On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:53:20 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:39:15 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:49:54 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
Took my time - composed, used the light meter, got it.

Unretouched - no post processing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C060213.bmp

Shot this morning while walking through my 100 Acre Woods.

Terrific side lighting, great tonality. I like it.

Yeah - I really liked the way that one turned out.

Here's the color version if you are interested.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C060213.JPG

I think due to the subdued light and pale colors, it's more successful in
grayscale. Luminosity trumps chroma on this one.

I just processed the hell out of it - everything except sharpness.

Not sure if it's any better or not. Certainly looks different than it
did when I shot it - not at all what I saw.

What do you think?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/..._processed.jpg

As a photograph that shows me what your woods look like, I like the second
color version. I think it's a better documentation of what the woods would
look like on a given day, even though I've never been there. But as an
object d'art, I prefer the grayscale image. It has major mood going for it.
For me, this photo is all about light and shadow. And removing the chroma
in this case removes all competition for attention to the luminosity.

That's a good way to describe it - I agree totally.

I've also took some shots with my pond in the background - I'll work
on those and see what you think of them. They will need some
adjustment as they didn't quite come out the way I wanted them to.

Needs some adjustment.

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:53:20 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:39:15 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:49:54 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Took my time - composed, used the light meter, got it.

Unretouched - no post processing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C060213.bmp

Shot this morning while walking through my 100 Acre Woods.

Terrific side lighting, great tonality. I like it.

Yeah - I really liked the way that one turned out.

Here's the color version if you are interested.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C060213.JPG

I think due to the subdued light and pale colors, it's more successful in
grayscale. Luminosity trumps chroma on this one.

I just processed the hell out of it - everything except sharpness.

Not sure if it's any better or not. Certainly looks different than it
did when I shot it - not at all what I saw.

What do you think?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/..._processed.jpg

As a photograph that shows me what your woods look like, I like the second
color version. I think it's a better documentation of what the woods would
look like on a given day, even though I've never been there. But as an
object d'art, I prefer the grayscale image. It has major mood going for it.
For me, this photo is all about light and shadow. And removing the chroma
in this case removes all competition for attention to the luminosity.


That's a good way to describe it - I agree totally.

I've also took some shots with my pond in the background - I'll work
on those and see what you think of them. They will need some
adjustment as they didn't quite come out the way I wanted them to.

Needs some adjustment.
Nice woods, good photos.

One small quibble, if you compare the file sizes of the as shot and
processed coluur images, you will see that the processed one is less
than half the size. Visually comparing a limited portion of the image
will show you how much detail you have lost. (e.g. There is a knot in
the trunk at X,Y 560,180 (from top left) and the bark has noticably less
texture in the processed version.)

while I'm nitpicking, whats with the BMP file? Odd choice of format for
either storage and processing (I tend to prefer TIFF for its lossless
compression and good portability accross the rather dated tools I use)
or internet use (non windows based browsers will probably choke on it).
If you want a lossless compressable format that is web friendly, why not
use PNG?

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:27:19 +0000, IanM
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:53:20 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:39:15 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:49:54 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Took my time - composed, used the light meter, got it.

Unretouched - no post processing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C060213.bmp

Shot this morning while walking through my 100 Acre Woods.

Terrific side lighting, great tonality. I like it.

Yeah - I really liked the way that one turned out.

Here's the color version if you are interested.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C060213.JPG

I think due to the subdued light and pale colors, it's more successful in
grayscale. Luminosity trumps chroma on this one.

I just processed the hell out of it - everything except sharpness.

Not sure if it's any better or not. Certainly looks different than it
did when I shot it - not at all what I saw.

What do you think?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/..._processed.jpg

As a photograph that shows me what your woods look like, I like the second
color version. I think it's a better documentation of what the woods would
look like on a given day, even though I've never been there. But as an
object d'art, I prefer the grayscale image. It has major mood going for it.
For me, this photo is all about light and shadow. And removing the chroma
in this case removes all competition for attention to the luminosity.


That's a good way to describe it - I agree totally.

I've also took some shots with my pond in the background - I'll work
on those and see what you think of them. They will need some
adjustment as they didn't quite come out the way I wanted them to.

Needs some adjustment.
Nice woods, good photos.

One small quibble, if you compare the file sizes of the as shot and
processed coluur images, you will see that the processed one is less
than half the size. Visually comparing a limited portion of the image
will show you how much detail you have lost. (e.g. There is a knot in
the trunk at X,Y 560,180 (from top left) and the bark has noticably less
texture in the processed version.)

I didn't convert the RAW version - I left it alone and just played
with the .jpeg (I shoot RAW & jpeg @ 1/2.7 - amazing how many images
you can stuff into a 4 gig compact flash card). Now that you mention
it, I will convert the RAW file and see what happens.

Plus, I'm working with a new program (to me - I have a very old
version of Photoshop) - Photoshop CS4 Extended and I may have screwed
up the conversion somehow.

while I'm nitpicking, whats with the BMP file? Odd choice of format for
either storage and processing (I tend to prefer TIFF for its lossless
compression and good portability accross the rather dated tools I use)
or internet use (non windows based browsers will probably choke on it).
If you want a lossless compressable format that is web friendly, why not
use PNG?

All good points - thank you.

I'm just experimenting - rediscovering my "muse" if you will - having
some fun and posting something that isn't post-election liberal angst
about Sarah Palin. :)

Thanks again - your comments were a great help.


--

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that
a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes
that it will also make better soup."

H.L. Mencken

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


All good points - thank you.

I'm just experimenting - rediscovering my "muse" if you will -

I always enjoy experimenting, trying to capture a mood. Since it was a
cloudy day yesterday, my wife wanted to go to an old cometary in
Atlanta, Oakwood Cometary.

I took a photo of a the reflection of a statue in a fountain. I played
with two methods of converting to Black and White. I was trying to
capture the moods of kids lost in the woods being surrounded by the evil
forest.

Let me know if you have a preference or if you think they both suck
equally as bad.

Option A
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n...tWoodsSoft.jpg

Option B
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n.../LostWoods.jpg

"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


All good points - thank you.

I'm just experimenting - rediscovering my "muse" if you will -

I always enjoy experimenting, trying to capture a mood. Since it was a
cloudy day yesterday, my wife wanted to go to an old cometary in Atlanta,
Oakwood Cometary.

I took a photo of a the reflection of a statue in a fountain. I played
with two methods of converting to Black and White. I was trying to
capture the moods of kids lost in the woods being surrounded by the evil
forest.

Let me know if you have a preference or if you think they both suck
equally as bad.

Option A
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n...tWoodsSoft.jpg

Option B
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n.../LostWoods.jpg


Option B.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

All good points - thank you.

I'm just experimenting - rediscovering my "muse" if you will -
I always enjoy experimenting, trying to capture a mood. Since it was a
cloudy day yesterday, my wife wanted to go to an old cometary in Atlanta,
Oakwood Cometary.

I took a photo of a the reflection of a statue in a fountain. I played
with two methods of converting to Black and White. I was trying to
capture the moods of kids lost in the woods being surrounded by the evil
forest.

Let me know if you have a preference or if you think they both suck
equally as bad.

Option A
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n...tWoodsSoft.jpg

Option B
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n.../LostWoods.jpg


Option B.

Eisboch



That is the same one I thought sucked less than the other one.

On Dec 7, 10:12*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:



All good points - thank you.

I'm just experimenting - rediscovering my "muse" if you will -

I always enjoy experimenting, trying to capture a mood. *Since it was a
cloudy day yesterday, my wife wanted to go to an old cometary in
Atlanta, Oakwood Cometary.

I took a photo of a the reflection of a statue in a fountain. *I played
with two methods of converting to Black and White. *I was trying to
capture the moods of kids lost in the woods being surrounded by the evil
forest.

Let me know if you have a preference or if you think they both suck
equally as bad.

Option Ahttp://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n451/AtlantaShots/LostWoodsSoft.jpg

Option Bhttp://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n451/AtlantaShots/LostWoods.jpg

Either. honestly, i can't tell much difference. The sharpness of the
statue is clear yet really dark on the features. and I'm not sure what
to make of the tree limbs in the background.

fuzzy doesn't describe them.

I won't say they suck, because you don't know what "suck" is until
you've seen my work.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:12:41 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


All good points - thank you.

I'm just experimenting - rediscovering my "muse" if you will -

I always enjoy experimenting, trying to capture a mood. Since it was a
cloudy day yesterday, my wife wanted to go to an old cometary in
Atlanta, Oakwood Cometary.

I took a photo of a the reflection of a statue in a fountain. I played
with two methods of converting to Black and White. I was trying to
capture the moods of kids lost in the woods being surrounded by the evil
forest.

Let me know if you have a preference or if you think they both suck
equally as bad.

Option A
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n...tWoodsSoft.jpg

Option B
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n.../LostWoods.jpg

When I first read your post, I did so quickly and missed the fact that they
were reflections. So I viewed them thinking that you had crouched in front
of the statue and taken the picture looking up at the kids.

My thought was, "Damn, neither of those are in focus worth a ****. He must
have gotten some drops of water on his lens."

But, in comparing the two side by side, I liked the sharper picture better
(Option B).

If I were to give any advice, it would be to show a little of the border of
the fountain, just so the context will be obvious. Otherwise, they look
like a photo taken looking up at the statue with poor focus, or water on
the lens.

Amateurish comment, I suppose, but there you go.
--
John H.