[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:39:49 -0400, wrote:
:
: Pretty funny, nobody seems to like the "bridge" shot. Oh, well. And
: the bokeh on the mushroom shot is, well, the product of a zoom. But I
: liked the color of the mushrooms. This one makes really nice wallpaper.

Perfect for wallpaper.


: Luckily I got this shot before my dog ate them.

Can a dog eat a white amanita and live to bark about it? IIRC, a human's
tolerance for same is usually less than one bite.

Those orange ones make you insane (hallucinations/convulsions) more than
they kill you. There is a delicious white one that grows in meadows on
the forest edge here but you'd better be very sure of the ID.

tony cooper wrote:
Bowser wrote:

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

Pithy comments:

Paul Furman's sax player could have been my favorite for this group
because it has 1) people, 2) black and white, and, 3)a street scene.
You have to get all the person in, though, when the person is your
main subject. Can't truncate them unless you're doing a straight
head-and-shoulders.

Agreed, there was his instrument case and water bottle at his feet. I
wanted to go in for a closeup and should have.


I would have cropped that portrait just at the right edge of the lamp
post. That somewhat horse-like shape to the left of the lamp post is
distracting because you don't know what it is. Two pedestrians on
close examination, but you don't want the viewer doing close
examination of ancillary aspects of the photo.

PeterN wrote:
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.

Where is it found?
Ah, OK, an option in blur... doh


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. ;-)

Gotcha... like the expo disk, in post.


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 Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:24:02 -0700, 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'?
In CS4, at least, if you go to Filter, the next options include
BlurAverage. I didn't bother to check 7.0.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

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.

Thanks, I actually dropped the exposure almost a stop in post so it
looked like dawn, not a white sky, and a little more saturated.
At full size, you will see some crazy orange and purple star fish I
hadn't noticed in real life g
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...60580/sizes/o/

otter wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:59 pm, Paul wrote:

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

Ah, that's nice. What filer did you use?

No filter, just a 30-second exposure at dawn. I did force the ISO down
to 100 from the native 200, for some of the attempts for a longer
exposu http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/6159065900/

On 2011-09-19 01:51:52 +0100, Paul Furman said:

PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

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.

Thanks, I actually dropped the exposure almost a stop in post so it
looked like dawn, not a white sky, and a little more saturated.
At full size, you will see some crazy orange and purple star fish I
hadn't noticed in real life g
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...60580/sizes/o/

Stunning. My "Early Mars" image has a sea of water, I should've shot it
as carbon dioxide like yours.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Frank S wrote:
From the photographer's viewpoint, it's kind of unimportant to me what a
critical viewer thinks about the technical aspects of my work; if I could
have improved it, I probably would have and if not, would not have shown it
(no guarantees, there).

I rarely plan out a photograph. Most of what I do would be considered
opportunistic or candid, so the technical aspects I can control are
limited to the knobs I can (quickly!) twiddle on the camera.

So technical critiques are mostly academic -- If I could have done
better at the time, I would have, and unless the technical problems are
downright horrid, they don't matter anyway.

(And then there's the "well, if I had $BUGNUMBER to spend on equipment,
the techincal aspects could have been much better" answer.. you have to
make do with what you got, folks..)

From the photographer's viewpoint, what I want from non-critical viewers
is some assurance that they had a glimpse, impression, whiff of what and how
I was looking at whatever subject prompted my shutter-release.

If the intent of art is to get the viewer to feel (or think) something,
I'd like to know if I've succeeded. There's no such thing as a wrong
response, as long as there is one.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman wrote:
Stuffed Crust wrote:
and my favorite was technically awful.

Didn't stop me ;-)

Okay, okay...

http://www.peachyphotos.com/po/photo/155305:214508

I know what I was trying to accomplish, but it just didn't work....

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On 19 Sep 2011 13:54:58 GMT, Stuffed Crust
wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Frank S wrote:
From the photographer's viewpoint, it's kind of unimportant to me what a
critical viewer thinks about the technical aspects of my work; if I could
have improved it, I probably would have and if not, would not have shown it
(no guarantees, there).

I rarely plan out a photograph. Most of what I do would be considered
opportunistic or candid, so the technical aspects I can control are
limited to the knobs I can (quickly!) twiddle on the camera.

I consider the technical aspects to be what you do *after* taking the
photograph. Cropping to provide the right composition, adjustments in
color or exposure, minor cloning, or conversion to black & white.

So technical critiques are mostly academic -- If I could have done
better at the time, I would have, and unless the technical problems are
downright horrid, they don't matter anyway.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida