|
Rob C
|
 |
« Reply #920 on: May 14, 2012, 12:39:24 PM » |
 Reply
|
I am starting to like this guy  I don't think he meant what I think you thought he means. Were I younger, I'm sure I might hold a different opinion on that, though. Rob C |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #923 on: May 14, 2012, 03:34:06 PM » |
Reply
|
Spring may not be truly eternal, but its enough to get my juices going.
JMR
I think the first two are fantastic; not moved at all by the third. Rob C |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WalterEG
|
|
« Reply #924 on: May 14, 2012, 05:55:37 PM » |
Reply
|
I think they are all quite wonderful and the difference in technique and vision of the third makes it a stand-out for me.
Cheers,
Q
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wolfnowl
|
|
« Reply #925 on: May 15, 2012, 12:24:50 AM » |
Reply
|
Nice, John. I find the first particularly compelling. Reminds me of an oil stick painting.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Riaan van Wyk
|
|
« Reply #926 on: May 15, 2012, 12:38:58 PM » |
Reply
|
Heck, full sedation is the best way to experience life in general these days.
It does get boring and ordinary after a while Oscar, as everything in life does I guess. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #927 on: May 15, 2012, 03:27:44 PM » |
Reply
|
It does get boring and ordinary after a while Oscar, as everything in life does I guess.
Lift yourself, Riann, it's not a good place to go. I'm a friggin' expert, so take my word for that. ;-) Rob C |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #928 on: May 15, 2012, 05:05:03 PM » |
Reply
|
Thanks for the comments everyone. I get more comments about the third than the others, as people really like it or hate it. What I find interesting is when I compare the idea, often suggested on this site, that people should try converting their images to BW. This seldom works for me, as these type of images rely heavily on the colour component and their interaction with each other and less so on the design component.
JMR
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 08:43:50 PM by John R »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WalterEG
|
|
« Reply #929 on: May 15, 2012, 06:12:23 PM » |
Reply
|
John,
The point that those who preach mono conversion generally miss (as most proselytisers miss something) is that to make black & white or colour images is ideally a decision made BEFORE the fact, rather than after it.
Back to the dreaded 'V' word — visualisation.
The works of yours that I have seen show that you are tuned in to the possibilities and gifts of colour. Listen to your heart and move as the world moved YOU.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Blagojevic
|
|
« Reply #930 on: May 15, 2012, 06:20:59 PM » |
Reply
|
... Back to the dreaded 'V' word — visualisation...
Funny you mention it, but pressing " V" in Lightroom does convert it to b&w |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WalterEG
|
|
« Reply #931 on: May 16, 2012, 03:51:19 AM » |
Reply
|
Whale oil beef Oct!
I did not know but I do now.
Pardon my attempt at an Irish accent.
Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #932 on: May 19, 2012, 09:07:58 PM » |
Reply
|
I really like this one; far more abstract than simple non-representational images. I kept it dark because that is the way I saw it and because it maintains the more subtle mix of colour with dark tones. Curiously, in all my shots at dusk, I am getting little red spots (dots really) that I have to clone out. I wonder if that is a function of High ISO or shooting longer exposure images. JMR  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wolfnowl
|
|
« Reply #933 on: May 20, 2012, 02:07:02 AM » |
Reply
|
Intriguing... I rather like it!
Mike.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #934 on: May 20, 2012, 03:50:17 AM » |
Reply
|
I really like this one; far more abstract than simple non-representational images. I kept it dark because that is the way I saw it and because it maintains the more subtle mix of colour with dark tones. Curiously, in all my shots at dusk, I am getting little red spots (dots really) that I have to clone out. I wonder if that is a function of High ISO or shooting longer exposure images.
JMR
Are those hot pixels, or whatever hot pixels might be? It was so simple back when you knew it was just dust or dirt in the water! I like that sort of obscure imagery; makes the imagination work rather than just wallow in what's already there and glaringly obvious. Rob C |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #935 on: May 20, 2012, 07:35:20 AM » |
Reply
|
Rob, I wish I knew what these red dots are, because when I blow it up enough there are more than two, albeit smaller. Thanks for the comments Mike and Rob.
Here are the offending dots:
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 07:37:29 AM by John R »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #936 on: May 20, 2012, 07:52:37 AM » |
Reply
|
Rob, I wish I knew what these red dots are, because when I blow it up enough there are more than two, albeit smaller. Thanks for the comments Mike and Rob.
Here are the offending dots:
Rubies. Now you only have to find them. ;-) Rob C |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
EduPerez
|
|
« Reply #937 on: May 21, 2012, 01:45:40 AM » |
Reply
|
I really like this one; far more abstract than simple non-representational images. I kept it dark because that is the way I saw it and because it maintains the more subtle mix of colour with dark tones. Curiously, in all my shots at dusk, I am getting little red spots (dots really) that I have to clone out. I wonder if that is a function of High ISO or shooting longer exposure images.
JMR
Red, green, and blue isolated pixels are mostly hot pixels; long exposures produce them, and high ISOs accentuate them. Most cameras have a "long exposure noise reduction" option precisely to deal with these, and some raw converters also try to deal with them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #938 on: May 22, 2012, 08:50:02 PM » |
Reply
|
Red, green, and blue isolated pixels are mostly hot pixels; long exposures produce them, and high ISOs accentuate them. Most cameras have a "long exposure noise reduction" option precisely to deal with these, and some raw converters also try to deal with them.
Hey Ed, thanks very much for that information. I never knew that. I did indeed shoot handheld at high ISO 1600 and the exif says that noise reduction was off. So, is it better to turn noise reduction on for all night shots or long exposures? JMR |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
EduPerez
|
|
« Reply #939 on: May 23, 2012, 12:34:21 AM » |
Reply
|
Hey Ed, thanks very much for that information. I never knew that. I did indeed shoot handheld at high ISO 1600 and the exif says that noise reduction was off. So, is it better to turn noise reduction on for all night shots or long exposures?
JMR
Usually, "long exposure noise reduction" (there is also a "high ISO noise reduction") is only recommended for exposures longer than one second; for shorter times it has little, or no effect at all. And bear in mind that when this option is active, the camera will pause after each shot, for a time equal to the exposure time; if that is not a problem to you, I would use it. High ISO noise reduction is completely different: it is mostly the same noise reduction that you can do later at the computer; so, if you already plan to edit your photographs, and do not mind spending a few extra seconds on each one, I would not use it. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
