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

street infra red



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 24th 17, 03:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default street infra red

On 6/24/2017 9:26 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 24, 2017, Eric Stevens 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.


I am puzzled. I cannot see significant noise anywhere. Where do you
see it and what do you have to do to see it?


The noise is very conspicuous. Peter even adresses it in his OP when he says,
“Yes, I know it’s grainy...”.

Are you looking at Peters original image #1, or are you looking at one of my
de-noised renditions?



I did not remove any noise, because I did not want to. Here is an image
from a nearby location taken on a different day. To me it's nothing but
a picture postcard.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zfnoczxji8vmryu/bow%20bridge.jpg?dl=0

The faux color image, was processed by warming the RAW and the doing a
color channel switch. To my way of thinking one of the neat things about
photography is that there is no need for all of us to agree.

Having said that, when does photography end and digital art begin. Or
are we going back to the f64 discussions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/esqa284w6tmxt7s/_DSC6534%20distorted%20and%20turned.jpg?dl=0


--
PeterN
  #12  
Old June 24th 17, 03:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default street infra red

On 6/24/2017 12:23 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:30:51 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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


I like this photo. At the same time, I never would have known there
was any IR involved.


Thank you.

--
PeterN
  #13  
Old June 24th 17, 03:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default street infra red

On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

Snip

I did not remove any noise, because I did not want to.


That’s OK if you could pass the noise off for grain. However, with that
image the noise does not have the quality or character of genuine grain, or
pseudo grain digitally produced by apps such as NIK Silver Efex Pro2, or
Exposure X2.

Anyway, it is your image. It is a great capture of a perfect moment, which
for me is spoilt by the noise issue.

Here is an image from a nearby location taken on a different day. To me it's nothing but
a picture postcard.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zfnoczxji8vmryu/bow%20bridge.jpg?dl=0


Agreed. That is very much a postcard image. That said, sometimes postcard
images can be quite good.

The faux color image, was processed by warming the RAW and the doing a
color channel switch. To my way of thinking one of the neat things about
photography is that there is no need for all of us to agree.


....and my response just proves that point.

Having said that, when does photography end and digital art begin. Or
are we going back to the f64 discussions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/esqa284w6t...20and%20turned
.jpg?dl=0


Personal taste is the overriding factor here. That sort of image is not in my
photography wheelhouse, and is just way too gimmicky, and obviously heavily
stepped on with process for me.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #14  
Old June 24th 17, 05:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default street infra red

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
  #15  
Old June 24th 17, 06:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default street infra red

On 6/24/2017 10:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

Snip

I did not remove any noise, because I did not want to.


That’s OK if you could pass the noise off for grain. However, with that
image the noise does not have the quality or character of genuine grain, or
pseudo grain digitally produced by apps such as NIK Silver Efex Pro2, or
Exposure X2.

Anyway, it is your image. It is a great capture of a perfect moment, which
for me is spoilt by the noise issue.

Here is an image from a nearby location taken on a different day. To me it's nothing but
a picture postcard.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zfnoczxji8vmryu/bow%20bridge.jpg?dl=0


Agreed. That is very much a postcard image. That said, sometimes postcard
images can be quite good.

The faux color image, was processed by warming the RAW and the doing a
color channel switch. To my way of thinking one of the neat things about
photography is that there is no need for all of us to agree.


...and my response just proves that point.

Having said that, when does photography end and digital art begin. Or
are we going back to the f64 discussions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/esqa284w6t...20and%20turned
.jpg?dl=0


Personal taste is the overriding factor here. That sort of image is not in my
photography wheelhouse, and is just way too gimmicky, and obviously heavily
stepped on with process for me.


Different personal tastes makes life far more interesting. When we first
moved into our co-op management wanted everybody to have exactly the
same flowers in front on the house. (Begonias.) I fully complied and
planted Rieger, Picotee and Rose Begonias, even though everybody else
planted ordinary wax begonias. Our idiot board didn't know they were
begonias, and the sent me a nasty letter of non-compliance. I simply
sent a catalog page. That was the end of uniform planting.





--
PeterN
  #16  
Old June 24th 17, 08:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default street infra red

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.



--
PeterN
  #17  
Old June 24th 17, 09:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default street infra red

On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

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.


You had a model!
So this wasn’t exactly street, or candid photography, but an
arranged/planned club, or whatever outing. Now did you say you were not happy
with the groups’ model shots, does that mean the girl in your image
wasn’t a model?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #18  
Old June 24th 17, 10:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default street infra red

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:26:17 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 24, 2017, Eric Stevens 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 isnt 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 isnt 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.


I am puzzled. I cannot see significant noise anywhere. Where do you
see it and what do you have to do to see it?


The noise is very conspicuous. Peter even adresses it in his OP when he says,
Yes, I know its grainy....


He also said he anticipated your criticism. In fact, the noise only
becomes conspicuous at 100% although if you peer you can see it at
66%. At 53% the image has a texture comparable with the output of a
35mm camera.

Are you looking at Peters original image #1, or are you looking at one of my
de-noised renditions?


Looking at the original. I agree that de-noising is an improvement but
then the same applies to many famous B&W shots from the past.


Its that taste, and opinion thing
again.
Why would I have to add something?
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

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #19  
Old June 25th 17, 12:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default street infra red

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 07:46:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

Snip

I did not remove any noise, because I did not want to.


Thats OK if you could pass the noise off for grain. However, with that
image the noise does not have the quality or character of genuine grain, or
pseudo grain digitally produced by apps such as NIK Silver Efex Pro2, or
Exposure X2.

Anyway, it is your image. It is a great capture of a perfect moment, which
for me is spoilt by the noise issue.


But grain is but another form of noise, inherent in the film
technology. It has become so accepted that in many cases it is now
regarded as an essential part of the image. Why should digital noise
be considered unacceptable and chemical be considered desirable?

Here is an image from a nearby location taken on a different day. To me it's nothing but
a picture postcard.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zfnoczxji8vmryu/bow%20bridge.jpg?dl=0


Agreed. That is very much a postcard image. That said, sometimes postcard
images can be quite good.

The faux color image, was processed by warming the RAW and the doing a
color channel switch. To my way of thinking one of the neat things about
photography is that there is no need for all of us to agree.


...and my response just proves that point.


ditto. :-)

Having said that, when does photography end and digital art begin. Or
are we going back to the f64 discussions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/esqa284w6tmxt7s/_DSC6534%20distorted%20and%20turned.jpg?dl=0


Personal taste is the overriding factor here. That sort of image is not in my
photography wheelhouse, and is just way too gimmicky, and obviously heavily
stepped on with process for me.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #20  
Old June 25th 17, 03:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default street infra red

On 6/24/2017 4:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

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.


You had a model!
So this wasn’t exactly street, or candid photography, but an
arranged/planned club, or whatever outing. Now did you say you were not happy
with the groups’ model shots, does that mean the girl in your image
wasn’t a model?


The girls in my posted image shots were not models. Yes, We had a model,
but few of us were happy with the results. No model shots have been
posted, and most likely will be deleted,m at least by me.

--
PeterN
 




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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 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.