Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Another difficult shot  (Read 1762 times)
cjogo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


« on: March 28, 2013, 03:45:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I had to sneak in a camera at this Church in Poland ... I smuggled in a SWC Hassy and sat it on the pew that I was kneeling on here ...hence the angle straight up .. 1/4 second at f11 > cable release of course and a quiet shutter
Logged
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2013, 04:09:14 AM »
ReplyReply

The first things I see are blocked shadows, blown highlights and dust spots. You really need to improve your processing skills if you want to impress people.

Having processed images professionally for fourteen years these problems really stick out.

Sorry, but basic image processing processing knowledge and skills are essential if you want to impress people.

Cheers,
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2397


« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2013, 04:32:05 AM »
ReplyReply

There maybe a good reason for the blocked shadows. No information there that could be captured at the time and if the shadows were lifted then only noise. Then again some people like small areas to be pure black which means good contrast. If the sun is hitting a particular area then it means that the area is blown to pure white and there is little that can be done in post processing. Interiors of churches tend to be high contrast?

<Having processed images professionally for fourteen years these problems really stick out.>

Sorry they are problems in your mind but not in others.? BTW stating your professional qualifications mean little or nothing. As to the image then I quite like the rendering and composition and wouldn't change anything. Smiley



Logged

tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2013, 04:46:46 AM »
ReplyReply

You've got to be joking.

Blown highlights, blocked shadows, crappy processing, there is no excuse.
Cheers,

Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2397


« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2013, 05:32:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Tom out of curiosity I had a look at your site and saw this image.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i_EQBgEwRZ8/URH67Y7tkoI/AAAAAAAABNU/cuvUnvJMqtA/s1600/boab.jpg

Assuming my monitor's profile is still working I saw blocked shadows and blown highlights. Do you agree? Wink As to the processing I will leave it for others to judge. Smiley
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 05:33:54 AM by stamper » Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6453


« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2013, 06:21:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I love the different, intersecting arches, my eyes go to the brightest point (ie. the center of the image).
Logged

Francois
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2013, 07:48:50 AM »
ReplyReply

You've got to be joking.

Blown highlights, blocked shadows, crappy processing, there is no excuse.
Cheers,



Seeing such harsh words I too was drawn straight to Tom's website, and the first albums I clicked onto had the most incredibly blocked shadows.

http://www.tombrown.id.au/monochrome/pyrmont_bridge/album/index.html

Tom, is the author trying to make excuses, and is he trying to sell these pictures?  Your opinions are yours, but using terms like "crappy processing" is not very helpful.  Personally, and I might be in a minority of one for all I care, I cannot see the problems with shadow areas with no detail.  Likewise blown highlights.  The photography world is full of 'rules' and the worse for it.  Which perhaps explains why the internet is full of over-processed HDR'd, dross!  Have you ever considered that completely black areas could be a creative decision?
I quite like some of your work by the way, but by your own stated standards you must think a lot of your own work suffers from the same 'problems' as the picture in this post.

Jim
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 08:08:31 AM by Jim Pascoe » Logged
Chris Calohan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1798


Editing Allowed


« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2013, 09:16:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Cat's got somebody's tongue. If he was so inclined, I suspect cjogo could "fix" all the ills in Photoshop but like may of the others on here, I question the why of it all. More and more I see where the "rules" of photography get in the way of a good presentation. I'm am certainly not advocating everyone shoot willy-nilly and hope for the best, but it is not always bad to have blown out areas, or very dark-dark-darks. Personally, I like the idea of detail in the shadows and the highlights but that comes from too many years trying to perfect Zone scale shooting but not so dyed in the wool tied to it as some are.
Logged

What! Me Worry?

Life is about a little kid driving a Mini...
Mjollnir
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 287


« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2013, 09:34:53 AM »
ReplyReply

The first things I see are blocked shadows, blown highlights and dust spots. You really need to improve your processing skills if you want to impress people.

Having processed images professionally for fourteen years these problems really stick out.

Sorry, but basic image processing processing knowledge and skills are essential if you want to impress people.

Cheers,

14 years?  Wow.  I couldn't tell from the shots at your website.   

I'll bet if you asked here, however, you'd get a lot of helpful advice.
Logged
graeme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 265


« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2013, 10:25:23 AM »
ReplyReply

The first things I see are blocked shadows, blown highlights and dust spots.

Didn't notice any of those things.

Quite liked the image, though not as much as some of the others that cjogo has posted ( which have been very good ).

My main criticism of the image would be that it probably shouldn't exist in the first place if visitors to the church had been requested not to take photos inside the building.

Having produced stained glass professionally for seventeen years that's a problem that really sticks out.

Graeme
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7463



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2013, 10:37:53 AM »
ReplyReply

As to the image then I quite like the rendering and composition and wouldn't change anything. Smiley
I'm with Stamper. I like it just as it is.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
cjogo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2013, 12:40:44 PM »
ReplyReply

The first things I see are blocked shadows, blown highlights and dust spots. You really need to improve your processing skills if you want to impress people.

Having processed images professionally for fourteen years these problems really stick out.

Sorry, but basic image processing processing knowledge and skills are essential if you want to impress people.

Cheers,

I didn't get the chance to use my meter, on this one >>  but carrying a camera around since the early 70's ..I had a little idea on the exposure.  Wink  And no doubt you have maybe some basics you suggested > that   I missed.  Was processing my first sheet of 8X10 film back in 1976.

My scanner seems to be just too high of quality > would never see this amount of dust with a conventional darkroom process. This was scanned on  a Minolta Pro about 1996 ..  the only real "burned" highlight (250 or higher ) is the outside window.  The right arch is still in a Zone 9 >> But yes I should had had a minus development on this HP5 film.  . Even with dual filters in our water system > never realized just how dirty until I started scanning.  I probably only spent maybe 25 minutes spotting /and then some curves...
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 08:35:48 PM by cjogo » Logged
Chris Calohan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1798


Editing Allowed


« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2013, 01:18:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I never rinsed in anything but distilled water for one minute at the end of my regular wash - even then, it's hard to get all the crap off a negative.
Logged

What! Me Worry?

Life is about a little kid driving a Mini...
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5018



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2013, 02:06:03 PM »
ReplyReply

... You really need to improve your processing skills if you want to impress people.

Having processed images professionally for fourteen years these problems really stick out.

Sorry, but basic image processing processing knowledge and skills are essential if you want to impress people.
Quote
You've got to be joking.

Blown highlights, blocked shadows, crappy processing, there is no excuse.

One thing comes to mind, Tom, the concept of "opening the door." By introducing the harsh and critical language, you opened the door for responses in kind:

Seriously!?

Someone's processing skills is what impresses people!?

Which people, by the way? Photographers? Or just anal-retentive photographers?

Because ordinary folks (and non-anal-retentive photographers) could not care less about processing skills, blown highlights and dust spots. What impresses people, my friend, is the emotional power of the photograph. Get that right, and all else is forgiven, even among photographers.

I am sure you would have had equally harsh words for the D-Day photographs. After all, aren't they all blurry and grainy, indicating perhaps a total lack of not only processing, but also very basic photographic skills?

Have you ever seen ordinary folks going over family albums with tears in their eyes? I mean, most family albums are choke full of out-of-focus, blurry, overexposed, heads-cut-off pictures, but that is not what brings tears to people's eyes. It is the emotional impact of those moments and memories, not photographing or processing skills.

Have you ever seen anyone tearing up over the lack of dust spots or the lack of blown highlights?

In fairness to you, this is a critique section, thus bringing up dust spots and blocked shadows as a nitpick would be generally ok. But treating it as a pre-condition for "impressing people?" Seriously!?



Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2013, 02:28:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Seriously, a couple of dust spots on a random picture would be forgivable. Tens of dust spots, scratches etc on a series of images are really unacceptable. Don't shoot the messenger. I've spent many hours getting rid of dust spots so to me they really stick out to me. Really, for anyone brought up in the film era seeing seeing a really spotty print is a real turn off.

A basic spotting of the top of the image…



Cheers,
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 03:00:16 PM by tom b » Logged

cjogo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2013, 03:15:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I deliver images to a perspective gallery on a DVD or email >>  Only images that are to be printed for exposition = are fully corrected..  Had my first show in 1978 >>  At the height (90's ) was in 6 galleries >  nation wide.  So, a little experience with fine art.    B&W scans are max for  16X16 ..so yes we spot if necessary / Wink
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 08:38:32 PM by cjogo » Logged
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2013, 03:25:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I deliver images to a perspective galleriyon a DVD or email >>  Only images that are to be printed for exposition = are fully corrected..  Had my first show in 1978 >>  At the height (90's ) was in 6 galleries >  nation wide.   B&W scans are max for  16X16 ..so yes we spot if necessary / Wink

Obviously we don't deserve to see spotted images, we're meant to just ignore the dust, scratches etc?

Cheers,
Logged

cjogo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2013, 03:31:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Obviously we don't deserve to see spotted images, we're meant to just ignore the dust, scratches etc?

Cheers,

I have a limit ... after cloning spots for 20+minutes ..definitely quality enough for the net  Grin  


Now this is pre ---  Shocked
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 03:34:39 PM by cjogo » Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 762


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2013, 03:34:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Just a suggestion, but this might be a good time to drop it. I'm not seeing this discussion going anyplace useful.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
cjogo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2013, 03:37:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I think a lot of that may just be grain ??   thanks for the cloning though ... I wear my wrist out or a track ball after too many sessions.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad