[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

On 2011-09-17 16:58:15 +0100, Robert Coe said:

[...]
BobCoe 3
It took a lot of jacking up the shadows to make this one presentable, and I
almost didn't include it. (Martha wanted me to submit my picture of the
reflecting pool, which she thought was better than hers; but I thought hers
was better and talked her into submitting it instead.) But this one does meet
the mandate, and the dwindling light wasn't being kind to the scenery outside.
So in it went.

Based on the above and my earlier comment "The colours and contrast are
too muddy for my liking", I've spent some time with it in my editor.

I'm not claiming I've made it "better", I have managed to adjust it to
suit my taste.


MarthaCoe 3
Someone suggested bleaching the cyan out of the roof. (I forget exactly why;
maybe he thought it looked artificial.) But you'd have to take it out of the
pool too, and it would have destroyed the effect of the blue light from the
sky on the left side of the roof beside the orange light from the sunset on
the right.

Actually, I said "Reduce the amount of cyan in the roof glass because
it draws my eye away from the pink flowers." I've tried it and it works.

This image amply demonstrates the effect of bleaching out cyan, but not
for the reasons you stated:

1. The reflection of the central window has a cyan in-fill to the U
section whereas it is bleached out in the window itself. Likewise for
areas of glass above the window and its reflections.

2. There isn't a reflection of any section of roof glass.

No argument intended.

On 2011-09-18 16:29:29 +0100, Bowser said:

Pete A wrote:
[...]
Just kidding around...

Now you know why I'm incompatible with camera clubs. I'd be dismissed
within the first 10 minutes of a serious discussion

On 9/18/2011 9:44 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:03:33 +0100,
wrote:

tony wrote:

I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member
critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more
complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation.


Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk
receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual
admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint
praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly
achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be
said in return, perhaps at a later date.

Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far
from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is
precisely where the SI finds itself.


Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose
photo it is.


If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst)
way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their
comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above,
and the whole exercise becomes pointless.

Three judges each competition night x 10 competition nights per year =
finding 30 judges. One of the three is always an outsider, and they
the club tries to get two outsiders if they can.

The remaining judges are members who are either professional
photographers or very experienced amateurs.

The grading is done prior to the meeting without knowing the name of
the person submitting the image. The name of the submitter, and the
points scored for the image, is given at the time the image is
projected on the large screen. The critique is given at that time.

A member judge might soften his critique once he knows the name of the
member, but point count cannot be changed.

The usual critique starts out "We liked this image (or some other pat
on the back for the photographer) but we took points off for ...".





We always use outside judges. On inter-club competitions, three judges
are used, but a judge will be disqualified from scoring an image
submitted by a member of that judge's club.

Bruce's attitude is telling. One would hope that the camera salespeople
we rely on for advice would encourage good image making, or at a minimum
have some real interest in it.
I often go to B & H, Just about every time, I am impressed that the
salespeople in the different departments are quite knowledgeable and
have shown me some impressive work of their own. When they are not
overly busy they will go into lengthy explanations of how they do things. .


--
Peter

Frank S wrote:

What do y'all think?

As the photographer, I like to know if people find my submissions
interesting, how and why. I know why I liked it and what I was thinking
but others will often have a very different take.

Knowing each other somewhat, that influence can't be avoided, and can be
fun and interesting but really isn't relevant to the actual photo. More
of a social thing, and I'm a bit of a social retard but it's all
interesting. I suppose when you talk about a famous artist, their
reputation precedes them. It shouldn't but it does.

Wait, let me add to that. I may know someone's work and know what I
appreciate in that and feel is worth encouraging in them. Maybe it's
something they don't recognize themselves through the obviously close
perspective.

As a critic, I hope the photographer takes the comments as an honest
reaction, not a personal judgement. I hope I won't comment as a personal
judgement either but I am human. I expect some of my comments will be
taken as irrelevant, and that's fine.

Technical comments are useful. We may have other priorities or may not
have thought about that technical point, for our own shots and for
others. It is useful to see this all fleshed out, whether we disregard
it or not.

Tagging on to your outline... I'll delete what I disagree with or am
indifferent about.

Savageduck wrote:
Bowser said:

The Dusk or Dawn gallery is posted, and it's a very healthy gallery...
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/duskdawn

Well, there still seems to be some life in the SI and we had quite a
variety of ideas beyond those typically expected of dusk/dawn shots.

Bowser:
#1; The pano, I like this and the quiet sense of place and time it evokes.

Enchanting scene. A bit of halo hdr effect; I only comment because it
looks like something I'd do and be OK with these results but a little
grumpy and hesitant.


#2; Another nice shot showing us an early morning, fresh & deadly amanita.

Clean. A little too clean to stand on it's own but excellent for
illustrating an article or something.


#3; Fair enough shot, but this one does not work for me. It seems murky
in some way, with composition and crop which is not quit right.

A little jumbled; no clear emphasis but is fine; no clear problems either.


Irwell:
DUSK #1; Nice framing of the shot with the long shadows thrown by the
"Toby" mug and other stuff. I would have preferred to not have the right
of egg cropped.

The crop is a rule-breaker but works OK for me. Good interestingness
quotient.


DUSK #2 & #3; In both of these shots the long shadows tell the story.
Good idea in setting the time of day.

The walking girl with shadow from above is much more interesting.


EricS:
Dawn; A good capture of morning stillness at first light.

Classic and serene harbor.


Dusk; Nice drama, but I think the timing was slightly off. Perhaps if
you had shot a few minutes earlier, or maybe a few minutes later. I
guess you had to be there.
Arctic Circle; The only sense of place comes from your title. I know you
were probably on a ship, but there is no real reference, and it seems to
be more of a snapshot than a deliberately composed shot.

PeterA:
Alpha; I know it was dawn, but this one doesn't really do it. There is
something about the color, contrast, and exposure which doesn't seem right.

I'm tempted to remove the gray bits and take it even further.


Industry; This is the type of shot you have perfected. In this case you
have everything right the sense of time and fitting your theme just works.
Omega; Three lightships in a row. I like it, and like "Industry" you
have everything right. BTW, how common is the use of lightships today?

Agreed, these are the result of practiced intent. I want to be closer
and have a more dramatic foreground but that may be me fighting your
intent. I think they'd work well as enormous prints in a commercial space.


Bob Coe:
#1; ...a closed Nathan's and ice cream parlor?

hmmm ;-) mice dramatic history for a boring parking lot...


#2; Shadows & light again, maybe one problematic blown highlight on the
crest of the flower.

I like the blue moody lighting and composition.


#3; ...the ribbon of filtered light running
across the yellow flower tops makes this one for me.

Captures the sense of place well.


Martha Coe:
#1; Nice depot, I just wish they hadn't turned on the lights, I feel
that there is more potential in this image which could be brought out
with some tweaks to the contrast and brightness.

My immediate thought is to darken it to get the auto-exposure white sky
out and make it look like dusk.


#2; The time of day might be right, but this one does not work for me.
It might be the subject, it might be the composition, it might be my taste.

Pretty good but the cropped ground plane does bug me.


#3; ...and here is your great shot. The subdued tone and fading light in
the greenhouse with the reflection on the wet floor makes this work.

Nice!


Tim Conway:
Duskdawn-old; Nice silhouette and textures sky. Very evocative of the
evening glow.

Great sky but I get lost in the foreground.
Arctic circle is kinda too simple but I guess that's the point.
Sepia bridge is striking!


Paul Furman:
5998; A horn player in the dusk. Forget the fuzziness it is great, I
like it.

I should've just submitted smaller, then I'm happy with it.


DanP:
#1; Different with an interesting effect. The zoom exposure does add to
the overall image, I just wonder why f/14.

To get a longer shutter speed. Well done!


#2; Nice color in the sky for the sunset, but not unexpected for this SI.

Maybe I'd have just stuck with the sky itself or done more with the
foreground?


Otter:
Eye in Sky; Nice. The evening light is just right to demonstrate the
time and yet have the foreground structures identifiable, without having
the stereotypical "golden" or "red" sunset.

Hang this with Pete's harbor shots... I like the magic hour sky and
silky feel of the water.


Savageduck (yours truly):
#1; This is about 2 miles from my place.

I might bump the contrast a bit ;-)


#2; The San Ardo oil field is a Chevron operation along the Salinas
river, about 25 miles North of my place.

I like the low contrast and magic hour sky here!


#3; Down at the coast at San Simeon State Beach, shot from the pier,
with the light filtered through very thick marine layer fog.

Air bokeh! :-)


AlanB:
old; Nice filtered light through the clouds, with the minutes before
dark capturing the vastness of that expanse across the valley.

Foreground doesn't work for me though.


#2; interesting color and reflections on the water.


Peter Chant:
#1 & #2; Both of these capture the feel of the fair in the early
evening. Very nice.

Magical lighting. I like the audience in blue hinting back to the sky
and the electrical amusement cars are framed stunningly.


Peter Newman:
Lighthouse [old]; See, it's not too tough to get it right. Faded light on the
building and golden glow on the horizon.

Perfect postcard.


Sausage & Peppers; "highly post processed" No kidding! It does deserve
the imaginative shot of this SI comment.

Very nice painting!
Lend Pete your color scheme and saturation levels.


Sunset lovers; I get the move to the abstract, but while interesting in
terms of a processing exercise, I just don't see it working outside of
the 1967-69 time period.

This one doesn't work for me but it looks like you had fun anyways.


As always, thanks to all for playing.

I've got one more I shot with the mandate in mind, after the deadline:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...n/photostream/

Pete A wrote:
I've left my biggest obsession until last: "rendering intent." While
writing my comments on SI submissions I have no idea as to the intended
rendering of each image. I wonder, is its purpose: to look good as
displayed on the Web page with a black background; to be the front cover
of a magazine; to be a double-page spread in a prestigious journal; to
be framed and offered for sale at a high price; or to be a giant poster
on display in a shop or on billboard?

My sax player should be framed at 8x10 in a local dimly lit cafe g.

On 9/18/2011 6:59 PM, Paul Furman wrote:


snip

As always, thanks to all for playing.

I've got one more I shot with the mandate in mind, after the deadline:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...n/photostream/


Great composition. I particularly like like the rock stacking in the
first Muir Beach. You have captured the mood. Too bad some of the dark
area seems a bit blocked. But, maybe it's the screen.

--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
I will pass on one tip I learned for quickly setting a gray point. It
takes longer to read, than do:
Duplicate the base layer;
blur it: filter! blur ! average;

What is 'average'?


create a curve adjustment layer'
click on the center eye dropper and touch it to the blurred layer. It
will turn 18% gray'

delete the blurred layer and the base image will reflect the gray point
setting;
then set your black and white points.
Note: this also works well with a levels adjustment layer.

On 9/18/2011 6:59 PM, Paul Furman wrote:


snip

Peter Newman:
Lighthouse [old]; See, it's not too tough to get it right. Faded light
on the
building and golden glow on the horizon.

Perfect postcard.


Indeed it is sort of a cliche.


Sausage & Peppers; "highly post processed" No kidding! It does deserve
the imaginative shot of this SI comment.

Very nice painting!
Lend Pete your color scheme and saturation levels.


Actually I did very little color enhancement in post. In other versions
I tried several different color enhancements, but they were far too garish.




Sunset lovers; I get the move to the abstract, but while interesting in
terms of a processing exercise, I just don't see it working outside of
the 1967-69 time period.

This one doesn't work for me but it looks like you had fun anyways.

Fair enough. I did a small posterization to sharpen up the foreground
couple.



--
Peter

On 9/18/2011 7:24 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
I will pass on one tip I learned for quickly setting a gray point. It
takes longer to read, than do:
Duplicate the base layer;
blur it: filter! blur ! average;

What is 'average'?


It totally blurs the image and makes it one color, which is the average
color for the entire image.
I have no idea how the formula works, but is seems to.
Co. I use it for removing color casts from images. OF COURSE, If you
have a picture of a red rose, you don't usually want to set a gray
point. ;-)



create a curve adjustment layer'
click on the center eye dropper and touch it to the blurred layer. It
will turn 18% gray'

delete the blurred layer and the base image will reflect the gray point
setting;
then set your black and white points.
Note: this also works well with a levels adjustment layer.





--
Peter