BEHOLD THE POWER OF INFRARED !

On Jan 2, 1:47*pm, wrote:
On Jan 2, 10:15*am, Annika1980 wrote:

On Jan 2, 6:40*am, Scott W wrote:

The second one does look like something Floyd would post, I have come
to expect much better from Bret.

I could post a test pic of a Gretag-MacBeth Colorchecker chart and
some of you would bitch about the composition.

Geez, it was a simple comparison to show how infrared cuts through
haze.
I ain't submitting it to Lenswork or framing it for a Fine Art
Exhibition.
I'll bet if I measured it real close I'd find the horizon line was a
few fractions of a degree off of level as well.

The point I was making was that Adams had the same very dark black to
the bright white, composed a bit of the same way. *I found
similarities that way. *Adams work was done with black and white film,
you used IF which is a lot different.
You don't have to prove a thing to anyone Bret. *We KNOW how great you
are. *It's freezing up there and the winds are making it dangerous.
Helen

Sorry, I meant IR not IF.

On Jan 2, 10:01*am, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
wrote:
I disagree. *I think his IR pic has a very dramatic feeling to it. *It
resonates.

LOL! *That it does, like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Check out some of Ansel Adams b&w work. Other than using IR, I see a
similarity :

It's highly disrespectful to insult the dead. *Ansel would roll over in his
grave and **** on Bret's work. *Plus, Ansel never cropped an image so
severely and threw 90% of it away.

Rita

Bret's work beats anything you've ever posted!

On Jan 2, 11:12*am, Scott W wrote:
On Jan 2, 2:53*am, wrote:

On Jan 2, 6:40*am, Scott W wrote:

On Jan 2, 1:24*am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

Scott W wrote:
Both photos are way under your normal standards. *The first is very
soft and the seconds is pretty ugly, I am thinking jpeg artifacts.
And I would expect the second one to be ugly with it only using
something like 30KB for an image that size.

I have to disagree, Scott. *The first one demonstrate the power of the
mighty 17-40/4. *The sharpness and magnificent detail jumps out at you.
Even the bokeh is beyond stunning. *The composition and execution of this
shot demonstrates the level of quality one gets when time is given to zoom
with your feet. *And the second one, WOW! *I have to agree with Helen. *This
is his best work yet. *As difficult as it is, I think Bret pulled it off and
emulated Uncle Floyd's style perfectly.

The second one does look like something Floyd would post, I have come
to expect much better from Bret.

Scott

I disagree. *I think his IR pic has a very dramatic feeling to it. *It
resonates.

Check out some of Ansel Adams b&w work. Other than using IR, I see a
similarity :

http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/im...nsel_adams.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/cont...humb/3/37/300p...

http://www.coxsoft.com/screensaver/i...hotographs.jpg

In all of the Adams photos the sky looks natural, in Bret's it looks
like crap.

Scott

There is a big difference with black and white film and IR Scott. The
IR film shots of the sky I took were similar to Bret's.
Helen

On Jan 2, 1:39*pm, Scott W wrote:

But really the IR photos looks like it suffers not in how it was taken
as much as the post processing.

Very possible. I didn't take much time with it.
One thing I did notice was that if I converted the pic as a color
photo into Photoshop and then applied the B&W Conversion Infrared
filter to it, the noise was horrible. Using ACR's B&W conversion tool
gave much smoother results.


But if you feel you need to re-shoot then have at it, I will send
flowers should you die, something small but tasteful.

`preciate it.

On Jan 2, 9:19 am, wrote:
On Jan 2, 11:12 am, Scott W wrote:





On Jan 2, 2:53 am, wrote:

On Jan 2, 6:40 am, Scott W wrote:

On Jan 2, 1:24 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

Scott W wrote:
Both photos are way under your normal standards. The first is very
soft and the seconds is pretty ugly, I am thinking jpeg artifacts.
And I would expect the second one to be ugly with it only using
something like 30KB for an image that size.

I have to disagree, Scott. The first one demonstrate the power of the
mighty 17-40/4. The sharpness and magnificent detail jumps out at you.
Even the bokeh is beyond stunning. The composition and execution of this
shot demonstrates the level of quality one gets when time is given to zoom
with your feet. And the second one, WOW! I have to agree with Helen. This
is his best work yet. As difficult as it is, I think Bret pulled it off and
emulated Uncle Floyd's style perfectly.

The second one does look like something Floyd would post, I have come
to expect much better from Bret.

Scott

I disagree. I think his IR pic has a very dramatic feeling to it. It
resonates.

Check out some of Ansel Adams b&w work. Other than using IR, I see a
similarity :

http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/im...nsel_adams.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/cont...humb/3/37/300p....

http://www.coxsoft.com/screensaver/i...hotographs.jpg

In all of the Adams photos the sky looks natural, in Bret's it looks
like crap.

Scott

There is a big difference with black and white film and IR Scott. The
IR film shots of the sky I took were similar to Bret's.
It is the noise in Bert's IR photo that I object to, not the over all
look. Regardless of what Rita says Bret usually post high quality
photos. I really think he simply needs to reprocess the photo and he
could get a clean version of it.

Scott

On Jan 2, 12:25*am, Annika1980 wrote:
Here's a rather boring shot I took off the mountain today.http://www.pbase..com/bret/image/91112475/original

It is notable only because the mountains in the distance are usually
not visible and lost in the haze. *But today was a clear day.

Now look at the same scene taken with the Totally Infrared D60:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91112663/original

The mountains in the distance seem to jump out at ya.
Infrared is great for cutting through smoke and haze.

+ great gravy ! As a long time admirer of just about anything
Annika
posts, image wise, I have to add my praise of this infra-red
demonstration !

On Jan 2, 10:32*am, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
Scott W wrote:
BS, most of Brets photos look very good

If you like noise and/or overprocessed plastic creations.

I don't see that in his other photos, only you can D-Mac seem to see
that, and we all know how good an eye D-Mac has for photographs.

Scott

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jan 2, 1:39 pm, Scott W wrote:
But really the IR photos looks like it suffers not in how it was taken
as much as the post processing.

Very possible. I didn't take much time with it.
One thing I did notice was that if I converted the pic as a color
photo into Photoshop and then applied the B&W Conversion Infrared
filter to it, the noise was horrible. Using ACR's B&W conversion tool
gave much smoother results.

Lenses can perform differently in IR, so I've read. It may not do as
well in that spectrum or the WB throws it for a loop.

But if you feel you need to re-shoot then have at it, I will send
flowers should you die, something small but tasteful.

`preciate it.

On Jan 2, 3:19*pm, stuseven wrote:

+ * *great gravy ! *As a long time admirer of just about anything
Annika
posts, image wise, I have to add my praise of this infra-red
demonstration !

Stu, have you met Helen? I think you guys would really hit it off.

On Jan 2, 5:03*pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Jan 2, 3:19*pm, stuseven wrote:



+ * *great gravy ! *As a long time admirer of just about anything
Annika
posts, image wise, I have to add my praise of this infra-red
demonstration !

Stu, have you met Helen? *I think you guys would really hit it off.

Trying to get rid of me?