street infra red

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

Similar shooting conditions, playing with faux color:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/msin96zvnuv633m/20170617_1918%20lowered%20temp.jpg?dl=0

--
PeterN

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.)

Similar shooting conditions, playing with faux color:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/msin96zvnu...ed%20temp.jpg?
dl=0

Just not my thing.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

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


Similar shooting conditions, playing with faux color:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/msin96zvnu...ered%20temp.jp
g?
dl=0

Just not my thing.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

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?
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,
Savageduck

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.

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.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

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.

Not at all. I see photographs which I like immediately because they are
captured with technical skill, and all the elements of exposure, composition
and opportunity have met to form a pleasing photo. Then I see photos such as
Peter’s girl in the rain, which are great captures, but fail in areas which
are fixable. For me, that presents a challenge.

I think there's a word for that.

Probably.

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.

My photography basics have been rooted in single focal length cameras. My
1954 Brownie, my father’s C3, my first SLRs, both with 50mm lenses, and my
Yashica Electro 35 with its 45mm f/1.7. It has only been since entering the
world of the DSLR that I started using zoom lenses. Now with my move to
Fujifilm mirrorless I am returning to mostly using good quality primes, and
using my zooms when need to. It is challenging, fun, and satisfying to
restrict ones self in that way. It is interesting how different it is, going
out with only a 14mm, 23mm, or 35mm on your camera. You might have noticed,
my latest lens is a 23mm f/2.0, and my next lens is likely to be another
prime.

I think Peter did exactly that.

I wouldn’t really know what Peter’s intention was, other than using an IR
converted camera to make those captures. I just feel that the first shot he
shared was an opportunistic image with so much going for it, but ultimately
for me, a disappointment.
....and I know it is his work, his image, and his particular expression, but
he is still putting it out there, and I cannot avoid formulating my opinion.

As for his second shot, let’s just say, it is not my thing, and I
wouldn’t know what to do with it other than move on.

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.

I understand the concept of capturing the opportunistic image, and just how
fleeting those opportunities are.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

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?

It’s 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

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:18:10 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

Zoom in.

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?


It’s 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,
Savageduck