A novelty item

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:36:41 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 10:23:36 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:27:35 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 09:07:33 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.

I like that photo, but if you're going to center the tree, you should
center the tree...

I would have to straighten it first.

Well someone had to complain about it...

Anyway, what blurred the background - a filter, or some other sort of
processing?

Depth of focus.

At F11? That's what has me confused.

I should have added a question mark. If it's not depth of focus I
don't know what else it could be.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2017-05-01 01:08:48 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I see what appears to me to be some sort of image degradation to the
area of the image around the concrete. At f/11 I would believe the
concrete to be within the DoF, and the texture of the concrete to be
quite defined. It isn't.

At 100% what I see confirms what I see at 80%.
That is pixelation, not texture. Even more so at 150%. So all I can
surmise is probably JPEG compression artifact.


I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.

I have tried that as recently as last week when I posted an RAF and a
SOOC JPG, so perhaps not that novel.
This photo group seems less enthusiastic with regards to photographs
than to circular arguments.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 4/30/2017 9:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.

Hey, The Duck posted a photo and attempted to start a thread
about a week ago. Seems I was the only one to jump in with
any photos.

So much for your photo as a novelty at this moment.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 2017-05-01 01:46:40 +0000, Ron C said:

On 4/30/2017 9:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:
On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:
On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.

Hey, The Duck posted a photo and attempted to start a thread
about a week ago. Seems I was the only one to jump in with
any photos.

So much for your photo as a novelty at this moment.

Just for the Hell of it, here is another novelty item.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lygkqdgmacksxk0/_DSF4167-Exposure.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:40:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-01 01:08:48 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I see what appears to me to be some sort of image degradation to the
area of the image around the concrete. At f/11 I would believe the
concrete to be within the DoF, and the texture of the concrete to be
quite defined. It isn't.

At 100% what I see confirms what I see at 80%.
That is pixelation, not texture. Even more so at 150%. So all I can
surmise is probably JPEG compression artifact.

OK. Here is the original NEF. How do they compare?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dkkojme958...C5299.NEF?dl=0


I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.

I have tried that as recently as last week when I posted an RAF and a
SOOC JPG, so perhaps not that novel.
This photo group seems less enthusiastic with regards to photographs
than to circular arguments.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:46:40 -0400, Ron C wrote:

On 4/30/2017 9:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.

Hey, The Duck posted a photo and attempted to start a thread
about a week ago. Seems I was the only one to jump in with
any photos.

But that was about Alien Skin. The photo was only fodder for the
software.

So much for your photo as a novelty at this moment.

It certainly was a novelty at the moment I posted it. All I could see
was people arguing about things that had nothing to do with
photography.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2017-05-01 03:36:10 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:41:09 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-01 01:46:40 +0000, Ron C said:

On 4/30/2017 9:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:
On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:
On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.

Hey, The Duck posted a photo and attempted to start a thread
about a week ago. Seems I was the only one to jump in with
any photos.

So much for your photo as a novelty at this moment.

Just for the Hell of it, here is another novelty item.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lygkqdgmacksxk0/_DSF4167-Exposure.jpg

As long as we're doing novelties, here's yesterday's catch:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Rusty-Wre...9-207AA-XL.jpg

A

Checker Marathon!
Great find, with suicide doors, and NBA leg room! Wonderful!
I hope they are planing a restoration.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:41:09 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:


Just for the Hell of it, here is another novelty item.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lygkqdgmacksxk0/_DSF4167-Exposure.jpg

That carries me back. I once used to know a lot about those bogeys.
They are a collection of loose bits and pieces which generally agree
to travel in the same diection, more or less together. Their behaviour
is chaotic (in the mathematical sense) much like long term weather
forecasting.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens