A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[SI] Filters comments from Calvin Sambrook



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 8th 09, 03:55 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Calvin Sambrook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default [SI] Filters comments from Calvin Sambrook

I struggled this month to not make a contrived photo and I see others have
had the same problems. Mind you some of you have produced pretty good
stuff.

Cross_Screen-M J Wyllie.jpg: I must admit I do like this as a piece of art
although generally I find that star-burst filters always look so false and
distracting. I like the composition with the bulk of the lights off to one
side. There's lots of little details too so I find that after taking in the
whole image there's still plenty of interest.

FILTERS_Tim_Conway_old.jpg: Probably the best of the bunch this month for me
and one I'd be happy to have on my wall. Nice composition and I really like
moody, washed out shots like this. It's almost like being there!

FIL_Bret_Douglas.jpg: This is quite disturbing. The deep blue cast gives it
plenty of edginess on its own but then that eerie glow from the bag and the
very intent look on the subject's face make it look like something out of an
alien movie. Nicely done.

FIL_Paul-Furman_3489.jpg: I'm afraid this didn't do it for me. As a
silhouette there is too much detail in the blacks and the background merges
with the subject too much. As a sunrise shot there's not enough detail in
the foreground. On balance I'd like to see it with a bit of fill light onto
the boat, I think that could look good.

FIL_Paul-Furman_3494.jpg: I really don't like the over-processed look here.
All sorts of sins have happened in the processing and on my LCD screen the
sun has four layers going white, cyan-ish, dull-yellow, orange as one
primary then the next clips before the others. If it wasn't spoiled by the
processing though the composition is great, the really interesting
silhouette and placing the sun right on the third works well. The unusual
shape of the sun adds interest - I like that.

FiltersSavageduck.jpg: Wow, I like. The intense red sky along with the
unreal foreground are great and the mass of detail in the leaves both on the
tree and in the plants work really well.

Ripple by Calvin Sambrook.jpg: Mine. And I'll not say any more until others
have had a chance to comment.

SI Filters Alan Browne 1, 2 and 3.jpg: The photos are of course very precise
but the subject matter is mind-numbing. The super-imposition of the leaves
in shot 1 and the inclusion of a red filter in shot 3 helped but really...

bowser_filter_1.jpg: Very contrived but I like the effect that the relief
filter give here. Of course I've never seen the original but the
photoshopped version has a very clean effect which I like, my guess is that
a straight shot of the house wouldn't look so neat. I must play with that
filter myself.

bowser_filter_2.jpg: I really like this although I can't understand why
really. How is it done exactly?

bowser_filter_3.jpg: An out of focus filter! Seriously though it's not OOF
as there is good detail in the boats. Somehow it manages to give a 1970's
television this-is-the-sharpest-we-can-do look which I think works well for
this shot. I like the inclusion of a large amount of plain sky, in fact the
composition is spot on.

filter1-Cooper.jpg: It had to happen didn't it. No interest here for me,
nothing grabs my attention.

filter2-Cooper.jpg: Now this is interesting, the overall monochrome works
and the inclusion of the cable right across the middle (and almost across
the third points) stops it just being a jumble of bits.

filter3-Cooper.jpg: Too contrived for me I'm afraid.

filter_-_Bob_Flint-1-shrinkwrap.jpg: This is just too visually confusing and
for me it simply doesn't work because of that. Either the foreground or the
background on their own may well have looked good but each detracts from the
other.

filter_-_Bob_Flint-2-bloom.jpg: I like this even though my brain is saying
no. The artificial detail juxtaposed with the apparently artificially soft
bits cause a tension which draws me in.

filter_-_Bob_Flint-3-crackle.jpg: Where does your eye land when you see
this? For me it's bottom right then snap to top left. That's great
composition and I suspect wasn't there in the pre-photoshop version as the
colours would probably have confused the eye a bit more. Really nice.


Overall I think a mandate like filters has made it harder to produce good
photos. And of course apologies to anyone I've upset.



  #2  
Old June 8th 09, 05:27 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default [SI] Filters comments from Calvin Sambrook

Calvin Sambrook wrote:
I struggled this month to not make a contrived photo and I see others
have had the same problems. Mind you some of you have produced pretty
good stuff.


bowser_filter_1.jpg: Very contrived but I like the effect that the
relief filter give here. Of course I've never seen the original but the
photoshopped version has a very clean effect which I like, my guess is
that a straight shot of the house wouldn't look so neat. I must play
with that filter myself.


The straight shot of the house is OK, if it's your house. Other than
that, not a very interesting pic. I liked the effect of the relief
filter, though.


bowser_filter_2.jpg: I really like this although I can't understand why
really. How is it done exactly?


I was playing around with the monochromatic filters trying to mimic the
effect of shooting infrared in black and white, and have come pretty
close my manipulating the RGB sliders as well as brightness and
contrast. Not a perfect match for true IR, and won't do things like
cutting through haze, but for some stuff, it's preyty close.


bowser_filter_3.jpg: An out of focus filter! Seriously though it's not
OOF as there is good detail in the boats. Somehow it manages to give a
1970's television this-is-the-sharpest-we-can-do look which I think
works well for this shot. I like the inclusion of a large amount of
plain sky, in fact the composition is spot on.


It's the "glowing edges" filter. I liked the effect.
  #3  
Old June 8th 09, 06:18 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default [SI] Filters comments from Calvin Sambrook

Calvin Sambrook wrote:
I struggled this month to not make a contrived photo and I see others
have had the same problems. Mind you some of you have produced pretty
good stuff.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/113495750
FIL_Paul-Furman_3489.jpg: I'm afraid this didn't do it for me. As a
silhouette there is too much detail in the blacks and the background
merges with the subject too much. As a sunrise shot there's not enough
detail in the foreground. On balance I'd like to see it with a bit of
fill light onto the boat, I think that could look good.


As you wish: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3529736177/
I see your point about the muddled foreground. Still not an
award-winning shot but oh well... I thought the light was interesting.


FIL_Paul-Furman_3494.jpg: I really don't like the over-processed look
here. All sorts of sins have happened in the processing and on my LCD
screen the sun has four layers going white, cyan-ish, dull-yellow,
orange as one primary then the next clips before the others. If it
wasn't spoiled by the processing though the composition is great, the
really interesting silhouette and placing the sun right on the third
works well. The unusual shape of the sun adds interest - I like that.


These were just reduced exposure from raw by 4 stops, everything else
default. D200 300mm f/32 ISO 640 . I'm curious how film would handle this.

Here's something similar:
http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-A...ull-set/pg1pc4
details with nasty artifacts:
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/blooming/pg1pc2


Ripple by Calvin Sambrook.jpg: Mine. And I'll not say any more until
others have had a chance to comment.


Did you have to flip it upside down after cropping?


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
  #4  
Old June 8th 09, 08:21 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default [SI] Filters comments from Calvin Sambrook

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:55:42 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

I struggled this month to not make a contrived photo and I see others have
had the same problems. Mind you some of you have produced pretty good
stuff.



filter_-_Bob_Flint-1-shrinkwrap.jpg: This is just too visually confusing and
for me it simply doesn't work because of that. Either the foreground or the
background on their own may well have looked good but each detracts from the
other.


I found the tension in this to be the strong point, but of course art is
subjective! I found the shots with no foreground looked kind of boring, and
those with no background too confusing... Perhaps less foreground would be good
as well. (The reason the background looks the way it does is because it was out
of focus.)

filter_-_Bob_Flint-2-bloom.jpg: I like this even though my brain is saying
no. The artificial detail juxtaposed with the apparently artificially soft
bits cause a tension which draws me in.


Looks a bit like frost, eh? The only thing I didn't like in this shot was the
pole with the brown band... there was no place to stand to exclude it from the
shot. I should have cloned it out!

filter_-_Bob_Flint-3-crackle.jpg: Where does your eye land when you see
this? For me it's bottom right then snap to top left. That's great
composition and I suspect wasn't there in the pre-photoshop version as the
colours would probably have confused the eye a bit more. Really nice.


Thanks! This shot is of a demolished potting shed and other garbage waiting to
be cleaned up. The blur effect cleaned it up nicely!

  #5  
Old June 9th 09, 02:20 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,748
Default [SI] Filters comments from Calvin Sambrook

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:55:42 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:


filter1-Cooper.jpg: It had to happen didn't it. No interest here for me,
nothing grabs my attention.

filter2-Cooper.jpg: Now this is interesting, the overall monochrome works
and the inclusion of the cable right across the middle (and almost across
the third points) stops it just being a jumble of bits.

filter3-Cooper.jpg: Too contrived for me I'm afraid.

Overall I think a mandate like filters has made it harder to produce good
photos. And of course apologies to anyone I've upset.

Not me, Bob. Submitting photographs in competitions is a heat/kitchen
thing. I'm pleased to be "interesting" in one out of three.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #6  
Old June 9th 09, 10:06 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Calvin Sambrook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default [SI] Filters comments from Calvin Sambrook

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Calvin Sambrook wrote:

FIL_Paul-Furman_3494.jpg: I really don't like the over-processed look
here. All sorts of sins have happened in the processing and on my LCD
screen the sun has four layers going white, cyan-ish, dull-yellow, orange
as one primary then the next clips before the others. If it wasn't
spoiled by the processing though the composition is great, the really
interesting silhouette and placing the sun right on the third works well.
The unusual shape of the sun adds interest - I like that.


These were just reduced exposure from raw by 4 stops, everything else
default. D200 300mm f/32 ISO 640 . I'm curious how film would handle this.

Here's something similar:
http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-A...ull-set/pg1pc4
details with nasty artifacts:
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/blooming/pg1pc2


In that case it looks to me as it your camera isn't too good at handling
digital clipping, mind you it's not really what they're designed for is it!

Some years ago, when digital display technology was a new thing, I was
involved in the reseach into just this sort of thing. It occurs when the
individual primary colours start to reach their highest values and begin to
"clip". Normally for white light you might expect them to top-out in step
with each other so you would see "burn" but at least the colours would stay
true. On a raw image that happens but colour manipulation reduces the range
of one or more primaries and then the colours reach their limits at
different times. If, say, red and green start to clip while blue still has
some headroom then areas of the image which contain very nearly burned out
white will appear slightly blue.
Of course digital cameras are manipluating colours all the time - that's
exactly what white balance is all about - and my guess is that the white
balance adjustment in your camera was working hard when you took these
shots. As an experiment you might like to try taking some test shots with
different ****e balance settings to see what effect it has.

"Chemical photography" as I now hear it called would have handled this
better although it might have displayed it's own set of artifacts. The
colour shifts around the sun wouldn't be there which would deal with my
gripe about this shot. The extra dynamic range of film would have allowed
you to choose to include more detail in the clouds if you wished which I
think might look even better.
I'd be interested in a side by side comparison.


Ripple by Calvin Sambrook.jpg: Mine. And I'll not say any more until
others have had a chance to comment.


Did you have to flip it upside down after cropping?


I did indeed. I was messing around with post production "filters" in
photoshop (which is a misleading name as they are not really filters in the
traditional sense by that's another story) including "ripple" and getting
entirely false looking results. We went away for the weekend and I found
myself next to a lake with the setting sun low over my shoulder and a gentle
breeze across the water. My argument for including this in a shoot-in
titled filters is that:
a) The water was acting as a polarising filter - sort of!
b) The effect is similar to (and better than) the ripple "filter" in
photoshop.


  #7  
Old June 9th 09, 07:01 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default [SI] Filters comments from Calvin Sambrook

Calvin Sambrook wrote:
Paul Furman wrote
Calvin Sambrook wrote:

FIL_Paul-Furman_3494.jpg: I really don't like the over-processed look
here. All sorts of sins have happened in the processing...


These were just reduced exposure from raw by 4 stops...
...I'm curious how film would handle this.

Here's something similar:
...
details with nasty artifacts:
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/blooming/pg1pc2


In that case it looks to me as it your camera isn't too good at handling
digital clipping, mind you it's not really what they're designed for is it!


That was my old D70, apparently I wasn't shooting raw at that time, or
lost the original, I wondered if a newer raw converter could do better
or if it was electrons overflowing into adjacent pixels. The D200 did
better in this round.


Some years ago, when digital display technology was a new thing, I was
involved in the reseach into just this sort of thing. It occurs when
the individual primary colours start to reach their highest values and
begin to "clip". Normally for white light you might expect them to
top-out in step with each other so you would see "burn" but at least the
colours would stay true. On a raw image that happens but colour
manipulation reduces the range of one or more primaries and then the
colours reach their limits at different times. If, say, red and green
start to clip while blue still has some headroom then areas of the image
which contain very nearly burned out white will appear slightly blue.
Of course digital cameras are manipluating colours all the time - that's
exactly what white balance is all about - and my guess is that the white
balance adjustment in your camera was working hard when you took these
shots. As an experiment you might like to try taking some test shots
with different ****e balance settings to see what effect it has.

"Chemical photography" as I now hear it called would have handled this
better although it might have displayed it's own set of artifacts. The
colour shifts around the sun wouldn't be there which would deal with my
gripe about this shot. The extra dynamic range of film would have
allowed you to choose to include more detail in the clouds if you wished
which I think might look even better.
I'd be interested in a side by side comparison.


Ripple by Calvin Sambrook.jpg: Mine.

...

b) The effect is similar to (and better than) the ripple "filter" in
photoshop.


Ha! nothing like the real deal.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Punography comments from Calvin Sambrook Calvin Sambrook 35mm Photo Equipment 15 May 14th 09 06:26 AM
[SI] CloseUp comments from Calvin Sambrook Calvin Sambrook 35mm Photo Equipment 6 April 15th 09 02:43 AM
Calvin Klein Underwear [email protected] Digital Photography 0 January 23rd 08 01:19 PM
Calvin Klein Underwear [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 0 January 23rd 08 01:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.