[SI] U comments

On 2012-02-14 23:18 , tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Cooper: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141461566

This is actually a good photo for the next mandate. I really hate
middle of the day shots for all the reasons shown in this image. Dead
overexposed areas, shadows underneath the subjects, flat appearing
colours, etc. This is the sort of photo I'd expect in Nat Geo
describing the plight of greyhounds...


I don't like to make excuses for my photos, but if I want to shoot
certain subjects in Florida, I have to shoot them when they are
available. The races at this track start at 1:00 PM.

I went to the track to shoot another type of photo entirely. The main
subject, a dejected better in the shade rendered in black and white,
won a competition. The urine test shot was lagniappe.

Had to look that one up. Cajun blood in you?

The shadow comment puzzles me. If it's a daylight shot, you get
shadows. Lack of shadows would indicate some bogus post-op work. I
like ground shadows because they anchor the subject.

They sure do - esp. when shot with more of an angle to them so they
aren't just dark blobs under the subject. Perhaps I'm picking on that
for pickiness - OTOH it did grab my attention in a bad way.

I think the viewers in Canada or the UK are used to softer light in
daylight and clothing colors that are more subdued. Whites are
absolutely brutal in Florida sun. Even skin blows-out.

This is why professional shooters use for all sorts of mid daylight
shooting. I guess you'd look pretty carting around a 12' x 10' scrim
and a crew at the dog track.

It's better to shoot on overcast days, but the sky suffers in the
image.

Qualify that as: it's better to shoot people with fill flash in mid day
(soften the facial shadows), or under overcase or in open shade with a
little fill flash and warming filter.

It's better to shoot something in the shade, but not
everything I see that would make a good photo is in the shade.
It's better to shoot at certain times of the day, but I don't often
shoot objects or things that remain in place until the light is
better. I do very little planned photography (except for table-top
stuff). What I shoot is mostly opportunistic grabs, but that's what I
like. I tend to go for content over setting.

And that's fine until you run into the likes of me and my tiresome
comments. I try (and often fail) to isolate scenes that will fit the DR
of the film / sensor. But at least looking for that range yields
opportunities as well.

My bird and nature photographer friends go out before dawn and return
at dusk and feel that only mad dogs and Englishmen go out the mid-day,
out in the mid-day, out in the mid-day sun. What they shoot is not to
my interest, though.

Not my cuppa either. My main failing in travel is that we tend to be
either on the move or eating when the light is best. Hard to
consolidate two people's travel preferences.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2012-02-14 19:07 , Pete A wrote:


Tut tut, Alan. Even you haven't dared to criticize Tony for his usually
terrible exposure, white balance, and distorted colour rendition.

What part of "Dead overexposed areas, shadows underneath the subjects,
flat appearing colours" doesn't sound like criticism?

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2012-02-14 21:10 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-02-14 15:38:15 -0800, Alan Browne
said:


'duck: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444625

Utterly ridiculous with the out of focus mandate subject. Sorry -
don't fly.

Yup!
If you checked my comments you will see that I fell on my own sword with
this one, declaring it to be one of my worst shots in recent memory.
I had been thinking of an udder shot for this mandate some time, and
willing subjects became hard to find.
Then last week when I was running out of time I ran across this little
herd chewing the cud near to a fence. So I pulled over, and thinking I
would have all the time in the world to adjust my camera and get my
udder shot.
I was wrong. As I approached the fence they perceived that I was not
carrying any model releases, and they turned and fled from me hot foot,
...er hot hoof. So desperate to make that bovine boob capture I shot
away at the undulating udders as they rapidly disappeared. So all I was
left with for the SI was that wishy-washy U shot.

I'd say you should have looked for something else ... but then so should
I with one of mine...


'duck: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444626

This image is visually interesting but bears the hallmarks of
over-processing. It looks like the open shade areas have been over
pressed to blue.

?? Nought special done to that shade.

Still seems oddly uniform in colour to me. Usually I like narrow
coloured sets, but that one is just weird.




'duck: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444627

Baah. Someone once told me that in an animal shot one thing was needed
and one thing had to be avoided to make it work. Needed: eyes. Avoid:
animals with their heads down eating. We can barely make out the eyes
here and the whole posture is uninteresting. I won't even mention the
lighting ... end.

...and here I was thinking that it only had to be breathing or in the
process of being cooked.
Again, the ewe was a target of opportunity so I could complete the joke
and have a third shot for the "U" mandate.

Oh! Thanks for not mentioning the lighting.

My pleasure because if I did ...

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2012-02-15 20:02 , tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:50:29 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

The urine test shot was lagniappe.

Had to look that one up. Cajun blood in you?

No. I use it to mean "something extra" and usually "something extra
that was unexpected".

Per the online dictionary I found it in it is "a bonus or extra gift" so
that fits well enough - I was just surprised by that attribution to
Louisiana French in the same def. I /may/ have seen that word before
but it's the first time I've looked it up.

I do very little planned photography (except for table-top
stuff). What I shoot is mostly opportunistic grabs, but that's what I
like. I tend to go for content over setting.

And that's fine until you run into the likes of me and my tiresome
comments. I try (and often fail) to isolate scenes that will fit the DR
of the film / sensor. But at least looking for that range yields
opportunities as well.

I don't feel the comments are tiresome. You're just pointing out what
anyone with an eye would see. I give myself a little slack because
what I like to photograph is usually only around when the conditions
aren't the best. That doesn't mean I expect to be given slack by
others.

I don't own a flash unit or any screens, scrims, reflectors, or other
off-camera accessories except a tripod.

Since you have a certain attraction to people shooting, an accessory
flash would be something for your "want one" list. A mid sized flash
doesn't cost (or weigh) much and would probably meet 95% of your needs
(and, used smartly, do away with shadows-of-ugly-Diogenes and red eye
too). The other stuff is just "going the distance" (the 1%-ers of
photography). Note that an umbrella can also keep direct sunlight off
the front element and reduce flare - esp for wide angle shots.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2/15/12 PDT 1:41 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-02-14 19:28 , tony cooper wrote:

It's like having someone say "Those
photographs of yours will never make the cover of "Paris Match".

I've seen several of yours that would be far more likely to get there
than the phots of a certain claimant around here.

How many years has it been?

Isn't it time to just let it go?

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-02-15 19:06:44 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

Regards,

Eric Stevens

That wasn't too painful. The result for the underpass is great. However
there are a few HDR lessons there related to "ghosts" and some of the
highlight areas. I see you made at least 4, but probably 5 exposures
and had the issue of movement within the scene revealed by the
inclusion of "ghosts".

There are several ways around this problem:
1: You could mask the vehicles in all but one of the exposures.
2: You could use HDR software such as Photomatix or NIK HDR efex Pro
which can selectively correct for "ghosts".
3: You could select the best of the exposures and do single image tone mapping.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:59:34 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:06:44 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

I don't blame you for trying, but that's a rather odd result. The
white lane marker in the traffic lane to the left (as we view the
image) goes on top of the vehicles. It seems to be projected on the
lane much like we project the first down line in our football
television broadcasts.

That shot is a composite of five shots each taken about a second
apart. 'The "vehicles"' is actually one vehicle photographed in five
different positions. I am supposedly able to deal with that but seeing
it is only my third try at HDR just getting the colours right was
enough for me for the time being.

Also, two buildings are emitting some sort of upward glow like movie
searchlights. At least you haven't gone for the usual dark and
forbidding sky that we see in so many HDRs.

There is no 'dark and forbidding sky' because there was no dark and
forbidding sky. That 'upward glow' is the glare of the rising sun
coming over the hill from the left and reflecting from the glass on
the buildings concerned.

It would have all gone quite well if I had started the learning
process several weeks earlier. Unfortunately I have been recovering
from the latest of my skin grafts following the removal of a large
Basal Cell Carcinoma on my left leg. That, and the most unsummerly
weather, has made photography difficult.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:01:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 19:06:44 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:40:53 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-15 16:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Eric Stevens: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/141444618

The dead exposure in the area pertaining to the mandate kill this image
for me. A case where HDR could have rendered something more akin to how
the eye sees such a scene.

I've tried that with a result somewhere between 'weird' and 'yuch'.

Well, make it more yuch or more weird and it may actually work.

The third time I have ever tried HHDR (courtesy of Paint Shop Pro) may
be found at
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DS...6_7_Detail.jpg

Nearly all I have read about HDR is from the people complaining about
its artificial appearance. Even now I wouldn''t have got round to
trying it without your nagging. I've still got some way to go but its
got me interested. There are a couple of other sunrise shots I want to
try ...

Regards,

Eric Stevens

That wasn't too painful. The result for the underpass is great. However
there are a few HDR lessons there related to "ghosts" and some of the
highlight areas. I see you made at least 4, but probably 5 exposures
and had the issue of movement within the scene revealed by the
inclusion of "ghosts".

There are several ways around this problem:
1: You could mask the vehicles in all but one of the exposures.
2: You could use HDR software such as Photomatix or NIK HDR efex Pro
which can selectively correct for "ghosts".
3: You could select the best of the exposures and do single image tone mapping.

I think PaintShop Pro X4 has a simplified version of NIK HDR. Apart
from dealing with ghosts I have yet to learn what I can do with it.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-02-15 22:09:53 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-02-14 19:07 , Pete A wrote:


Tut tut, Alan. Even you haven't dared to criticize Tony for his usually
terrible exposure, white balance, and distorted colour rendition.

What part of "Dead overexposed areas, shadows underneath the subjects,
flat appearing colours" doesn't sound like criticism?

Coming from you, it sounded more like a compliment ;-)