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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
[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 | |
|
|
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 |