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
|
|||
|
|||
street infra red
On 6/24/2017 6:38 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 15:53:47 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 6/24/2017 1:14 AM, Savageduck wrote: snip That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost, mostly due to a poor choice in camera. As I stated earlier, the object of the shoot, which had ben planned a few weeks earlier, was to shoot IR. I used what I have. Whatever happened, we would shoot it. Yes we did have a model, but I was not at all happy with our model shoots. Was this a Deb Sandidge outing? No. But had she been available, it might have been. -- PeterN |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
street infra red
On 6/25/2017 3:57 AM, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 24 June 2017 12:30:57 UTC-4, PeterN wrote: On 6/24/2017 1:58 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:14:34 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote (in ): On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:21:37 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote (in ): On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote (in iganews.com): On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote (in article ): I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix. Got this street shot in the rain. Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0 Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the subject the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at the image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no matter how much you call it grain that isn’t grain. It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an old Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real difference. A great opportunity wasted. It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your FF Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400 there was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.) BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest, but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract, in my opinion. Actually the noise does detract for me. It’s that taste, and opinion thing again. Why would I have to add something? A change in what was done adds a new view of the original. Not an object. The subject, and the capture of the moment speak for themselves, all that is needed is some denoising. A little - just a little - dodging of the face might have improved the shot since her face seems to be a hidden asset in the shot. I'd like to see more of her expression. I suppose a few tweaks would be in order. You would prefer something such as this? https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8urdthvbsgr3tm/20170617_1923LE.jpeg No, that's over-done, it shows what there but makes it too noticeable. Maybe that's because I knew what was there before. I might not have noticed it as much if this had been the first version. Oh well... Personally, I prefer letting the photographer present *his* image as he sees it. I've never viewed photography as a group effort. That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost, mostly due to a poor choice in camera. It seems that what you are saying is that any image that does not meet with your approval is a "problem" image. I think there's a word for that. I don't know what Peter was up to that day, but I can understand going out with one camera and seeing what can be done with that camera that day. That's a rather good self-imposed challenge to any photographer. Years ago I went on a field trip with a pro photographer who made us use only a 50mm lens or, if we had only a zoom lens, we had to tape the lens at that setting. His instructions were to get the best photos possible with that lens. We probably had some lost opportunities because of lack of lens choice, but it was a good exercise in finding what would work under those conditions. I think Peter did exactly that. Peter could have carried the Coolpix, his Nikon, three lenses, his extension set, and still have "lost opportunities" in street shooting. The subjects don't tend to wait around in good poses while the photographer changes lenses or switches cameras. You hit the nail on the head. The plan that day was to shoot nothing but IR, and seeing what we would get. From a personal shooting point, I am thinking of converting my D300 to IR, and if so which near IR do I like best. When i put up the original image, I of course knew what the Duck's comment would be. -- PeterN It's a tough choice here. -Convert to an over-sensor IR filter, you can use a DSLR viewfinder still, but are restricted to black and white IR and only at the bandpass that particular filter allows. -Convert to a transparent over-sensor filter and use on-lens IR filters, you need a hotshoe viewfinder to "aim" the camera since you can't see through the filter to aim or focus. But at least you can vary the wavelenghts of the IR filters (750-1000+ nm). Also, you can shoot colour IR by leaving a lens filter off. Also, old manual lenses tend to work best with IR owing to their passing more IR light than new lenses, so "zone" focusing using the lens distance scale becomes important. Indeed there are a lot of considerations in doing an IR conversion. You have mentioned just some of them. The least expensive way would be to buy a filter, compose and focus then mount it in front of the lens for shooting. But that is not what I want to do. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Infra Red & Focusing | Bernard Rother[_2_] | Digital Photography | 3 | January 11th 08 12:05 PM |
Infra Red with an SLR | Dennis Frampton | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | August 12th 07 08:02 PM |
Infra-red | D.M. Procida | Digital SLR Cameras | 25 | April 7th 07 04:51 PM |
Using Infra red as an internet | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | April 16th 06 02:08 AM |
B+W 093 Infra Red Filter in UK? | Robert Austin | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | February 12th 05 03:37 AM |