR
I like the second one, though I'm not sure what the stuff near the light is. I have to disagree with Russ, though: for me, his noise-reduced version has lost all the character of the original.

Jeremy
Logged
John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031


« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2009, 06:09:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kikashi
I like the second one, though I'm not sure what the stuff near the light is. I have to disagree with Russ, though: for me, his noise-reduced version has lost all the character of the original.

Jeremy
Thanks for the comments. I think the light on the lamp is a spider web, a very common sight on these types of lamps. Often one only sees the effects after the photo is taken.

JMR
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad