A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A 45 minute drive away



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 25th 15, 02:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old August 25th 15, 03:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old August 25th 15, 04:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default 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  
Old August 25th 15, 04:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old August 25th 15, 04:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old August 25th 15, 05:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old August 25th 15, 05:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 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  
Old August 25th 15, 05:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 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  
Old August 25th 15, 07:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old August 25th 15, 07:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.