[SI] More Night Shots have arrived!

Quite a few, too. Hey, it's Christmas. We need to cut them some slack.
You can view the gallery he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/nightshots

If you're curious about the shoot-in, visit the rulz page he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:27:33 -0500, Bowser wrote:

Quite a few, too. Hey, it's Christmas. We need to cut them some slack.
You can view the gallery he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/nightshots

If you're curious about the shoot-in, visit the rulz page he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

Comments on some:

Furman/5553 - Great shot. I like the composition.

NIT/Fly_Thru_Moon - Great catch. Who is "NIT", though? Do we know
this person by another name?

NIT/Texas Sunrise - Innovative composition. I like it. It shows that
taking the photo is not the whole assignment...how it is cropped and
presented can make it or break it. The pier itself isn't much, but
the whole scene does work.

Piggins/Dubai Boats - same as above.

SavageDuck/Neptune Pool (both shots) - Not the type of processing that
appeals to me.

SavageDuck/Hearst room - Good photograph under difficult conditions,
but it seems unbalanced somehow.

TJY/train station - I like this type of shot, but a solitary figure
somewhere on the platform would add to it. Who is TJY?

TJY/Hotel - I know nothing can be done about it, but I wish that
vehicle wasn't there. It's an eye magnet.

Attkins/Maersk Line - Like the Duck's pool, not a processing style
that wows me.

Conway/swans - Well done.

Otter/BBQ joint - My favorite of the bunch, but that's because candid
street photography is my favorite type of photography.

Otter/musicians - I'm kinda torn on how to present photos for this
group. I like a white border on a photo displayed on a black
background because it shows us how the photographer cropped the image
and set up the composition. This one, though, may look better without
a border because the musicians just float there.

Bowser/football - I knew this was either the work of Bowser or Annika,
but decided it was Bowser's because the cheerleaders are not the main
focus.

Cooper/Night Reading - This was taken at 11 PM, but it doesn't look
like a night shot because it was taken in a well-lighted 7/11 store
parking lot.

Coe/Buzzard's Bay - This one I do like.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2010-12-24 14:44:20 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:27:33 -0500, Bowser wrote:

Quite a few, too. Hey, it's Christmas. We need to cut them some slack.
You can view the gallery he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/nightshots

If you're curious about the shoot-in, visit the rulz page he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

Comments on some:



SavageDuck/Neptune Pool (both shots) - Not the type of processing that
appeals to me.

What processing?
In ACR I fixed WB, applied lens correction profile, then ACR noise
reduction, moved on to add a bit of recovery. Finally a slight contrast
tweek.

Resized to 12 x 8, added my frame, then a file size reduction to 1024 x
694 with jpeg less than 300MB.


SavageDuck/Hearst room - Good photograph under difficult conditions,
but it seems unbalanced somehow.

The big issue with that scene was the unavoidable flare from lights in
awkward positions, and dealing the straight lines and paneled ceiling
out at 11mm, even with lens correction.

I tried to fix both and I don't think I pulled it off. I actually sent
Bowser three versions of that shot, and I still think I can "really"
fix it.
From time to time old fartdom can make you delusional.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:57:26 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-12-24 14:44:20 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:27:33 -0500, Bowser wrote:

Quite a few, too. Hey, it's Christmas. We need to cut them some slack.
You can view the gallery he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/nightshots

If you're curious about the shoot-in, visit the rulz page he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

Comments on some:



SavageDuck/Neptune Pool (both shots) - Not the type of processing that
appeals to me.

What processing?
In ACR I fixed WB, applied lens correction profile, then ACR noise
reduction, moved on to add a bit of recovery. Finally a slight contrast
tweek.

Whatever you did resulted in an image that just doesn't appeal to me.
That blue in the sky and blue in the water is not natural looking, and
if it's not natural then something in the processing affected the
color. The pink in the sky is not natural looking to me, either.

The images remind me of those things you see in gift shops of
photographs printed on foil.

Don't be offended, though. Sometimes I like your stuff, and sometimes
I don't.

Resized to 12 x 8, added my frame, then a file size reduction to 1024 x
694 with jpeg less than 300MB.


SavageDuck/Hearst room - Good photograph under difficult conditions,
but it seems unbalanced somehow.

The big issue with that scene was the unavoidable flare from lights in
awkward positions, and dealing the straight lines and paneled ceiling
out at 11mm, even with lens correction.

I tried to fix both and I don't think I pulled it off. I actually sent
Bowser three versions of that shot, and I still think I can "really"
fix it.
From time to time old fartdom can make you delusional.

I can't really put my finger on what bothers me about the balance. I
don't think it can be cured in post. It would have to be done in the
photographer's position.

I would crop that man's arm out on the left. I keep wondering what he
has in his hand and if that bit of light color above his body is a
straw hat brim.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2010-12-26 03:57:26 +0000, Savageduck said:

...
Resized to 12 x 8, added my frame, then a file size reduction to 1024 x
694 with jpeg less than 300MB.

Most 1024x694 jpegs are less than 300 MB (sorry, couldn't resist).

--
Pete

On 2010-12-25 20:31:46 -0800, Pete
said:

On 2010-12-26 03:57:26 +0000, Savageduck said:

...
Resized to 12 x 8, added my frame, then a file size reduction to 1024 x
694 with jpeg less than 300MB.

Most 1024x694 jpegs are less than 300 MB (sorry, couldn't resist).

....and that was the intent, I could have given you a 600MB jpeg with
those dimensions, but Bowser would have frowned.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-12-25 20:13:24 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:57:26 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-12-24 14:44:20 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:27:33 -0500, Bowser wrote:

Quite a few, too. Hey, it's Christmas. We need to cut them some slack.
You can view the gallery he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/nightshots

If you're curious about the shoot-in, visit the rulz page he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

Comments on some:



SavageDuck/Neptune Pool (both shots) - Not the type of processing that
appeals to me.

What processing?
In ACR I fixed WB, applied lens correction profile, then ACR noise
reduction, moved on to add a bit of recovery. Finally a slight contrast
tweek.

Whatever you did resulted in an image that just doesn't appeal to me.
That blue in the sky and blue in the water is not natural looking, and
if it's not natural then something in the processing affected the
color. The pink in the sky is not natural looking to me, either.

The images remind me of those things you see in gift shops of
photographs printed on foil.

Don't be offended, though. Sometimes I like your stuff, and sometimes
I don't.

No offense taken. I was not sure what unusual processing you thought I
had done.

As far as the sky was concerned I had just missed the Sunset through a
very thick coastal fog. Hearst Castle several 100 feet above the fog
line and the "pink in the sky was the last of that Sunset. Another
30-40 minutes and the blue would have been gone only leaving the
artificial light. I couldn't wait around for that, as we were being
herded around on the somewhat regimented guided tour. The same applied
to the interior shots. There was limited time and it was not always
possible to get a favorable position as you were never given an
opportunity to move off the "path" as it were.


Resized to 12 x 8, added my frame, then a file size reduction to 1024 x
694 with jpeg less than 300MB.


SavageDuck/Hearst room - Good photograph under difficult conditions,
but it seems unbalanced somehow.

The big issue with that scene was the unavoidable flare from lights in
awkward positions, and dealing the straight lines and paneled ceiling
out at 11mm, even with lens correction.

I tried to fix both and I don't think I pulled it off. I actually sent
Bowser three versions of that shot, and I still think I can "really"
fix it.
From time to time old fartdom can make you delusional.

I can't really put my finger on what bothers me about the balance. I
don't think it can be cured in post. It would have to be done in the
photographer's position.

I would crop that man's arm out on the left. I keep wondering what he
has in his hand and if that bit of light color above his body is a
straw hat brim.

Yup! I should have removed him. That was the knowledgeable tour guide.
I believe he isn't actually holding anything, that the object is a bowl
of some sort on the table in the background.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-12-26 04:28:09 -0800, otter said:

On Dec 26, 6:00*am, wrote:
On Dec 25, 10:13*pm, tony cooper wrote:



What processing?
In ACR I fixed WB, applied lens correction profile, then ACR noise
reduction, moved on to add a bit of recovery. Finally a slight contras
t
tweek.

Whatever you did resulted in an image that just doesn't appeal to me.
That blue in the sky and blue in the water is not natural looking, and
if it's not natural then something in the processing affected the
color. *The pink in the sky is not natural looking to me, either.

Nice shots, but I'm seeing the same thing. That shade of blue
just ain't right. And it's the WB.. I'd be curious to see the original
and why you wanted to fix it.. It still ain't right. Another thing
is the saturation is very strong for my tastes. *Way too strong to
be "natural" looking. Other than that, no real problems.
That's my 19 cents worth anyway.. *:/

I couldn't put my finger on it, but it did look to me like something
had been done to try to make the picture "pop". Not that that is a
bad thing, and I actually like the pool pictures. But looking closer,
the white marble statue looks like it has a slight blue cast.

OK! Guys!
I could well have screwed up on the WB. I am going to go revisit it and
see what can be done in that regard. As far as a blue cast on the
marble goes there was some reflection off the water, whether that is
the problem, or not I am not sure. Let me see what I can do.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-12-26 04:00:59 -0800, said:

On Dec 25, 10:13*pm, tony cooper wrote:


What processing?
In ACR I fixed WB, applied lens correction profile, then ACR noise
reduction, moved on to add a bit of recovery. Finally a slight contrast
tweek.

Whatever you did resulted in an image that just doesn't appeal to me.
That blue in the sky and blue in the water is not natural looking, and
if it's not natural then something in the processing affected the
color. *The pink in the sky is not natural looking to me, either.

Nice shots, but I'm seeing the same thing. That shade of blue
just ain't right. And it's the WB.. I'd be curious to see the original
and why you wanted to fix it.. It still ain't right. Another thing
is the saturation is very strong for my tastes. Way too strong to
be "natural" looking. Other than that, no real problems.
That's my 19 cents worth anyway.. :/

I am going to revisit the WB. I shoot RAW only, and the white marble
was a warmish, dirty yellow which would have been worse. So I am going
to see if I can go about the fix a different way.
I did not add any saturation, but the contrast tweek was probably just
a bit much,

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 06:59:19 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-12-26 04:00:59 -0800, said:

On Dec 25, 10:13*pm, tony cooper wrote:


What processing?
In ACR I fixed WB, applied lens correction profile, then ACR noise
reduction, moved on to add a bit of recovery. Finally a slight contrast
tweek.

Whatever you did resulted in an image that just doesn't appeal to me.
That blue in the sky and blue in the water is not natural looking, and
if it's not natural then something in the processing affected the
color. *The pink in the sky is not natural looking to me, either.

Nice shots, but I'm seeing the same thing. That shade of blue
just ain't right. And it's the WB.. I'd be curious to see the original
and why you wanted to fix it.. It still ain't right. Another thing
is the saturation is very strong for my tastes. Way too strong to
be "natural" looking. Other than that, no real problems.
That's my 19 cents worth anyway.. :/

I am going to revisit the WB. I shoot RAW only, and the white marble
was a warmish, dirty yellow which would have been worse. So I am going
to see if I can go about the fix a different way.
I did not add any saturation, but the contrast tweek was probably just
a bit much,

Wait a minute, here. Do *you* like the photos as they were submitted?
If so, don't do anything with them.

I've contributed my opinion, and others have done the same, but that
doesn't mean the photographs are not exactly what they should be. It
just means that not everyone has the same opinion about a photograph.
Big surprise.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida