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

This bug you?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 14th 14, 04:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default This bug you?

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:11:45 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
: On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:12:23 -0800, Savageduck
: wrote:
:
: On 2014-02-06 14:19:27 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
:
: On 6 Feb 2014 13:50:22 GMT, Sandman wrote:
:
: In article , Tony Cooper
: wrote:
:
: A hardware store in Zephyr Hills FL on a rainy day.
:
: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...1-31-09-X2.jpg
:
: I find this pretty odd...
:
: Tony Cooper
: 50x and 60x zoom cameras
: 01/16/2014
:
: "No need for anything more in post unless someone wants to give it that
: hideous postcard HDR look."
:
: Tony Cooper
: Apple is purchasing Twitter analytics firm
: 12/10/2013
:
: "I've commented (usually somewhat negatively if they HDR)
: on the photographs of others who have linked to their images."
:
: It's not an HDR image. Just some tweaks in post using Photoshop.
:
: Every image presents a choice in post. In this case, the scene was
: interesting to me in subject matter, but a straight rendition seemed
: rather blah.
:
: My objection to the HDR look - which I agree this one has - is that
: HDR is too often used to make what could be a good photograph treated
: straight-up into one with the "hideous postcard look".
:
: My objection to inappropriately over cooked HDR is the over saturated
: and glowing "Kinkade" look, rather than what you call the "hideous
: postcard look". I feel that you get more of a "postcard look" from
: attempts to use Kodachrome or vivid Velvia simulations in post.
:
: Well, the difference between the "Kinkade look" and the "hideous
: postcard look" are just the choice of terms to describe something that
: not appealing to us.
:
: I'm older than you are, Duck, and from an era where a particular style
: of postcard was on every rack in every tourist destination. Garish
: images of mountains and beaches were the usual subject. That
: association has stayed with me. Kinkade came much later.
:
: Not that I wouldn't try the "postcard look"; just not the "hideous
: postcard look". Not all postcards had the same look. I'll try to
: come up with something that replicates the other postcard look, but
: not soon. I'm currently immersed in trying to master the Adobe
: Premiere Pro movie editing program to process some footage the
: grandchildren are making.
:
: This particular image has a look & feel of one which has had a fair
: amount of tonal contrast, or even tone mapping used in post, giving it
: a hardish, grunge look. That said, it has an interesting appeal, and I
: like it.
:
: Like I said, it's just a rather ordinary image tarted up to make it a
: little more interesting. Not all may agree that it's more interesting
: this way, but I like to experiment.

Out of curiosity, why did you make it a vertical? It feels cramped somehow.

Bob
  #2  
Old February 14th 14, 03:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default This bug you?

On 2/14/2014 12:21 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:57:06 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:


Out of curiosity, why did you make it a vertical? It feels cramped somehow.


The choice of landscape or portrait is usually determined - as it was
in this case - on what is wanted in the scene. Or, you might say,
what is not wanted in the scene.




When you shoot landscape, and use a standard ratio for the final
version, the width is determined by the height of what is to be
included. In landscape, to include the full front of the building, I
would have to extend the width of the composition to accommodate the
ratio. I normally crop to a 2:3 ratio.


For printing, I too usually use 2:3 or 1:1. For digital presentations, I
sometimes don't stick to the "standard" ratios.

It's possible, of course, to crop unrestrained and ignore the confines
of a standard ratio. I prefer not to unless the composition demands,
say, a 1:1 ratio.

When you see a "cramped" image from me, you can pretty much assume
that there were elements in the scene that I didn't want to include.



Have you tried cloning out, or blurring unwanted objects?



One of my "rules" for cropping is that you should see only what I want
you to see of the scene. You shouldn't be distracted by elements that
I don't think should be part of the image.

Here's an image from this past weekend that's "cramped". The shot
itself included the entire front of the vehicle. However, in post, I
decided that effect I wanted could be achieved with just this much of
the front:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty-...-08-19Z-X2.jpg


I can't put my finger on it, but something is bothering me about the
conversion.



In an unrestrained crop, I would have cut a little more off the bottom
and ended it just below the front bumper on the right.

Shot in the rain, by the way. The shine on the hood is because the
hood was wet.

From the same day, a wider shot but still somewhat cramped. I got
everything I wanted in this frame, though.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty-...-08-55Z-X2.jpg


Much better. Maybe you will get a W/A for Fathers Day.


Incidentally, that Buick was born the same year that I was. We are in
comparable shape.






--
PeterN
  #3  
Old February 15th 14, 04:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default This bug you?

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:21:13 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
: On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:57:06 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:11:45 -0500, Tony Cooper
: wrote:
: : On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:12:23 -0800, Savageduck
: : wrote:
: :
: : On 2014-02-06 14:19:27 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
: :
: : On 6 Feb 2014 13:50:22 GMT, Sandman wrote:
: :
: : In article , Tony Cooper
: : wrote:
: :
: : A hardware store in Zephyr Hills FL on a rainy day.
: :
: : http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...1-31-09-X2.jpg
: :
: : I find this pretty odd...
: :
: : Tony Cooper
: : 50x and 60x zoom cameras
: : 01/16/2014
: :
: : "No need for anything more in post unless someone wants to give it that
: : hideous postcard HDR look."
: :
: : Tony Cooper
: : Apple is purchasing Twitter analytics firm
: : 12/10/2013
: :
: : "I've commented (usually somewhat negatively if they HDR)
: : on the photographs of others who have linked to their images."
: :
: : It's not an HDR image. Just some tweaks in post using Photoshop.
: :
: : Every image presents a choice in post. In this case, the scene was
: : interesting to me in subject matter, but a straight rendition seemed
: : rather blah.
: :
: : My objection to the HDR look - which I agree this one has - is that
: : HDR is too often used to make what could be a good photograph treated
: : straight-up into one with the "hideous postcard look".
: :
: : My objection to inappropriately over cooked HDR is the over saturated
: : and glowing "Kinkade" look, rather than what you call the "hideous
: : postcard look". I feel that you get more of a "postcard look" from
: : attempts to use Kodachrome or vivid Velvia simulations in post.
: :
: : Well, the difference between the "Kinkade look" and the "hideous
: : postcard look" are just the choice of terms to describe something that
: : not appealing to us.
: :
: : I'm older than you are, Duck, and from an era where a particular style
: : of postcard was on every rack in every tourist destination. Garish
: : images of mountains and beaches were the usual subject. That
: : association has stayed with me. Kinkade came much later.
: :
: : Not that I wouldn't try the "postcard look"; just not the "hideous
: : postcard look". Not all postcards had the same look. I'll try to
: : come up with something that replicates the other postcard look, but
: : not soon. I'm currently immersed in trying to master the Adobe
: : Premiere Pro movie editing program to process some footage the
: : grandchildren are making.
: :
: : This particular image has a look & feel of one which has had a fair
: : amount of tonal contrast, or even tone mapping used in post, giving it
: : a hardish, grunge look. That said, it has an interesting appeal, and I
: : like it.
: :
: : Like I said, it's just a rather ordinary image tarted up to make it a
: : little more interesting. Not all may agree that it's more interesting
: : this way, but I like to experiment.
:
: Out of curiosity, why did you make it a vertical? It feels cramped somehow.
:
: The choice of landscape or portrait is usually determined - as it was
: in this case - on what is wanted in the scene. Or, you might say,
: what is not wanted in the scene.
:
: When you shoot landscape, and use a standard ratio for the final
: version, the width is determined by the height of what is to be
: included. In landscape, to include the full front of the building, I
: would have to extend the width of the composition to accommodate the
: ratio. I normally crop to a 2:3 ratio.
:
: It's possible, of course, to crop unrestrained and ignore the confines
: of a standard ratio. I prefer not to unless the composition demands,
: say, a 1:1 ratio.

There are times when a photo has to be cropped to a specific aspect ratio. I
often experience that when my photos are used on our Web site. But otherwise,
granting precedence to the standard, rather than to the composition, sounds
like the tail wagging the dog.

: When you see a "cramped" image from me, you can pretty much assume
: that there were elements in the scene that I didn't want to include.

Fair enough, but the ultimate requirement is to include the elements you want
to include *without* the picture looking cramped. Not that I'm claiming that
it's always easy to do.

: One of my "rules" for cropping is that you should see only what I want
: you to see of the scene. You shouldn't be distracted by elements that
: I don't think should be part of the image.

Sure, but that effectively rules out the a priori imposition of a standard
aspect ratio.

Don't get me wrong: I use standard aspect ratios when I can; and when I can't,
I try to at least use integral ratios. But except for the odd cases I alluded
to above, composition should take precedence. If a picture is really worth
hanging, you're probably going to have it professionally framed. And frame
shops don't care what aspect ratio you tell them to use.

: Here's an image from this past weekend that's "cramped". The shot
: itself included the entire front of the vehicle. However, in post, I
: decided that effect I wanted could be achieved with just this much of
: the front:
:
: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty-...-08-19Z-X2.jpg

I don't find that one cramped, because I see the logic of leaving out the
other headlight. The picture shows a radiator holding up a headlight as though
it were something in its hand; if the other light were shown, it would ruin
the effect.

: In an unrestrained crop, I would have cut a little more off the bottom
: and ended it just below the front bumper on the right.

I like it the way you did it and would not crop any more off the bottom.

: Shot in the rain, by the way. The shine on the hood is because the
: hood was wet.
:
: From the same day, a wider shot but still somewhat cramped. I got
: everything I wanted in this frame, though.
:
: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty-...-08-55Z-X2.jpg

I don't see that one as cramped at all.

: Incidentally, that Buick was born the same year that I was. We are in
: comparable shape.

Looks like I've got a year on you. But 1938 was an important year in my life,
because my parents never tired of regaling me with tales of the hurricane that
struck New England that year. I didn't remember any of it myself, of course.

Bob
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 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.