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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
A 45 minute drive away
On 8/25/2015 9:33 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/25/2015 7:11 AM, Anonymous wrote: In article PeterN wrote: This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to travel far. https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0 Where in Coney Island was this taken? I've seen plenty of people using rods and reels fishing there, but I've never seen two guys using nets to drag the shallows. On the Northwest side, facing the VZ bridge. There is a housing development, with a small park across the street. Clarification. I just checked a map. It was a little East of 37th St. & Bayview Ave. -- PeterN |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A 45 minute drive away
On 2015-08-25 13:27:43 +0000, PeterN said:
On 8/24/2015 7:11 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2015-08-24 22:35:41 +0000, PeterN said: On 8/24/2015 5:52 PM, PeterN wrote: This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to travel far. https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0 NB Duck, no teleconverter was used. Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg Why? The first one was better. Why did you think it needed correction, and what did you do to "correct" it? For some reason, this (#2) version appears "de-popped" by some strange "Peter Processing". The first version looks like you used an OnOne filter, perhaps their "Golden Hour Enhancer", or something of that ilk, but it isn't too bad. As far as this version goes, I just can't put my finger on what you did in post to ruin it, but ruined (for my eye anyway) it is. No # looked too flat, to me. In # 2 their faces were just a bit short of looking posterized. I applied a light surface blur. ....and here I was thinking you had your eyes fixed. That "light" surface blur (whatever that means) didn't work. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A 45 minute drive away
On 8/25/2015 7:11 AM, Anonymous wrote:
In article PeterN wrote: This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to travel far. https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0 Where in Coney Island was this taken? I've seen plenty of people using rods and reels fishing there, but I've never seen two guys using nets to drag the shallows. I've seen it done a lot in New Jersey. Mostly done to catch small bait fish like spearing. I did quite a bit of it back in the day. == Later... Ron C -- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A 45 minute drive away
On 8/25/2015 10:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-25 13:27:43 +0000, PeterN said: On 8/24/2015 7:11 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2015-08-24 22:35:41 +0000, PeterN said: On 8/24/2015 5:52 PM, PeterN wrote: This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to travel far. https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0 NB Duck, no teleconverter was used. Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg Why? The first one was better. Why did you think it needed correction, and what did you do to "correct" it? For some reason, this (#2) version appears "de-popped" by some strange "Peter Processing". The first version looks like you used an OnOne filter, perhaps their "Golden Hour Enhancer", or something of that ilk, but it isn't too bad. As far as this version goes, I just can't put my finger on what you did in post to ruin it, but ruined (for my eye anyway) it is. No # looked too flat, to me. In # 2 their faces were just a bit short of looking posterized. I applied a light surface blur. ...and here I was thinking you had your eyes fixed. Only one. I need two surgeries on my left eye that will not be done until my wife is OK. That "light" surface blur (whatever that means) didn't work. You never heard of the surface blur filter in PS? I still appreciate your comment. But on my laptop monitor the first image looked too flat. I forgot to mention that the color change in PS was done by playing with the yellow and orange saturation and lightness, in HSL, ACR. -- PeterN |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A 45 minute drive away
On 8/25/2015 11:24 AM, Ron C wrote:
On 8/25/2015 7:11 AM, Anonymous wrote: In article PeterN wrote: This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to travel far. https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0 Where in Coney Island was this taken? I've seen plenty of people using rods and reels fishing there, but I've never seen two guys using nets to drag the shallows. I've seen it done a lot in New Jersey. Mostly done to catch small bait fish like spearing. I did quite a bit of it back in the day. That's exactly what they were doing. I wound up walking around with wet feet that night. We had gone there to catch the sunset over the VZ Bridge, and I saw those guys netting fish. I had to make a choice between the sunset and those guys. Figgered we have a lot of photogenic sunsets, but I don't get to that area very often. I use this program. It is free for Windows, and very low cost for ios. http://photoephemeris.com/ -- PeterN |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
A 45 minute drive away
On 2015-08-25 15:38:22 +0000, PeterN said:
On 8/25/2015 10:25 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2015-08-25 13:27:43 +0000, PeterN said: On 8/24/2015 7:11 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2015-08-24 22:35:41 +0000, PeterN said: On 8/24/2015 5:52 PM, PeterN wrote: This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to travel far. https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0 NB Duck, no teleconverter was used. Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg Why? The first one was better. Why did you think it needed correction, and what did you do to "correct" it? For some reason, this (#2) version appears "de-popped" by some strange "Peter Processing". The first version looks like you used an OnOne filter, perhaps their "Golden Hour Enhancer", or something of that ilk, but it isn't too bad. As far as this version goes, I just can't put my finger on what you did in post to ruin it, but ruined (for my eye anyway) it is. No # looked too flat, to me. In # 2 their faces were just a bit short of looking posterized. I applied a light surface blur. ...and here I was thinking you had your eyes fixed. Only one. I need two surgeries on my left eye that will not be done until my wife is OK. Until you have corrected binocular vision, stop "correcting" your images. That "light" surface blur (whatever that means) didn't work. You never heard of the surface blur filter in PS? Yes. However, one can never be certain as to what you mean. Why did you think that was the appropriate filter to use? ....or were you just throwing something at it? Surface Blur is probably one of the last filters I would have considered. Since you believed the problem was in the faces, why did you apply the filter to the entire image, rather than selectively to the faces? Did you think the color shift after applying the filter wouldn't be noticed? That alone was a major contribution to the ruination of image #2. Whatever you intended it didn't work. The first image was much better (though I have few inconsequential concerns) and I don't see how you saw it as flat. I still appreciate your comment. But on my laptop monitor the first image looked too flat. I forgot to mention that the color change in PS was done by playing with the yellow and orange saturation and lightness, in HSL, ACR. So you didn't go to OnOne. However, I don't believe your experimental PP tinkering is beneficial to images given that you make good captures with good equipment. You seem to be guessing at what to do rather than going about adjustments sensibly. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A 45 minute drive away
In article , PeterN wrote:
PeterN: This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to travel far. https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0 NB Duck, no teleconverter was used. Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg The first link was a much better rendition of the subject than the overly processed one in the second link. -- Sandman |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
A 45 minute drive away
In article , PeterN wrote:
Savageduck: On 2015-08-24 22:35:41 +0000, PeterN said: PeterN: This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to travel far. https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm...at%20dusk.jpg? dl=0 NB Duck, no teleconverter was used. Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg Savageduck: Why? The first one was better. Why did you think it needed correction, and what did you do to "correct" it? For some reason, this (#2) version appears "de-popped" by some strange "Peter Processing". The first version looks like you used an OnOne filter, perhaps their "Golden Hour Enhancer", or something of that ilk, but it isn't too bad. As far as this version goes, I just can't put my finger on what you did in post to ruin it, but ruined (for my eye anyway) it is. Andreas Skitsnack: I was equally disappointed by the second version. I really like the first version, and thought "Wow! A photo from Peter that the Duck won't bash!". I like the word "bash" by the way. It works either way. To bash someone is to strongly criticize them. But, a bash is a good party. It would be inappropriate to bash someone at a bash. You really don't think the first was too flat? Absolutely not. It looked natural. If you want to boost/enhance the dynamic range slightly, that's fine. But this is a rare example of us seeing what a photo looked like when it was (almost?) original and compare it to your harsh treatment in post processing. The second almost looks like a JPG that is heavily compressed where details have been lost in the compression -- Sandman |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
A 45 minute drive away
On 8/25/2015 12:32 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: Savageduck: On 2015-08-24 22:35:41 +0000, PeterN said: PeterN: This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to travel far. https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm...at%20dusk.jpg? dl=0 NB Duck, no teleconverter was used. Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg Savageduck: Why? The first one was better. Why did you think it needed correction, and what did you do to "correct" it? For some reason, this (#2) version appears "de-popped" by some strange "Peter Processing". The first version looks like you used an OnOne filter, perhaps their "Golden Hour Enhancer", or something of that ilk, but it isn't too bad. As far as this version goes, I just can't put my finger on what you did in post to ruin it, but ruined (for my eye anyway) it is. Andreas Skitsnack: I was equally disappointed by the second version. I really like the first version, and thought "Wow! A photo from Peter that the Duck won't bash!". I like the word "bash" by the way. It works either way. To bash someone is to strongly criticize them. But, a bash is a good party. It would be inappropriate to bash someone at a bash. You really don't think the first was too flat? Absolutely not. It looked natural. If you want to boost/enhance the dynamic range slightly, that's fine. But this is a rare example of us seeing what a photo looked like when it was (almost?) original and compare it to your harsh treatment in post processing. The second almost looks like a JPG that is heavily compressed where details have been lost in the compression I did not like the 2nd either. Both were posted by accident. Do you prefer the first over the third? Thanks -- PeterN |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
A 45 minute drive away
On 2015-08-25 18:33:01 +0000, PeterN said:
I did not like the 2nd either. Both were posted by accident. Do you prefer the first over the third? Posted by accident? TWICE!!! "the third"? Oh! Is that some sort of obscure joke I didn't get? -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
15 Minute vs Eneloop | measekite | Digital Photography | 10 | December 10th 08 06:23 AM |
flug new york los angeles last minute fluege new york billige fluegefrankfurt new york billigflieger new york flugangebote new york billig flugnew york last minute hotel new york flug hannover new york lastminute flug newyork fluege frankfurt new yor | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | April 4th 08 01:52 AM |
Last minute | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | December 14th 07 08:14 AM |
1-minute Nature says Thankyou! | blacklight | Digital Photography | 2 | March 11th 07 10:50 PM |
Canon 300D 40 minute exposure | Kevin McMurtrie | Digital Photography | 2 | December 19th 04 04:06 PM |