Opportunity came knocking!

On Oct 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

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, 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

Nice image, but...

Why the glow around the subject in the rocker?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 10/25/15 3:19 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

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


VERY nice! The "mood" is communicated almost perfectly, Peter!!

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 16:19:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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

That has an oddly, but nice, 3 dimensional look to it.I wonder if it's
from the glow that Savageduck mentioned. Anyway, I like it.

On 2015-10-25 21:51:52 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:40:11 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 16:19:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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

That has an oddly, but nice, 3 dimensional look to it.I wonder if it's
from the glow that Savageduck mentioned. Anyway, I like it.

Sometimes I think we can get too critical of shots here and pick out
flaws that don't flaw the image.

That depends on the intention of the artist (Peter) and the perception
of the viewer commenting (in this case me). While there isn't much
wrong with the concept of the image, there are some issues for me, and
I made a comment.

Whatever glow the Duck sees doesn't
register with me.

To me the image looks as if Peter has over cooked his post processing,
particularly in the area of sharpening (he has been known to do that).
Then he has made the B&W conversion.

There is a "glow" or "halo" surrounding the seated subject, I suspect
that it is the result of oversharpening during post processing.
Probably one of Peter's unorthodox sharpening techniques.
That it doesn't "register" with you is of no concern to me.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/25/2015 5:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

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, 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

Nice image, but...

Why the glow around the subject in the rocker?

My inspiration for the shot was a scene from an Alfred Hitchcock movie.
When I went to th location, I never thought of the image I made.

The story of the image.
I was looking for inspiration at the Wilson Farm, in ME. (Where Andrew
Wyeth lived during much of his life.) This room was bare, except for
the rocking chair, when this young woman with a bun walked into the
room. The scene from Psycho popped into my head, and I asked her to pose.
The image was made OOF in PS, and I thought the glow gave a ghostly look.




--
PeterN

On 10/25/2015 5:30 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 10/25/15 3:19 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

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


VERY nice! The "mood" is communicated almost perfectly, Peter!!


Thank you. See the story in my response to the Duck

--
PeterN

On 10/25/2015 5:40 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 16:19:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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

That has an oddly, but nice, 3 dimensional look to it.I wonder if it's
from the glow that Savageduck mentioned. Anyway, I like it.


Thank you. I felt the glow gave a ghostly look to that image. In my
response to the Duck, I tell the story how the image came about.

--
PeterN

On 10/25/2015 5:51 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:40:11 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 16:19:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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

That has an oddly, but nice, 3 dimensional look to it.I wonder if it's
from the glow that Savageduck mentioned. Anyway, I like it.

Sometimes I think we can get too critical of shots here and pick out
flaws that don't flaw the image. Whatever glow the Duck sees doesn't
register with me.


In my CC competition the judge commented that it looked like something
out of a horror movie. I guess I communicated that accurately to the judge.
Thank you for your comment.

--
PeterN

On 2015-10-25 23:24:55 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/25/2015 5:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 25, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

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, 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

Nice image, but...

Why the glow around the subject in the rocker?

My inspiration for the shot was a scene from an Alfred Hitchcock movie.
When I went to th location, I never thought of the image I made.

The story of the image.
I was looking for inspiration at the Wilson Farm, in ME. (Where Andrew
Wyeth lived during much of his life.) This room was bare, except for
the rocking chair, when this young woman with a bun walked into the
room. The scene from Psycho popped into my head, and I asked her to
pose.

Except Mrs. Bates was in the dimly lit basement.

Perhaps you could have asked the young woman to go outside. The with
the farmhouse in the background you might have been able to do your
version of "Christina's World".
http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/457/app_zoom/CRI_165457.jpg

The image was made OOF in PS, and I thought the glow gave a ghostly look.


Aah! It was given a PeterN treatment.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/25/2015 02:18 PM, PeterN wrote:
Xw.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





Proves you can get color in low light.


Anyway...back to B&W I booted up my old XP machine as I thought I did
have that Silver Efex program


It does have good adjustments but I see why I never used it.


There is no process for opening a file other than by association... and
I also saw no "save as" option.

Good program if they would have thought about what they were doing.