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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |