Opportunity came knocking!

On 10/24/2015 10:23 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
eat comments.


I agree. Most of the time I'm going for mood rather than trying to
produce a technically perfect photo.

To me, a bit of blur or a grainy image can often convey a lot.

My feelings exactly.

There are flaws in this capture (like the hat brim over the other
person's eyes) but I like to feeling:

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Biker...3-13-04-X3.jpg




That is a great image!!!

On 2015-10-24 14:28:32 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:11:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-10-24 06:01:05 +0000, philo said:


Were I to need good quality, low level light shots ...in color...then
no, the cameras I have won't do the job...but I am mainly a B&W
photographer. Once I convert the images to either gray-scale or sepia
all I need to is adjust the contrast and gamma a bit to get exactly the
results I'm looking for

I know we have discussed B&W convesion some time past, but converting
to gray-scale or sepia is possibly the worst way to produce great B&W
images.

He may be doing it the worst way, in your opinion, but his
"Doug_bar_HobNob.jpg" (linked to in another thread) is an excellent
result. If he gets to the right place, the road taken doesn't matter.

Yup! It is only my opinion, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

....and the "Doug at the bar" shot is very well done, but there is more
potential behind that gray-scale conversion.

The reason we do black and white is to convey mood. If we want
realistic portrayal, we strive for a color photograph that accurately
represents the subject. Sometimes, though, we have a photograph were
what we want to present is a "feeling" about the subject.

There are more reasons than we have time for to list why we shoot what
we shoot, and why we prefer B&W over color for any particular image.
Conveying mood is but one of those reasons. There are those who convert
to B&W because they couldn't get WB right, or because there was so much
color noise in the image the only way it would be passable was to try
and sell the noise as traditional high ISO Tri-X grain.

Sometimes an image which is just plain awful in color is superb
rendered in B&W.

He's done that in the photo of that bar scene. The viewer gets an
impression rather than a straight reproduction. Your photograph of
your step-daughter (?) is technically well done, but it doesn't
register as showing anything that a color photo wouldn't.

That is an irrelevant opinion without having the color original to
address in any comparison.

The first thought of the photographer in the converting process should
be about what effect is sought. If the original photo doesn't have
something about it that can be brought out in black and white, no
processing method is going to work.

The same could be said for any post processing, B&W or color. There has
to be something which can benefit from that creative thought process
which can enhance the unedited original image presented to viewers. and
make it other than a documentary shot, or a snapshot.


Not the greatest, but...
https://db.tt/x7jpg0lH


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-10-24 16:25:15 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:37:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

He may be doing it the worst way, in your opinion, but his
"Doug_bar_HobNob.jpg" (linked to in another thread) is an excellent
result. If he gets to the right place, the road taken doesn't matter.

Yup! It is only my opinion, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

...and the "Doug at the bar" shot is very well done, but there is more
potential behind that gray-scale conversion.

The reason we do black and white is to convey mood. If we want
realistic portrayal, we strive for a color photograph that accurately
represents the subject. Sometimes, though, we have a photograph were
what we want to present is a "feeling" about the subject.

There are more reasons than we have time for to list why we shoot what
we shoot, and why we prefer B&W over color for any particular image.
Conveying mood is but one of those reasons. There are those who convert
to B&W because they couldn't get WB right, or because there was so much
color noise in the image the only way it would be passable was to try
and sell the noise as traditional high ISO Tri-X grain.

Sometimes an image which is just plain awful in color is superb
rendered in B&W.

He's done that in the photo of that bar scene. The viewer gets an
impression rather than a straight reproduction. Your photograph of
your step-daughter (?) is technically well done, but it doesn't
register as showing anything that a color photo wouldn't.

That is an irrelevant opinion without having the color original to
address in any comparison.

Irrelevant? The photo doesn't bring out anything about the woman that
has any impact that wouldn't be there in a color rendition. It's as
neutral as a photograph in a daily newspaper.

I'm not criticizing the photograph.

Sure you are. What else could those comments possibly be?

I'm just saying that I don't see
anything about it that could possibly be a reason to render it in
black and white. It kinda flattens her out and takes away
personality.

As you said above, that's my opinion and it's no less valid - or
relevant - because of that.

Except that when I said that above it was in reference to the method
used for B&W conversion not the image itself.
....but I will accept your opinion as you delivered it.

Not the greatest, but...
https://db.tt/x7jpg0lH

Then there is this:
https://db.tt/fQ0c41VT


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:37:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-10-24 14:28:32 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:11:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-10-24 06:01:05 +0000, philo said:


Were I to need good quality, low level light shots ...in color...then
no, the cameras I have won't do the job...but I am mainly a B&W
photographer. Once I convert the images to either gray-scale or sepia
all I need to is adjust the contrast and gamma a bit to get exactly the
results I'm looking for

I know we have discussed B&W convesion some time past, but converting
to gray-scale or sepia is possibly the worst way to produce great B&W
images.

He may be doing it the worst way, in your opinion, but his
"Doug_bar_HobNob.jpg" (linked to in another thread) is an excellent
result. If he gets to the right place, the road taken doesn't matter.

Yup! It is only my opinion, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

...and the "Doug at the bar" shot is very well done, but there is more
potential behind that gray-scale conversion.

The reason we do black and white is to convey mood. If we want
realistic portrayal, we strive for a color photograph that accurately
represents the subject. Sometimes, though, we have a photograph were
what we want to present is a "feeling" about the subject.

There are more reasons than we have time for to list why we shoot what
we shoot, and why we prefer B&W over color for any particular image.
Conveying mood is but one of those reasons. There are those who convert
to B&W because they couldn't get WB right, or because there was so much
color noise in the image the only way it would be passable was to try
and sell the noise as traditional high ISO Tri-X grain.

I have a number of images which in their natural color are so close to
a sepia-tone print that when printed on matte paper, at first
impression, people are often deceived. e.g.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC6466.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/LR--0112.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00357.jpg


Sometimes an image which is just plain awful in color is superb
rendered in B&W.

He's done that in the photo of that bar scene. The viewer gets an
impression rather than a straight reproduction. Your photograph of
your step-daughter (?) is technically well done, but it doesn't
register as showing anything that a color photo wouldn't.

That is an irrelevant opinion without having the color original to
address in any comparison.

The first thought of the photographer in the converting process should
be about what effect is sought. If the original photo doesn't have
something about it that can be brought out in black and white, no
processing method is going to work.

The same could be said for any post processing, B&W or color. There has
to be something which can benefit from that creative thought process
which can enhance the unedited original image presented to viewers. and
make it other than a documentary shot, or a snapshot.


Not the greatest, but...
https://db.tt/x7jpg0lH
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 20:52:32 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:01:41 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:


I have a number of images which in their natural color are so close to
a sepia-tone print that when printed on matte paper, at first
impression, people are often deceived. e.g.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC6466.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/LR--0112.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00357.jpg



I generally don't do much in the way of artsy post, but I give it
whirl sometimes:

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty...6-16-12-X3.jpg

You are not suggesting mine are artsy are you? Or maybe you are.

Either way, that's not what I intended when I photographed them: it
just seemed the right way to frame them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 10/24/2015 08:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:01:41 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:


I have a number of images which in their natural color are so close to
a sepia-tone print that when printed on matte paper, at first
impression, people are often deceived. e.g.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC6466.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/LR--0112.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00357.jpg



I generally don't do much in the way of artsy post, but I give it
whirl sometimes:

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty...6-16-12-X3.jpg

I like it!
When I saw it, I was reminded of my older brother teaching me how to use
my left foot to operate the clutch and the brake pedals at the same time
by turning my foot sideways. He was not successful, and forbade me to
drive his '52(IIRC) Plymouth!
The only negative comment I have is that I would like to see more faded
space on the right side. The door panel remnant, dash, and door post
lead me out of the photo a bit.
And it's artsy, but gritty artsy.
--
Ken Hart

On 10/22/2015 11:56 PM, philo wrote:
Going through over 1000 shots now.

My wife and I got some real winners.

One thing I forgot about a paying job is that the images are property
of Jeanne Spicuzza so I won't be able to publish any without her
permission.


If you folks get a chance, the movie turned out to be exceedingly good!!!!


What an evening!

Life is for enjoyment. Hope you continue to take full advantage.

--
PeterN

On 10/23/2015 10:57 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/23/2015 09:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
X


snip
X
Don't have to read that,. I know what you meant and thank you!

Don't mention Macbeth either.

Don't you mean "The Scottish Play"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scottish_Play




Now...I am wondering if I can bring this back to photography.

Last night we did the shooting in a fairly dark movie theater. I
generally do use a flash, but it would have been called for.


The theater is an old landmark and as with art galleries, I was
immediately informed "no flash allowed".


http://www.landmarktheatres.com/milw...l-theatre/info


I was using a Canon G1-X and my wife had the Nikon D5200


Although both cameras have sensitive enough ISO settings to easily do
the job in low light...there was a lot of lag.

It's difficult to shoot faster than one frame every two seconds.

In good light either camera can shoot in rapid succession so I think
it's more to do with the ability to focus in low light rather than the
need for an external battery pack.

Since I've been doing low-level light photography for many years, I am
used to the lag and know how to handle it. Since candid shots are what I
seem to do and like best...the fact that there is a slight delay means
what I see when I snap the shutter is not exactly what I get.

Sometimes I miss one but sometimes I get something better than expected.

My wife however only has experience shooting in good light and
eventually grew so frustrated with the camera, she switched over to her
iPhone and brought Jeanne over to slightly better lighting.


It all worked out fine though as before the shoot, Jeanne understood
that I would be doing the candids and Colleen would be doing the posed
shots.


Most of the posed shots were great...with one being what I would
described as "absolutely nailed it".

One good , posed shot was all that was needed.


So...just wondering if there is a way to shoot faster in low light or if
a different camera would help.

It is a bit late to follow the Duck's advice on renting, but try
processing with DXO. It has excellent noise reduction capabilities. You
can download a thirty day trial version at:
http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/download

--
PeterN

On 10/23/2015 11:39 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-23 14:57:35 +0000, philo said:

On 10/23/2015 09:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
X
snip
X
Don't have to read that,. I know what you meant and thank you!

Don't mention Macbeth either.

Don't you mean "The Scottish Play"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scottish_Play


Now...I am wondering if I can bring this back to photography.

Last night we did the shooting in a fairly dark movie theater. I
generally do use a flash, but it would have been called for.

The theater is an old landmark and as with art galleries, I was
immediately informed "no flash allowed".
http://www.landmarktheatres.com/milw...l-theatre/info

I was using a Canon G1-X and my wife had the Nikon D5200

Neither of those is a particularly good selection for low light
photography.

Although both cameras have sensitive enough ISO settings to easily do
the job in low light...there was a lot of lag.
It's difficult to shoot faster than one frame every two seconds.

In good light either camera can shoot in rapid succession so I think
it's more to do with the ability to focus in low light rather than the
need for an external battery pack.

Since I've been doing low-level light photography for many years, I am
used to the lag and know how to handle it. Since candid shots are what
I seem to do and like best...the fact that there is a slight delay
means what I see when I snap the shutter is not exactly what I get.

Sometimes I miss one but sometimes I get something better than expected.

Then you are shooting and are hoping for that magnificent miracle.

My wife however only has experience shooting in good light and
eventually grew so frustrated with the camera, she switched over to
her iPhone and brought Jeanne over to slightly better lighting.

It all worked out fine though as before the shoot, Jeanne understood
that I would be doing the candids and Colleen would be doing the posed
shots.

Most of the posed shots were great...with one being what I would
described as "absolutely nailed it".

One good , posed shot was all that was needed.

So...just wondering if there is a way to shoot faster in low light or
if a different camera would help.

Yes, and yes. Also good fast lenses suitable for low light photography
will also make a big difference.

Remember, if you don't own, or have access to a suitable camera and
lenses for a particular shoot you can rent the body and fast glass.
https://www.lensprotogo.com

Since you are familiar with the Nikon system I would have suggested a
D810 + a 24-70mm f/2.8G, and perhaps a 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII.
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-d810-dslr/
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-24-70-f2.8/
https://www.lensprotogo.com/rent/product/nikon-70-200-f2.8-vr-ii/

That is a pro set-up which would have given you all you needed to work
that event in any light, good or bad.


Here's a typical low light shot, where no flash was permitted.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/stormy%201.jpg


--
PeterN

On 10/24/2015 11:11 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/24/2015 09:28 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:11:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-10-24 06:01:05 +0000, philo said:


Were I to need good quality, low level light shots ...in color...then
no, the cameras I have won't do the job...but I am mainly a B&W
photographer. Once I convert the images to either gray-scale or sepia
all I need to is adjust the contrast and gamma a bit to get exactly the
results I'm looking for

I know we have discussed B&W convesion some time past, but converting
to gray-scale or sepia is possibly the worst way to produce great B&W
images.

He may be doing it the worst way, in your opinion, but his
"Doug_bar_HobNob.jpg" (linked to in another thread) is an excellent
result. If he gets to the right place, the road taken doesn't matter.

The reason we do black and white is to convey mood. If we want
realistic portrayal, we strive for a color photograph that accurately
represents the subject. Sometimes, though, we have a photograph were
what we want to present is a "feeling" about the subject.

He's done that in the photo of that bar scene. The viewer gets an
impression rather than a straight reproduction. Your photograph of
your step-daughter (?) is technically well done, but it doesn't
register as showing anything that a color photo wouldn't.

The first thought of the photographer in the converting process should
be about what effect is sought. If the original photo doesn't have
something about it that can be brought out in black and white, no
processing method is going to work.

Not the greatest, but...
https://db.tt/x7jpg0lH





Thanks for the great comments.


I agree. Most of the time I'm going for mood rather than trying to
produce a technically perfect photo.

To me, a bit of blur or a grainy image can often convey a lot.

Here is an old mood shot, not as good as it could be, but it
demonstrates that not all images should be sharp.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mrs%20bates.jpg


--
PeterN