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 » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ping Tony Cooper



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 8th 16, 05:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On 10/7/2016 10:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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.


For the record, I don't see that amount of "noise" as a "problem." In my
view it adds character to the image.
Ken Hart seems to be the only one who saw my intended image. I was
interested in the building, with just a hint of the people. That the
faces aren't clear helps. Anyway, it is obvious that there is lack of
agreement.


--
PeterN
  #22  
Old October 8th 16, 05:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On 10/7/2016 10:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-07 11:46:09 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/5/2016 11:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:


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?


Taken as a rhetorical comment.

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.


You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I have said before, and
continue to believe that it would be a boring world if we all liked the
same thing.



--
PeterN
  #23  
Old October 8th 16, 05:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On 10/7/2016 9:42 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
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


The contrast is much too high, for the mood I was attempting to make.
--
PeterN
  #24  
Old October 8th 16, 05:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On 2016-10-08 16:01:09 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/7/2016 10:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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.


For the record, I don't see that amount of "noise" as a "problem."


That's OK, you never do. ;-)

In my view it adds character to the image.


Nope! It adds noise, which isn't grain. If you want grain add it to a
clean original as part of the B&W conversion. NIK does that quite well.

Ken Hart seems to be the only one who saw my intended image. I was
interested in the building, with just a hint of the people. That the
faces aren't clear helps. Anyway, it is obvious that there is lack of
agreement.


So it was meant as an architectural shot, not a street shot?

So now, what is rational behind your particular exposure settings.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #25  
Old October 8th 16, 05:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On 2016-10-08 16:06:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/7/2016 10:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-07 11:46:09 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/5/2016 11:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:


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?


Taken as a rhetorical comment.

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.


You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I have said before, and
continue to believe that it would be a boring world if we all liked the
same thing.


....and yet we wonder.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #26  
Old October 8th 16, 05:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On 2016-10-08 16:12:58 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/4/2016 8:26 PM, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 October 2016 10:50:56 UTC-4, PeterN wrote:
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

--
PeterN


Looks like pushed Tri-X. Interesting.


Tri X is the name of the grain I added.


On top of the original noise, making it too much.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #27  
Old October 8th 16, 05:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On 10/8/2016 12:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-08 16:01:09 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/7/2016 10:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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.


For the record, I don't see that amount of "noise" as a "problem."


That's OK, you never do. ;-)

In my view it adds character to the image.


Nope! It adds noise, which isn't grain. If you want grain add it to a
clean original as part of the B&W conversion. NIK does that quite well.

Ken Hart seems to be the only one who saw my intended image. I was
interested in the building, with just a hint of the people. That the
faces aren't clear helps. Anyway, it is obvious that there is lack of
agreement.


So it was meant as an architectural shot, not a street shot?

So now, what is rational behind your particular exposure settings.




I like the look, Spock.

--
PeterN
  #28  
Old October 8th 16, 05:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On 2016-10-08 16:30:45 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/8/2016 12:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-08 16:01:09 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/7/2016 10:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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.

For the record, I don't see that amount of "noise" as a "problem."


That's OK, you never do. ;-)

In my view it adds character to the image.


Nope! It adds noise, which isn't grain. If you want grain add it to a
clean original as part of the B&W conversion. NIK does that quite well.

Ken Hart seems to be the only one who saw my intended image. I was
interested in the building, with just a hint of the people. That the
faces aren't clear helps. Anyway, it is obvious that there is lack of
agreement.


So it was meant as an architectural shot, not a street shot?

So now, what is rational behind your particular exposure settings.


I like the look, Spock.


Sigh....


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #29  
Old October 8th 16, 08:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On 10/8/2016 2:25 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 09:23:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-08 16:01:09 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/7/2016 10:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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.

For the record, I don't see that amount of "noise" as a "problem."


That's OK, you never do. ;-)

In my view it adds character to the image.


Nope! It adds noise, which isn't grain. If you want grain add it to a
clean original as part of the B&W conversion. NIK does that quite well.

Ken Hart seems to be the only one who saw my intended image. I was
interested in the building, with just a hint of the people. That the
faces aren't clear helps. Anyway, it is obvious that there is lack of
agreement.


I have to wonder, then, why it was presented in a thread titled "Ping
Tony Cooper". The only architectural shots I go after are old barns
and dilapidated houses. I do produce a lot of street photography,
though, and consider people in those shots to be essential elements.

This thread is progressing to the ludicrous. Peter says my latest
black and white version has too much contrast and is not what he was
going after.

Of course it isn't! That's what happens when files are available to
"play with". The resulting image is the new person's concept of how
the scene should be presented. I made no attempt to follow or enhance
his conception.


When I post a RAW file, I would hope to see different seeing.

--
PeterN
  #30  
Old October 8th 16, 08:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Ping Tony Cooper

On 2016-10-08 19:11:51 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/8/2016 2:25 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 09:23:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-08 16:01:09 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/7/2016 10:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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.

For the record, I don't see that amount of "noise" as a "problem."

That's OK, you never do. ;-)

In my view it adds character to the image.

Nope! It adds noise, which isn't grain. If you want grain add it to a
clean original as part of the B&W conversion. NIK does that quite well.

Ken Hart seems to be the only one who saw my intended image. I was
interested in the building, with just a hint of the people. That the
faces aren't clear helps. Anyway, it is obvious that there is lack of
agreement.


I have to wonder, then, why it was presented in a thread titled "Ping
Tony Cooper". The only architectural shots I go after are old barns
and dilapidated houses. I do produce a lot of street photography,
though, and consider people in those shots to be essential elements.

This thread is progressing to the ludicrous. Peter says my latest
black and white version has too much contrast and is not what he was
going after.

Of course it isn't! That's what happens when files are available to
"play with". The resulting image is the new person's concept of how
the scene should be presented. I made no attempt to follow or enhance
his conception.


When I post a RAW file, I would hope to see different seeing.


Well I tried to give you different with stuff such as this
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/PN/DSC1920-TP-FC.jpg

....but that doesn't seem to fly.
So this might be the ridiculous rendition of what you like.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/PN/DSC1920-TP-HG.jpg
--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




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
PING: Tony Cooper Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 13 July 14th 16 06:01 PM
ping Tony Cooper PeterN[_4_] Digital Photography 2 March 8th 14 04:31 PM
Ping Tony Cooper PeterN[_4_] Digital Photography 27 October 19th 13 03:52 AM
PING: Tony Cooper Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 1 September 29th 11 07:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:58 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.