[SI] XXXV (old stuff) Alan's comments

Mojtaba wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:16:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


Mojtaba Talaian - http://www.pbase.com/image/32613897

Er. What's the old part?


You are the second person to wonder about "the old" in this picture,
Perhaps there has been several other viewers who have thought so. I
must now confess that I have not been able to show what I felt when I
saw the alley, namely the old way of city building.

Then at least you saw something that you could record. It may
not be obvious to others if we can't see a comparison.


ecrepit urban decay, maybe. I do like

the alleyway and the way it curves just so at the end. It is a
bit too centered in the composition and this is a good
opportunity to get down low for the shot and get the dynamics up
high (or get way above it which is not as easy to find).


I shall admit that I have been waiting and hoping that you comment on
this round of SI. Thank you, your comments are as usual useful and
correct.

I hope so. Hope others somment too. Everyone sees something
different.


regards,

Mojtaba (Wishes to find a good motiv for "Heat", while it's showering
outside)

0K (-273C) is cold. Everything else is warmer.



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Brian C. Baird wrote in message

All valid criticisms. I shot that from a moving car and didn't bother
to go back to actually frame it better (I.e. closer).

Gotta go back and do it right. Rarely do "lazy" shots work.


As for the Photoshop dig - well, it still falls within the rulz!
Photoshop is allowed, as long as you're not doing anything you couldn't
do in the darkroom. Since I don't see JFK shaking hands with Tupac
Shakur, I think I still fall within fair use.

Personally I don't believe that desaturation is a valid photoshop
technique to invoke under the rulz. Even the very few people
proficient in home developing IN COLOR would have a hard time
achieving this level of desat. Just too much, IMO.

Cheers,
Alan

Alan Browne wrote in message ...

Steve McCartney - http://www.pbase.com/image/32663393

Very good composition and use of natural light. In some sense
similar to my own contribution to the SI). What is very strong
here of course is the social statement appropriate to our times.
Here is the small locksmith of a certain age, working amongst
his efficient small layout. He's content with his lot in life
... but it is unlikely that his business will survive his
retirement... a way of life that is disappearing... I like the
way the subject is lit... effective and worthy as a lifestyle
documentary. very good shot.


Thanks very much! I've posted a comment on this elsewhere, but I
wasn't so sure about the lighting on this.

As for the idea of showing the "didn't quite make it" shots that
Sabineellen suggested, it's certainly interesting. I need to start
scanning more stuff and showing it, I guess. Interestingly I took a
very similar shot to this one but with the 50mm lens. It really
didn't show the context of the little shop anywhere near as well.

All these positive comments almost make me think I should go and buy
that lens after all!
Ah well, I'm waiting on an Olympus XA to arrive any day now, so
that'll have to be my "wide".

Cheers,
Steve

"st3ph3nm" wrote:

Ah well, I'm waiting on an Olympus XA to arrive any day now, so
that'll have to be my "wide".

Hi Steve,

I, too, own an Olympus XA. Original owner, pristine condition, purchased in
the early 80s. Excellent optics. I take it along on wilderness outings
with the Boy Scouts. Extremely compact and lightweight for hardcore
backpacking or just hiking. Never failed me.

It's a fine camera, you should enjoy it.

Ken

In article ,
says...
Personally I don't believe that desaturation is a valid photoshop
technique to invoke under the rulz. Even the very few people
proficient in home developing IN COLOR would have a hard time
achieving this level of desat. Just too much, IMO.

Cheers,
Alan

In printing it would be a relatively easy desaturation - it's called
nixing the magenta and cutting back the cyan and yellow a bit.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In printing it would be a relatively easy desaturation - it's called
nixing the magenta and cutting back the cyan and yellow a bit.


Fine. Go do it C-41 and tell us how well you do.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

In article ,
says...
In printing it would be a relatively easy desaturation - it's called
nixing the magenta and cutting back the cyan and yellow a bit.


Fine. Go do it C-41 and tell us how well you do.

Well, should we criticize those who don't do their own color correction
with film? After all, that's done digitally these days. Of course not,
that would be stupid.

Likewise, why bother nitpicking over selective desaturating in
Photoshop? You COULD do it in a darkroom, but it would take you a long
time to get the right result. Photoshop exists for a reason: to make
things easier and/or increase output quality. In the end, it's the
image that counts, which, in this case, is nothing to write home about.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

(Sabineellen) wrote in message ...

Mike Henley - http://www.pbase.com/image/32620513

This shot, while portraying something old, doesn't focus on any
one thing. The lighting choice is odd as it doesn't provide
contrast where it would have done some good ... statue of Mary on
the right. The stone work on the left show some nice detail and
lighting ... but not where it was really needed. I think other
parts of the same site would have given you much stronger images.

Thanks Alan. Enjoyed reading your comments - read every word of them - and
learnt some.

I'm often curious if people had taken other images and why they left them out.
In fact, Richard said that if I wanted voting on the SI then I better start
another one. Well, I wouldn't want to do that, but I would more be interested
in an SI Reject Photos gallery where the left out photos can be displayed, say
up to 5 photos, perhaps even allowing, though not requiring, a caption by their
submitter on why they were left out and a link to the one submitted to the SI
and why it was chosen. I guess people who only take one image wouldn't take
part, but those who take a bunch like I do may.

I don't think anyone would object to individuals posting any number of
alternate images on their own sites or pbase accounts... but I don't
think it should be a requirement that folks do it either.


Come to think of it. What do you guys think? I'll happily take care of the
logistics such as an email to send to, simple hosting and display, and time
etc.

Up to you.



Now, this shot, well, my main reason in choosing it is that it's something old
as you said, but also that there is a juxtaposition between the strong,
vertical, sharp, almost incisive lines of the stone work on the left, that are
well-lit (in fact, well-lit enough that the lighting intensifies this
incisiveness), obvious and surprisingly clean (well, relatively), compared to
on the right of the madonna that has feminine, soft, peaceful and curvacious
lines, is unlit, not so obvoius, and surprisingly seemed to have suffered the
elements more that even baby jesus is black! ... (or maybe they're all in the
same state, but the lighting made the difference)... strangely though the halo
oh her head remains clean.

Whatever statement regarding hard lines and soft curves is completely
lost due to the flat dead aspect of the overall image. To make such a
contrast between hard line/soft curves you need to bring those
elements out better. This photo is just too dead dull for that, and
this is mainly due to lack of light and contrast on the main subject.


The madonna alone wouldn't have interested me much, the incisive lines on the
right alone wouldn't have interested me much, but the two in balance made
something of a commentary, especially with that lighting. Maybe a subtle
commentary that I read into it attracted me.

I think of some grazing light could have hit the Madonna, and possibly
parts of the window, that the shot could have been dramatic and
interesting. Flat on light doesn't do it.



You see, I'm a little obsessive when it comes to the lines of an image and
their meaning. Here's another image I took for that mandate that maybe someone
else might've found just fine

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/192/1...0cropped.1.jpg

Less centered (woman) and more selctively cropped could have made a
more impactful image... as is, a good attemt at back framing (the
woman against the bricked over doorway).


I also considered these

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/192/1...HPIM0550.1.jpg

When framing an image thus, usually better to have more DOF to make
the frame famillar to the viewer. Just my imprssion/opinion.


http://photos1.blogger.com/img/192/1...4/HPIM0547.jpg

More interesting with the fence having the faded logo of the company
behind. It would serve you to use more angles in your shots... liks
your prev. vertiginous SI for E&E.

I'm often curious if people had taken other images and why they left them out.
In fact, Richard said that if I wanted voting on the SI then I better start
another one. Well, I wouldn't want to do that, but I would more be interested
in an SI Reject Photos gallery where the left out photos can be displayed, say
up to 5 photos, perhaps even allowing, though not requiring, a caption by their
submitter on why they were left out and a link to the one submitted to the SI
and why it was chosen. I guess people who only take one image wouldn't take
part, but those who take a bunch like I do may.

Come to think of it. What do you guys think? I'll happily take care of the
logistics such as an email to send to, simple hosting and display, and time
etc.


As above, ad hoc side projects can enhance the SI, but I don't think
many people will go much further than the basic SI.

Cheers,
Alan
posted from google groups as I don't see this message on my NG server.

"Graham Fountain" wrote in message ...
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
Graham Fountain - http://www.pbase.com/image/32611108

I'll blame a lot on the scan quality here. The shot appears overexposed,
on the other hand detail inside is missing, so appears more to be just a
bad scan.
The neg is very slightly overexposed, but not too bad. It does have detail
inside the shed visible, and there is more detail in the grass and in the
sky than what is visible on the scan. A few other negs that I have scanned
with this scanner have turned out rubbish - they seem to have areas where
there is no graduation in grey-scales, they go from mid-tones to black or
white with nothing in between - some almost look like they are 4 bit instead
of 8 bit. I suspect it scans in 8 bit, then applies
brightness/contrast/negative adjustments on the 8 bit image, thus losing
even more bit-depth. It's colour performance is even worse, some scans look
like when you have windows in 16 colour mode.

Have you tried VueScan? http://www.hamrick.com/

It's a scanner that we have at work, and I only get to use it for a few
minutes in the morning before we start, so I didn't get enough time to
really experiment with it's best settings. I get an Epson RX510 soon, so
here's hoping that it'll be able to do a significantly better job of negs.
Unfortunately my budget doesn't extend to a specialty film scanner, or for
that matter a darkroom and optical enlarger.
The composition almost works except for the great blob of tree behind the
barn.
Point taken.

Add a chain saw to you photo bag. I have one in my golf bag too.

Shot appears mildly fuzzy, and again this might be the scanning process
(look into unsharp mask). A tighter composition, and a lower shooting
vantage might have given this very work oriented barn a little more dignity
and importance and possibly mask a lot of that damned tree. The tractor
with the canted front wheels looks damned old, but the serviceable
equipment looks to be same era ... how old is the photo?
uhm... either the 7th or the 8th of August. we went to visit my in-laws who
live on a farm a couple hours drive away. Saw this old shed with the old
tractors inside so took a couple of shots. Took a few other possible shots
on that weekend - an old tractor, an old car body, but the shed seemed to me
the best.

I hope you took the time to walk around the subject and shoot closer
and different angles. These subjects work great at sun rise and
sunset... esp. if light leaks through and casts light spots on the
ground...

Cheers,
Alan

Likewise, why bother nitpicking over selective desaturating in
Photoshop?

'cos it's a cliche :-p