Not sharpened

On 8/14/2015 10:05 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 8/13/2015 10:16 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/13/2015 9:41 AM, newshound wrote:
On 13/08/2015 12:23, dadiOH wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Tony Cooper and I'm sure a lot of others would never do this.
When I want to take a break from playing poker, I walk around taking
pictures.
AFAIK most casinos do not allow photography. Mohegan Sun does, within
limits. You may not go on the casino floor, but must stand behind a
low rail. The restriction doesn't seem to unduly hinder photo ops.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/the%20casino.jpg

Homage to Vincent?


My thoughts too. I liked it.

Thank you.

Ah, while folks are posting artistic renderings,
here's an artistic shot of my grand niece, her mom
and their dog.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpszx5srmn...Ba%5D.jpg?dl=0


High key, intentional?


--
PeterN

On 8/14/2015 10:50 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 8/14/2015 10:14 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:05:48 -0400, Ron C wrote:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpszx5srmn...Ba%5D.jpg?dl=0



That's a Great Dane, innit? My son's dog is a Catahoula, and the
coloring is very similar. The head's a different shape, though.

Yep, Louie is a Great Dane.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t8cy0zfxw0...%2003.jpg?dl=0


I have some friends who have Danes. They think they are lap dogs.



--
PeterN

| I think Ron C had a valid point about lacking a center of interest.

I think that's interesting. I'm not sure
I would have spent a whole box of cray-pas
to get the effect. But it's not an object
image, anyway. It's not detailed enough
for that. It's an environment/mood image.
I think the lack of focus brings one
into the space of the image. If there's a
shortcoming it's just that there isn't much
in that space. I feel like I can look around the
room, but the roughness of the rendering
makes it unevocative. Like a picture one
might see in an ad, or an architect's rendering,
meant to show only the *concept* of "luxurious
game room".

On 8/15/2015 11:31 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/14/2015 10:05 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 8/13/2015 10:16 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/13/2015 9:41 AM, newshound wrote:
On 13/08/2015 12:23, dadiOH wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Tony Cooper and I'm sure a lot of others would never do this.
When I want to take a break from playing poker, I walk around taking
pictures.
AFAIK most casinos do not allow photography. Mohegan Sun does, within
limits. You may not go on the casino floor, but must stand behind a
low rail. The restriction doesn't seem to unduly hinder photo ops.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/the%20casino.jpg

Homage to Vincent?


My thoughts too. I liked it.

Thank you.

Ah, while folks are posting artistic renderings,
here's an artistic shot of my grand niece, her mom
and their dog.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpszx5srmn...Ba%5D.jpg?dl=0



High key, intentional?


This was one of my early experiments, but yes, I liked the
bright sunny day feel of high key there.

==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 8/15/2015 1:02 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| I think Ron C had a valid point about lacking a center of interest.

I think that's interesting. I'm not sure
I would have spent a whole box of cray-pas
to get the effect. But it's not an object
image, anyway. It's not detailed enough
for that. It's an environment/mood image.
I think the lack of focus brings one
into the space of the image. If there's a
shortcoming it's just that there isn't much
in that space. I feel like I can look around the
room, but the roughness of the rendering
makes it unevocative. Like a picture one
might see in an ad, or an architect's rendering,
meant to show only the *concept* of "luxurious
game room".



There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a scene,
or an interpretation of a particular object. We go to a casino abut one
very few months. If we go there, I will see if I can find a more crowded
room.
Here is a different treatment of a crowd. Makes me hungry for a hot dog.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/nathans.jpg


--
PeterN

On 8/15/2015 2:52 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 8/15/2015 11:31 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/14/2015 10:05 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 8/13/2015 10:16 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/13/2015 9:41 AM, newshound wrote:
On 13/08/2015 12:23, dadiOH wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Tony Cooper and I'm sure a lot of others would never do this.
When I want to take a break from playing poker, I walk around taking
pictures.
AFAIK most casinos do not allow photography. Mohegan Sun does,
within
limits. You may not go on the casino floor, but must stand behind a
low rail. The restriction doesn't seem to unduly hinder photo ops.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/the%20casino.jpg

Homage to Vincent?


My thoughts too. I liked it.

Thank you.

Ah, while folks are posting artistic renderings,
here's an artistic shot of my grand niece, her mom
and their dog.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpszx5srmn...Ba%5D.jpg?dl=0




High key, intentional?


This was one of my early experiments, but yes, I liked the
bright sunny day feel of high key there.


That you like the image is all that counts.
BTW your grand niece looks adorable. Bet she has you wrapped around her
little finger.


--
PeterN

On 2015-08-15 20:51:03 +0000, PeterN said:

There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a
scene, or an interpretation of a particular object. We go to a casino
abut one very few months. If we go there, I will see if I can find a
more crowded room.
Here is a different treatment of a crowd. Makes me hungry for a hot dog.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/nathans.jpg

I guess there is no accounting for taste. I am sorry to say, I just
think those renditions are awful.
I just don't buy the artistic interpretation thing.

I don't even think too much of some of the things I come up with from
time to time;
https://db.tt/N6KSofx0

--
Regards,

Savageduck

| There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a scene,
| or an interpretation of a particular object.

I think of it as an expression. A photo of a woman
can be a photo of a woman, a moment, a human
condition, sexuality, the feminine principle in general...
To me, you express something and the subject is
part of your materials. Ansel Adams's mountain photos,
for instance. They don't move me because the mountains
are beautiful. They move me because I see a picture of
sublimity, which evokes a touch of the sublime in myself,
so that the result is a quasi-religious experience. As far
as I'm concerned, he might just as well have been shooting
rusty bicycles.

| Here is a different treatment of a crowd. Makes me hungry for a hot dog.
|
| https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/nathans.jpg
|

Makes me hungry for definition. I find it too vague, so
that it just suggests associations. Fruit flavored
cymbals viewed from behind a band onstage, maybe.
Is that a vase or a face? The colors are nice, though.

On 2015-08-15 23:40:27 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:41:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-08-15 20:51:03 +0000, PeterN said:

There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a
scene, or an interpretation of a particular object. We go to a casino
abut one very few months. If we go there, I will see if I can find a
more crowded room.
Here is a different treatment of a crowd. Makes me hungry for a hot dog.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/nathans.jpg

I guess there is no accounting for taste. I am sorry to say, I just
think those renditions are awful.
I just don't buy the artistic interpretation thing.

Is HDR not an artistic interpretation?

Is a saturation, acontrast adjustment, or a B&W conversion an artistic
interpretation?

No. HDR is just another tool to stretch DR. Unfortunately some HDR
implementations in the past (...and I fear currently) have been over
cooked. That leads to the nauseating over-saturation and unwanted halo
glow effects.

With HDR less is more, and subtlety is possible. The current merge to
HDR in LR CC does a very good job of expanding the DR, providing
results free of all that stuff many find distasteful.

HDR is not evil, and does not have to result in the horrific "Kinkadeish" glow.

BTW: I don't, as you might be implying, actually use HDR as much as you
think, only when it can be useful.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/15/2015 6:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-15 20:51:03 +0000, PeterN said:

There is always the question: is the image an interpretation of a
scene, or an interpretation of a particular object. We go to a casino
abut one very few months. If we go there, I will see if I can find a
more crowded room.
Here is a different treatment of a crowd. Makes me hungry for a hot dog.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/nathans.jpg

I guess there is no accounting for taste. I am sorry to say, I just
think those renditions are awful.
I just don't buy the artistic interpretation thing.


You don't have to be sorry. I am not claiming it's a great image. It is
not. The image is simply my interpretation of the scene at Nathans on a
busy day. When that place is busy, to me it's all a blur. (I also will
not get on line to buy anything. I try to convey how I feel.

I don't even think too much of some of the things I come up with from
time to time;
https://db.tt/N6KSofx0

Don't like it either.

--
PeterN