Ping Tony Cooper

On 2016-10-05 06:08:15 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-10-05 04:20:07 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 18:20:39 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-04 23:24:28 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/4/2016 12:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-04 14:50:28 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/4/2016 10:36 AM, PeterN wrote:

I was testing an old lens with my D500, for street. And yes, I added
grain. The conversion was done with Topaz BW effects.


Oops: Left off the link

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC1920.jpg

I am not a big fan of any of the Topaz plug-ins. With what I know you
have in your tool box, I believe you would have done better with NIK
Silver Efex Pro.
My one question with regard to your exposure selection is, why ISO 2500
and 1/80 sec for that particular situation?

When I am using that camera for street, I have standardized on ISO 2,500 @ f13.

That does not sound like a good choice for "street" especially with a
camera such as the D500 which has a great DR. With those settings you
are forcing a slow shutter speed with the real possibility IQ damage,
unless you truly wanted a slow shutter effect.

Personally I would have settled on ISO 400 to ISO 800, with f/8 to
f/11, perhaps even as much as f/16.

Another solution which can work very well for "street" is 'Auto ISO'
with the base set at 200 and an appropriate Max at say ISO 1600-3200
with minimum shutter speed set at 1/100 -1/400. That will leave you to
play with you aperture settings.

If you want to play,

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC1920.NEF

Wow. It's like you saw an entirely different scene than Peter saw.
And, in my opinion, not at all as interesting a scene. Yours is like
a CCTV view of a possible armed robbery of the Loomis truck, but with
a visual effect that has me thinking everything will slide to the left
like a sinkhole is opening up.

OK! I have made some lens corrections (with the guide tool in
Transform) and crop to straighten some stuff up:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/PN/DSC1920-EX-Tri-70B.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/PN/DSC1920-Reala-B.jpg

....and one plain vanilla ACR rendition with no plug-in treatment.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/PN/DSC1920.jpg

This is a case where I have some problems with Peter's post treatment,
I far prefer his rendition of the scene.

However, I will play. I don't do this often, but I think it's an
interesting enough image to try. I treated it as a straight street
scene with black and white done in NIK:

https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Temp/...016-10-04B.jpg

Thanks for that opportunity.
...and I know that taste and intent is everything. ;-)

I have done three renditions after RAW conversion in ACR which included
some "guided lens correction":
1: An ExposureX conversion using an Acros emulation with standard grain
2: An ExposureX conversion using an Acros emulation with a 30% Rodinal
developer grain
3: An ExposureX conversion using a 1936 Kodachrome emulation (I thought
that might be subject appropriate)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rhdvcrgc6h8wo7l/AABJ2AGxt2FTlEkZ05HpKYwwa?dl=0


To my eye there are three others which do a better job: NIK Silver Efex,
AlienSkin ExposureX, and Tonality Pro (Mac only). Of those the better
one is ExposureX with that you can apply a consistent, realistic grain
that truly emulates a variety of grains that can result from using
different developers such as Rodinal, or a specific film type such as
Tri-X, or Acros.

NIK Silver Efex does a similar job, but ExposureX just has the edge.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DSF2302-Edit-2.jpg

I photographed his brother:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Candids/i...-08-09B-X3.jpg

This fella seems to be in unfortunate circumstances.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/05/2016 12:31 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:48:33 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 10/04/2016 09:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-05 01:20:39 +0000, Savageduck
said:

On 2016-10-04 23:24:28 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/4/2016 12:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-04 14:50:28 +0000, PeterN
said:

On 10/4/2016 10:36 AM, PeterN wrote:

I was testing an old lens with my D500, for street. And yes, I added
grain. The conversion was done with Topaz BW effects.


Oops: Left off the link

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC1920.jpg

I am not a big fan of any of the Topaz plug-ins. With what I know you
have in your tool box, I believe you would have done better with NIK
Silver Efex Pro.
My one question with regard to your exposure selection is, why ISO 2500
and 1/80 sec for that particular situation?

When I am using that camera for street, I have standardized on ISO
2,500 @ f13.

That does not sound like a good choice for "street" especially with a
camera such as the D500 which has a great DR. With those settings you
are forcing a slow shutter speed with the real possibility IQ damage,
unless you truly wanted a slow shutter effect.

Personally I would have settled on ISO 400 to ISO 800, with f/8 to
f/11, perhaps even as much as f/16.

Another solution which can work very well for "street" is 'Auto ISO'
with the base set at 200 and an appropriate Max at say ISO 1600-3200
with minimum shutter speed set at 1/100 -1/400. That will leave you to
play with you aperture settings.

If you want to play,

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC1920.NEF

Thanks for that opportunity.
...and I know that taste and intent is everything. ;-)

I have done three renditions after RAW conversion in ACR which
included some "guided lens correction":
1: An ExposureX conversion using an Acros emulation with standard grain
2: An ExposureX conversion using an Acros emulation with a 30% Rodinal
developer grain
3: An ExposureX conversion using a 1936 Kodachrome emulation (I
thought that might be subject appropriate)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rhdvcrgc6h8wo7l/AABJ2AGxt2FTlEkZ05HpKYwwa?dl=0


...and obviously I did not crop after the lens correction.

snip

Sorry, but I like Peter's crop. The guy at the left is too distracting,
as is the van on the right.
Grain! I want Grain!

You want Grain? I'll give you Grain, but I think it works better in
color with grain. That yellow shirt needs to be part of this.

https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Temp/...-10-04C-X3.jpg


snip

That's an entirely different photo from Peter's original presentation.
And I kinda like it also. Instead of an 'Art Deco" look, it has a
futuristic look.
The distortion of the building at far left is offset by the shape of the
canopy jutting out. I would like to see the parking garage ("Hertz"
sign) barrel-distorted too, but you can't have everything!
You're right- the yellow shirt needs to be there!

--
Ken Hart

On 2016-10-05 15:35:18 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:08:55 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

You want Grain? I'll give you Grain, but I think it works better in
color with grain. That yellow shirt needs to be part of this.

https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Temp/...-10-04C-X3.jpg


snip

That's an entirely different photo from Peter's original presentation.
And I kinda like it also. Instead of an 'Art Deco" look, it has a
futuristic look.

That's why I don't like the idea of working with someone else's
photograph, or someone else working with one of mine.

The photographer usually has an idea of what he or she is going for,
and processes to achieve that aim. When someone else processes the
image, the original intent can be - and usually is - lost.

I made an exception to my "don't mess with other people's photos" rule
here because it's a very interesting photo to use as a starting point.
And, my name's in the subject line.

The distortion of the building at far left is offset by the shape of the
canopy jutting out. I would like to see the parking garage ("Hertz"
sign) barrel-distorted too, but you can't have everything!
You're right- the yellow shirt needs to be there!

I didn't work it completely to eliminate the perspective distortion. I
like that curve on the left edge as a mirror to the curve of the
canopy, so I stopped short.

I would still like to see Peter's reasoning for his settings.

So would I. As far as I am concerned they don't make sense.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/05/2016 11:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-05 15:35:18 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:08:55 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

You want Grain? I'll give you Grain, but I think it works better in
color with grain. That yellow shirt needs to be part of this.

https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Temp/...-10-04C-X3.jpg


snip

That's an entirely different photo from Peter's original presentation.
And I kinda like it also. Instead of an 'Art Deco" look, it has a
futuristic look.

That's why I don't like the idea of working with someone else's
photograph, or someone else working with one of mine.

The photographer usually has an idea of what he or she is going for,
and processes to achieve that aim. When someone else processes the
image, the original intent can be - and usually is - lost.

I made an exception to my "don't mess with other people's photos" rule
here because it's a very interesting photo to use as a starting point.
And, my name's in the subject line.

The distortion of the building at far left is offset by the shape of the
canopy jutting out. I would like to see the parking garage ("Hertz"
sign) barrel-distorted too, but you can't have everything!
You're right- the yellow shirt needs to be there!

I didn't work it completely to eliminate the perspective distortion. I
like that curve on the left edge as a mirror to the curve of the
canopy, so I stopped short.

I would still like to see Peter's reasoning for his settings.

So would I. As far as I am concerned they don't make sense.

I have to agree. Normally outdoors, I would use the "Sunny-16" rule, and
an ISO 200 film.

--
Ken Hart

On 10/5/2016 8:08 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 10/05/2016 12:31 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:48:33 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 10/04/2016 09:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-05 01:20:39 +0000, Savageduck
said:

On 2016-10-04 23:24:28 +0000, PeterN
said:

On 10/4/2016 12:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-04 14:50:28 +0000, PeterN
said:

On 10/4/2016 10:36 AM, PeterN wrote:

I was testing an old lens with my D500, for street. And yes, I
added
grain. The conversion was done with Topaz BW effects.


Oops: Left off the link

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC1920.jpg

I am not a big fan of any of the Topaz plug-ins. With what I know
you
have in your tool box, I believe you would have done better with NIK
Silver Efex Pro.
My one question with regard to your exposure selection is, why
ISO 2500
and 1/80 sec for that particular situation?

When I am using that camera for street, I have standardized on ISO
2,500 @ f13.

That does not sound like a good choice for "street" especially with a
camera such as the D500 which has a great DR. With those settings you
are forcing a slow shutter speed with the real possibility IQ damage,
unless you truly wanted a slow shutter effect.

Personally I would have settled on ISO 400 to ISO 800, with f/8 to
f/11, perhaps even as much as f/16.

Another solution which can work very well for "street" is 'Auto ISO'
with the base set at 200 and an appropriate Max at say ISO 1600-3200
with minimum shutter speed set at 1/100 -1/400. That will leave you to
play with you aperture settings.

If you want to play,

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC1920.NEF

Thanks for that opportunity.
...and I know that taste and intent is everything. ;-)

I have done three renditions after RAW conversion in ACR which
included some "guided lens correction":
1: An ExposureX conversion using an Acros emulation with standard
grain
2: An ExposureX conversion using an Acros emulation with a 30% Rodinal
developer grain
3: An ExposureX conversion using a 1936 Kodachrome emulation (I
thought that might be subject appropriate)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rhdvcrgc6h8wo7l/AABJ2AGxt2FTlEkZ05HpKYwwa?dl=0



...and obviously I did not crop after the lens correction.

snip

Sorry, but I like Peter's crop. The guy at the left is too distracting,
as is the van on the right.
Grain! I want Grain!

You want Grain? I'll give you Grain, but I think it works better in
color with grain. That yellow shirt needs to be part of this.

https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Temp/...-10-04C-X3.jpg


snip

That's an entirely different photo from Peter's original presentation.
And I kinda like it also. Instead of an 'Art Deco" look, it has a
futuristic look.
The distortion of the building at far left is offset by the shape of the
canopy jutting out. I would like to see the parking garage ("Hertz"
sign) barrel-distorted too, but you can't have everything!
You're right- the yellow shirt needs to be there!


Prophetic that you said that. I was on my way to see the Star Trek
exhibit, at the Intrepid.


--
PeterN

On 10/5/2016 11:35 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:08:55 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

You want Grain? I'll give you Grain, but I think it works better in
color with grain. That yellow shirt needs to be part of this.

https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Temp/...-10-04C-X3.jpg


snip

That's an entirely different photo from Peter's original presentation.
And I kinda like it also. Instead of an 'Art Deco" look, it has a
futuristic look.

That's why I don't like the idea of working with someone else's
photograph, or someone else working with one of mine.

The photographer usually has an idea of what he or she is going for,
and processes to achieve that aim. When someone else processes the
image, the original intent can be - and usually is - lost.

That's not a bad thing. Your statement illustrates that a lot of us see
different things in the same scene. It adds variety so that we don;t get
bored. If you look carefully, you will see more than five different
images. Try it, you may even find more.



I made an exception to my "don't mess with other people's photos" rule
here because it's a very interesting photo to use as a starting point.
And, my name's in the subject line.

The distortion of the building at far left is offset by the shape of the
canopy jutting out. I would like to see the parking garage ("Hertz"
sign) barrel-distorted too, but you can't have everything!
You're right- the yellow shirt needs to be there!

I didn't work it completely to eliminate the perspective distortion. I
like that curve on the left edge as a mirror to the curve of the
canopy, so I stopped short.

I would still like to see Peter's reasoning for his settings.


f13 is a good working aperture. It gives lots of DOF, without ruining
the image, with most lenses. The high ISO allows for a lot of stop
motion, especially with WA lenses. With either my D500, or D800, I can
shoot at that ISO and maintain an image that is not very noisy.

--
PeterN

On 10/5/2016 11:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-05 15:35:18 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:08:55 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

You want Grain? I'll give you Grain, but I think it works better in
color with grain. That yellow shirt needs to be part of this.

https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Temp/...-10-04C-X3.jpg


snip

That's an entirely different photo from Peter's original presentation.
And I kinda like it also. Instead of an 'Art Deco" look, it has a
futuristic look.

That's why I don't like the idea of working with someone else's
photograph, or someone else working with one of mine.

The photographer usually has an idea of what he or she is going for,
and processes to achieve that aim. When someone else processes the
image, the original intent can be - and usually is - lost.

I made an exception to my "don't mess with other people's photos" rule
here because it's a very interesting photo to use as a starting point.
And, my name's in the subject line.

The distortion of the building at far left is offset by the shape of the
canopy jutting out. I would like to see the parking garage ("Hertz"
sign) barrel-distorted too, but you can't have everything!
You're right- the yellow shirt needs to be there!

I didn't work it completely to eliminate the perspective distortion. I
like that curve on the left edge as a mirror to the curve of the
canopy, so I stopped short.

I would still like to see Peter's reasoning for his settings.

So would I. As far as I am concerned they don't make sense.

They do for me.

--
PeterN

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 01:29:16 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
: On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:20:07 -0400, Tony Cooper
: wrote:
:
:
: However, I will play. I don't do this often, but I think it's an
: interesting enough image to try. I treated it as a straight street
: scene with black and white done in NIK:
:
: https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Temp/...016-10-04B.jpg
:
: I got to looking at this (above) and decided it's just too dark. If
: there are figures in the image, you should be able to make them out. I
: did a little dodging on the two figures with backpacks and the middle
: guy walking towards the camera and processed it not-quite-so-dark
:
: https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Temp/...016-10-04G.jpg

Naa ... That just makes the scene look overexposed.

Bob

On 2016-10-07 11:46:09 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/5/2016 11:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-05 15:35:18 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:08:55 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

You want Grain? I'll give you Grain, but I think it works better in
color with grain. That yellow shirt needs to be part of this.

https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Temp/...-10-04C-X3.jpg


snip

That's an entirely different photo from Peter's original presentation.
And I kinda like it also. Instead of an 'Art Deco" look, it has a
futuristic look.

That's why I don't like the idea of working with someone else's
photograph, or someone else working with one of mine.

The photographer usually has an idea of what he or she is going for,
and processes to achieve that aim. When someone else processes the
image, the original intent can be - and usually is - lost.

I made an exception to my "don't mess with other people's photos" rule
here because it's a very interesting photo to use as a starting point.
And, my name's in the subject line.

The distortion of the building at far left is offset by the shape of the
canopy jutting out. I would like to see the parking garage ("Hertz"
sign) barrel-distorted too, but you can't have everything!
You're right- the yellow shirt needs to be there!

I didn't work it completely to eliminate the perspective distortion. I
like that curve on the left edge as a mirror to the curve of the
canopy, so I stopped short.

I would still like to see Peter's reasoning for his settings.

So would I. As far as I am concerned they don't make sense.

They do for me.

That is not an answer.
Are you trying to emulate nospam?

You should have gone through some sort of thought process to make those
choices and those settings are, on the face of it, not logical for the
type of street scene you were dealing with.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-10-07 13:32:24 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:24:18 -0400, PeterN wrote:
:
: Actually I thought the people just complimented the building. As you
: noticed from the original the building is the subject. I was not very
: close to the people with the effective 16.

The most interesting part of the picture is the reflections in the glass panes
of the overhang. And they're not helped by the gratuitous graniness.

Bob

....and part of that grainiess is due to the unnecessarily high ISO and
slow shutter speed, resulting in high ISO noise which is there before
any added B&W conversion "grain". The noise is there in a clean post
processed color rendition fron RAW before any B&W conversion.

Personally, I would have worked to obtain the lowest noise original,
and cleanest RAW at the time of capture. Then apply a more realistic
film emulation grain during B&W conversion, using decent software such
as NIK Silver Efex Pro, ExposureX, or even On1.

Peter has still not explained the choices he made for that particular
exposure, and they are looking to be more of a random guess than a
calculated action. The noise, not "grain" in the original NEF he
provided shows that, and the added emmulated grain just compounds the
problem.

Noise is not grain and does not have the quality of grain in an image.
Calling noise grain does not make it so.
--
Regards,

Savageduck