Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sunset at the farm  (Read 3875 times)
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2700


« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2011, 06:17:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Is it difficult riding two horses at once? A photographer I once knew had opinions like yourself. Stating that film was better than digital. He was asked why he didn't shoot film any more. He said it was more convenient to shoot digital. He was asked why he gave up "quality" for convenience. Still waiting for an answer. There isn't an answer to your post. You do what suits you best but stating that film is "best" but shooting digital means you are trying to have both worlds at once. This debate will never be settled. Smiley
Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2011, 07:45:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Is it difficult riding two horses at once? A photographer I once knew had opinions like yourself. Stating that film was better than digital. He was asked why he didn't shoot film any more. He said it was more convenient to shoot digital. He was asked why he gave up "quality" for convenience. Still waiting for an answer. There isn't an answer to your post. You do what suits you best but stating that film is "best" but shooting digital means you are trying to have both worlds at once. This debate will never be settled. Smiley
He shoots digital for the same reason we all shoot digital, it's so easy to do and requires very little effort or knowledge to produce a decent image, that's why  everyone in the world thinks they are now a photographer.
I have not stated film is best, I have stated film does some things better than digital. The reason I shoot mostly digital is because it earns me more money, for that digital is best, if you want a high DR and all the benefits that brings then a roll of film is best, it will require more effort to get it. If you can't see the clipped highlights and blocky colours despite using HDR techniques fine, stay happy. If you can see them and would like a solution I'm suggesting one. I'm not even saying believe me, I'm saying give it a try, live with it for a bit and see if you think it's worth it and you might even enjoy the journey on the way. If you are not interested or don't think it's worth the effort when there are plugins you think will do the same, I'm not bothered no skin off my nose as they say. I'm not against digital or the stuff that comes with it, it's bought the house I live in the bm in the drive and lots of other stuff, but I am not going to ignore it's darkside just because it makes life easier. It's not often a digital shooter will claim they shoot digital because it looks better, I hear it's cheaper, quicker, more versatile, easier, lighter but never because it's more beautiful. I shoot both and use whichever is best for the job, I would of shot the farm on film and LF if possible if it was for me, if it was for a client that needed it quickly and on a budget then I shoot on digital, no one is going to pay me extra for a sheet of film, processing and scanning.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2700


« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2011, 08:05:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote

He shoots digital for the same reason we all shoot digital, it's so easy to do and requires very little effort or knowledge to produce a decent image, that's why  everyone in the world thinks they are now a photographer.

Unquote

Wow. Really interesting. It looks as if you have prostituted yourself for the filthy lucre? I was thinking about buying Michael and Jeff's video but I think I will make my self one tomorrow when I have a spare five minutes. Will it take that long? Wink Grin
Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1875


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2011, 08:55:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Gentlemen,

The contempt is not only entirely out of line but not called for. If you are unwilling or unable to maintain an adult conversation and a civil tone, kindly take it elsewhere.

People are entitled to their opinions. Counter points are acceptable. Proof of opinion helps credibility while a lack therein makes one appear less than credible. Personal attacks and derision demonstrate childish behaviors. Unless you wish your posts to be reported to the moderators, kindly remove the slurs.

Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2011, 08:59:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote

He shoots digital for the same reason we all shoot digital, it's so easy to do and requires very little effort or knowledge to produce a decent image, that's why  everyone in the world thinks they are now a photographer.

Unquote

Wow. Really interesting. It looks as if you have prostituted yourself for the filthy lucre? I was thinking about buying Michael and Jeff's video but I think I will make my self one tomorrow when I have a spare five minutes. Will it take that long? Wink Grin
No mate, I do what I need to make a living, the right tool for job. No point in me shooting film if it means they don't get the image when they want and at a higher cost to them, I would soon need to get a real job in an office or something.
Here's why I started looking at film again. I think it was about Feb, I had a client wanting a Sunrise shot of their site with Canary Wharf in the background catching the golden sunlight in the glass, It was a morning with a low mist. We took off in the helicopter just before Sunrise to be on site for the Sun's first light, I got the shots, not quite what I imagined because the low mist had dispersed into the air giving a slightly misty atmosphere. Anyway I did all I could with the site. For my own pleasure I asked the Pilot to take me around the other side of the Canary Wharf Towers so I could get the Sun in the background, which he did. The Sun coming through the towers in the mist looked fantastic, like beams of light tumbling through a Church window catching the dust in the atmosphere. I shot lots varying the exposure because the contrast range was huge. I got some nice images but I always felt I had missed it in many ways, one that got away, I could not tame the contrast range in the image. I believe now if I had shot it on film I would of got it. I now always take a camera loaded with film up with me just in case I get another situation that the Canons will not handle.
Not wishing to hijack this thread anymore I will post an example in a new thread.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2700


« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2011, 10:05:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Gentlemen,

The contempt is not only entirely out of line but not called for. If you are unwilling or unable to maintain an adult conversation and a civil tone, kindly take it elsewhere.

People are entitled to their opinions. Counter points are acceptable. Proof of opinion helps credibility while a lack therein makes one appear less than credible. Personal attacks and derision demonstrate childish behaviors. Unless you wish your posts to be reported to the moderators, kindly remove the slurs.



If you look at the end of the post JUSTAN you will see a wink and a smiley. If you aren't sure what they mean then ask someone. To help you out they are meant to be an attempt at humour. The thread has been fine up until your untimely intervention and the other poster didn't complain. Roll Eyes
Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1875


WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2011, 11:58:39 AM »
ReplyReply

If you look at the end of the post JUSTAN you will see a wink and a smiley. If you aren't sure what they mean then ask someone. To help you out they are meant to be an attempt at humour. The thread has been fine up until your untimely intervention and the other poster didn't complain. Roll Eyes


Stamper,

Stating something that is bluntly rude and hiding it behind a smiley is being bluntly rude and evasive. I'm not the forum police and don’t pretend otherwise. The level of discourse is inappropriate. It detracts from the topic and is inflammatory.

Here are some key points you brought to the discussion. Lets review:

> Justan imo Louoates gave you the least informative reply of all,…

> Is it difficult riding two horses at once? A photographer I once knew had opinions like yourself….

> Wow. Really interesting. It looks as if you have prostituted yourself for the filthy lucre?


If you can keep to the topic that would be great.
Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1875


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2011, 04:36:45 PM »
ReplyReply

It's subjects like this that have made me shoot some film again. I like the image.
Despite you stacking various images to control the DR of the scene we still have a harsh blown out highlight in the sky at the left and it looks like you have tried to control that, the picture has ended up with a strange balance between light and shade. If that is the effect you are trying to produce then ok, but I suspect you were trying to control the scene and get it to look natural. Seriously a roll of 120 Portra would of got it in one shot and kept the tones in their natural order.
Kevin.

Kevin,

Thanks for your comments.

I never used Porta and had infrequent access to a box that would hold 120 film. Long ago I worked mostly with 35 mm and some studio bound view cameras. Then I found that film has many endearing characteristics. Generally the bigger the physical area of film the better nuances of tones. If only it wasn’t such a chore to get to a workable state! But such trade offs are commonly done in the name of appealing to the consumer.

I've read that the DR for MF cameras (digital) is notably greater than the top DSLRs of today (though the differences there appears to be diminishing). Some who use the newer PhaseOne backs say (and demonstrate) the equipment has phenomenal DR. I’d love to get my hands on some of this hardware. Alas for the time, all I have is my trusty D80 and a little practice with HDR.

Regarding the DR of the image, the cloud exposures were done at 1/15 and the building exposures were done at 1 second (iso 100). The buildings were nearly featureless silhouettes when exposing for the sky. To capture the building colors and details, the sky lost all useful detial. It may be possible to capture the DR of this scene with a MF camera. I dunno. It would certainly make the task a whole lot easier if it could!

This was my first work done in CS5. Regarding the white area of the skies, thanks for pointing that out. In the raw files the cloud detail is all there but it’s reduced in the pano merge and completely gone in the web image. After your note, I looked and found the data loss took place during the hdr merge part of the process.

Also part of the problem appears due to the screen capture program I use to make jpg files. What do others use to make web images from .tif or psd files?

I'm going to be busy for a few days but I’ll definitely re-work the image to restore the cloud detail. Thanks again!
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2700


« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2011, 02:41:13 AM »
ReplyReply


Stamper,

Stating something that is bluntly rude and hiding it behind a smiley is being bluntly rude and evasive. I'm not the forum police and don’t pretend otherwise. The level of discourse is inappropriate. It detracts from the topic and is inflammatory.

Here are some key points you brought to the discussion. Lets review:

> Justan imo Louoates gave you the least informative reply of all,…

> Is it difficult riding two horses at once? A photographer I once knew had opinions like yourself….

> Wow. Really interesting. It looks as if you have prostituted yourself for the filthy lucre?


If you can keep to the topic that would be great.


If you consider this inflammatory then you lead a sheltered life. This topic was fine up until the mention of film which wasn't appropriate to the discussion. I countered that point and then Kevin A went on a discourse of it's merits, finally saying that digital was easy and anyone could do it. As stated my post about filthy lucre was an attempt at humour in order to lighten the tone after what was a dismissal of the merits of digital. Your mock horror doesn't wash with me and as you stated you aren't a moderator for the forum. Lips sealed 
Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2011, 04:15:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Kevin,

Thanks for your comments.

I never used Porta and had infrequent access to a box that would hold 120 film. Long ago I worked mostly with 35 mm and some studio bound view cameras. Then I found that film has many endearing characteristics. Generally the bigger the physical area of film the better nuances of tones. If only it wasn’t such a chore to get to a workable state! But such trade offs are commonly done in the name of appealing to the consumer.

I've read that the DR for MF cameras (digital) is notably greater than the top DSLRs of today (though the differences there appears to be diminishing). Some who use the newer PhaseOne backs say (and demonstrate) the equipment has phenomenal DR. I’d love to get my hands on some of this hardware. Alas for the time, all I have is my trusty D80 and a little practice with HDR.

Regarding the DR of the image, the cloud exposures were done at 1/15 and the building exposures were done at 1 second (iso 100). The buildings were nearly featureless silhouettes when exposing for the sky. To capture the building colors and details, the sky lost all useful detial. It may be possible to capture the DR of this scene with a MF camera. I dunno. It would certainly make the task a whole lot easier if it could!

This was my first work done in CS5. Regarding the white area of the skies, thanks for pointing that out. In the raw files the cloud detail is all there but it’s reduced in the pano merge and completely gone in the web image. After your note, I looked and found the data loss took place during the hdr merge part of the process.

Also part of the problem appears due to the screen capture program I use to make jpg files. What do others use to make web images from .tif or psd files?

I'm going to be busy for a few days but I’ll definitely re-work the image to restore the cloud detail. Thanks again!

Of course there is no silver bullet with either film or digital and I have a high horse I ride about the many prints I see for sale where whole sections of seriously clipped highlights, blocky yellows/reds and funny halos  are regarded as acceptable. I find it a constant battle keeping everything within range and it not looking like a CGI generated image when conditions get tricky.
A colour printer friend of mine had a technique for assessing difficult prints, he would make a print and leave it on the table propped up over night. When he came down in the morning whatever his first impression of the print was he went with that for the corrections. I find it very easy to get accustomed to the look of an image when working on it, you can add some saturation and think that's good, work on it for a time add some more saturation and think that's good and so on. Before you know it you have gone over the top a couple of days later you look at it and wonder what you must of been on to make it look like that, less very often is more for my taste.
Good luck with the cloud detail, I do like the shot. It's all good fun I think even if I go out at dawn and come back with a load of rubbish, which quite often is the case.

Cheers,

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad