If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
What does it mean when you don't like any of the photos?
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:18:28 -0800, Savageduck
wrote: On 2016-11-08 05:35:24 +0000, Bill W said: On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:27:22 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-11-08 03:21:06 +0000, Bill W said: That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I don't know. This is them: https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062 I know that no one is going to look at all of them, but if you're bored, and want to critique some photos, here's your chance. Every one of these photos just leaves me cold, and I can't figure out why. I admittedly forgot the lens I wanted, and had only the slowest, most useless lens for this purpose, but still. It's not just the subject, it's the IQ, it's everything. I got sick or processing them, and sorted by ISO, flash on/off, indoor/outdoor, and batch processed most of them that way, and just touched up some of them at the end. What I'm wondering is if these photos just have a subject that doesn't lead to appealing photos, or if there is something I missed in processing. The photos were all meant only as a documentary record of a very cluttered house - cluttered with faded, dusty things, but like I said, not even one of them holds any interest for me. Where did I go wrong? Is there anything that could help these photos? I don't think that you went too wrong. The problem is the location in its entirety. What you have is a picker's/hoader's cluttered junk pile. There is no organization to the collection so there is little hope of isolating much of interest. The cars could have been worthwhile, but they are just parked too tight, and as a display they are difficult, if not impossible to capture their individual character. In the end, there is just no way to do anything other than document how not to assemble and display a coherent collection. This is a non-museum of tasteless clutter, and there is little hope for 99% of these shots. Out of all your shots I only saw one which had some promise after a little tweaking on my part. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/30713824242_E.jpg That's an improvement, but I'm trying to wean myself off micro-contrast and too much sharpening. I'm not sure why, though. What too much sharpening? There is none that I applied. I was mostly kidding, but I also wasn't saying that it was sharpened too much. What my poorly worded sentence was meant to say is that I think I might be routinely sharpening some photos for no good reason. With these, I batch sharpened based on ISO. Working on a JPEG of your original Flickr file, which already had compression artifacts, so additional sharpening was furthest from my adjust plan. All I did was adjust exposure/contrast/curves, dealt with as much of the blown highlights through the window as I could with that JPEG, and add a vignette. On a quick look, I had mistaken at least some of what you did do with sharpening. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What does it mean when you don't like any of the photos?
On 11/8/2016 10:23 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-11-08 08:27:22 +0000, Bill W said: On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 21:07:42 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:35:24 -0800, Bill W wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:27:22 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-11-08 03:21:06 +0000, Bill W said: That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I don't know. This is them: https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062 I know that no one is going to look at all of them, but if you're bored, and want to critique some photos, here's your chance. Every one of these photos just leaves me cold, and I can't figure out why. I admittedly forgot the lens I wanted, and had only the slowest, most useless lens for this purpose, but still. It's not just the subject, it's the IQ, it's everything. I got sick or processing them, and sorted by ISO, flash on/off, indoor/outdoor, and batch processed most of them that way, and just touched up some of them at the end. What I'm wondering is if these photos just have a subject that doesn't lead to appealing photos, or if there is something I missed in processing. The photos were all meant only as a documentary record of a very cluttered house - cluttered with faded, dusty things, but like I said, not even one of them holds any interest for me. Where did I go wrong? Is there anything that could help these photos? I don't think that you went too wrong. The problem is the location in its entirety. What you have is a picker's/hoader's cluttered junk pile. There is no organization to the collection so there is little hope of isolating much of interest. The cars could have been worthwhile, but they are just parked too tight, and as a display they are difficult, if not impossible to capture their individual character. In the end, there is just no way to do anything other than document how not to assemble and display a coherent collection. This is a non-museum of tasteless clutter, and there is little hope for 99% of these shots. Out of all your shots I only saw one which had some promise after a little tweaking on my part. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/30713824242_E.jpg That's an improvement, but I'm trying to wean myself off micro-contrast and too much sharpening. I'm not sure why, though. Heh heh! Someone accusing Savageduck of too much sharpening. :-) I was going to warn him that Peter might mention that... Peter would never have noticed that, but he would have been sure to find something else, and make a comment which would have left us scratching our heads. Nope. some might get splinters in their fingers. -- PeterN |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What does it mean when you don't like any of the photos?
On 11/8/2016 10:23 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-11-08 08:27:22 +0000, Bill W said: On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 21:07:42 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:35:24 -0800, Bill W wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:27:22 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-11-08 03:21:06 +0000, Bill W said: That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I don't know. This is them: https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062 I know that no one is going to look at all of them, but if you're bored, and want to critique some photos, here's your chance. Every one of these photos just leaves me cold, and I can't figure out why. I admittedly forgot the lens I wanted, and had only the slowest, most useless lens for this purpose, but still. It's not just the subject, it's the IQ, it's everything. I got sick or processing them, and sorted by ISO, flash on/off, indoor/outdoor, and batch processed most of them that way, and just touched up some of them at the end. What I'm wondering is if these photos just have a subject that doesn't lead to appealing photos, or if there is something I missed in processing. The photos were all meant only as a documentary record of a very cluttered house - cluttered with faded, dusty things, but like I said, not even one of them holds any interest for me. Where did I go wrong? Is there anything that could help these photos? I don't think that you went too wrong. The problem is the location in its entirety. What you have is a picker's/hoader's cluttered junk pile. There is no organization to the collection so there is little hope of isolating much of interest. The cars could have been worthwhile, but they are just parked too tight, and as a display they are difficult, if not impossible to capture their individual character. In the end, there is just no way to do anything other than document how not to assemble and display a coherent collection. This is a non-museum of tasteless clutter, and there is little hope for 99% of these shots. Out of all your shots I only saw one which had some promise after a little tweaking on my part. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/30713824242_E.jpg That's an improvement, but I'm trying to wean myself off micro-contrast and too much sharpening. I'm not sure why, though. Heh heh! Someone accusing Savageduck of too much sharpening. :-) I was going to warn him that Peter might mention that... Peter would never have noticed that, but he would have been sure to find something else, and make a comment which would have left us scratching our heads. I don't highly sharpen everything. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/DSCN2673-ir%20cropped.jpg -- PeterN |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What does it mean when you don't like any of the photos?
On 11/8/2016 3:53 AM, Davoud wrote:
Bill W: That's actually a serious question, and I welcome comments. There is a former Lt. Governor and retired neurosurgeon living around here, and he is a collector of many things. Every year, he opens his house (he actually lives there), and the public can wander through the whole giant place to look at his stuff. I finally went, and took a couple of hundred photos. They all suck. Every one of them. Or it's just me. I don't know. This is them: https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/Q04062... The quality of the photos looks OK to me, but the subject is a junk heap. A garish, kitschy collection that looks like one of the squalid dwellings Dickens so famously described‹perhaps that of Krook, the rag and bottle merchant in "Bleak House." Or the front yard of a mobile home deep in Appalachia (but without the "Trump" sign). And is somewhat reminiscent of the Hearst "Castle," the consummate proof that money can't buy good taste. ...Where did I go wrong? Picked a subject that even Ansel Adams couldn't have made anything of. AFAIK he didn't photograph Hearst "Castle," either. Actually aren't there some quite effective photos showing the random nature of that collection; or am I thinking of images from Citizen Kane? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scanning photos onto one's hard drive - why are the photos clearerthan the scan | Patrick Briggs | Digital Photography | 10 | February 20th 06 05:25 PM |
Scanning photos onto one's hard drive - why are the photos clearerthan the scan | Patrick Briggs | Digital Point & Shoot Cameras | 4 | February 19th 06 11:06 PM |
Some photos from nature and some modified photos from nature | Mulperi | Photographing Nature | 0 | November 15th 05 05:34 PM |
FA: Only 2 hrs - HUGE lot Old PHOTOs VARIETY 1920s-50s 300+ Photos | AVP | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 23rd 05 12:35 AM |
Goa Photos, Belur Photos, Halebid Photos, Mangalore Photos, Hampi Photos | Venkatesh | Digital Photography | 5 | November 8th 04 01:44 AM |