| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Atlanta Sunset
The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta.
I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB |
Atlanta Sunset
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Surreal.... |
Atlanta Sunset
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Looks artificial. |
Atlanta Sunset
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Looks artificial. I should add that I am not a fan of photos depicting nature as it is not. I take lots of landscape and nature photos, but I never try to manipulate photos so they don't look like what my eyes see. |
Atlanta Sunset
HK wrote:
HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Looks artificial. I should add that I am not a fan of photos depicting nature as it is not. I take lots of landscape and nature photos, but I never try to manipulate photos so they don't look like what my eyes see. Thanks for your feedback. |
Atlanta Sunset
HK wrote:
HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Looks artificial. I should add that I am not a fan of photos depicting nature as it is not. I take lots of landscape and nature photos, but I never try to manipulate photos so they don't look like what my eyes see. That is definitely a common school of thought in photography. Here is the same photo processing it to look more natural. Shooting into the sun will result in loosing the all detail in the foreground, so I have been playing with HDR and Photoshop to extract the foreground detail. I really can't decided if I like the HDR yet, but I do enjoy experimenting. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/279...92789669cZfGwh |
Atlanta Sunset
On Dec 7, 3:16 pm, HK wrote:
HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Looks artificial. I should add that I am not a fan of photos depicting nature as it is not. I take lots of landscape and nature photos, but I never try to manipulate photos so they don't look like what my eyes see. Well, of course! But in photography classes they do tend to teach you to manipulate photos, it's called art. |
Atlanta Sunset
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Great photo! Thanks, it is definitely a different process combining a the same photo using different exposures. It allows a much wider dynamic range from the shadows to the light, but it does give it a surreal look. |
Atlanta Sunset
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. HK wrote: HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Looks artificial. I should add that I am not a fan of photos depicting nature as it is not. I take lots of landscape and nature photos, but I never try to manipulate photos so they don't look like what my eyes see. That is definitely a common school of thought in photography. Here is the same photo processing it to look more natural. Shooting into the sun will result in loosing the all detail in the foreground, so I have been playing with HDR and Photoshop to extract the foreground detail. I really can't decided if I like the HDR yet, but I do enjoy experimenting. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/279...92789669cZfGwh Very nice |
Atlanta Sunset
wrote in message ... On Dec 7, 3:16 pm, HK wrote: HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Looks artificial. I should add that I am not a fan of photos depicting nature as it is not. I take lots of landscape and nature photos, but I never try to manipulate photos so they don't look like what my eyes see. Well, of course! But in photography classes they do tend to teach you to manipulate photos, it's called art. All photos are manipulated to some extent, it's just a matter of personal opinion on how much is too much. |
Atlanta Sunset
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB I know what you tried to do, but frankly, it's not very good. To start with, it's way over sharpened. Viewed in it's original size, you can see where the over sharpening detracts from the intended effect. Looking at the hotel windows on the left and right, you can see where it's over pixalated and the bleed through ruins the effect. On the right where the squared towers, you see ghost pixels which is also indicative of over sharpening. You can also see this bleed through in the two curves arches - in fact, the one on the left goes from white through green. There is also an exposure problem in which the wrong areas were highlighted. What I might have done in this instance was to take double the exposures, maybe even triple the exposures to obtain the necessary dynamic range for processing focusing on the different light zones - longer for the bottom third, a tad shorter for the middle zone and shorter for the top zone. This is largely a shutter speed photo as compared to an aperture size photo - meaning that the shutter/aperture is more important than the aperture/shutter relationship. So, to put it down in one sentence, three zones, three exposures times three, color correct slightly to compensate for the different light levels, noise process (Noise Ninja is the way to go), then HDR combining the best of the exposures. It would be a much better image that way. |
Atlanta Sunset
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Great shot! --Vic |
Atlanta Sunset
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote: HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Looks artificial. I should add that I am not a fan of photos depicting nature as it is not. I take lots of landscape and nature photos, but I never try to manipulate photos so they don't look like what my eyes see. That is definitely a common school of thought in photography. Here is the same photo processing it to look more natural. Shooting into the sun will result in loosing the all detail in the foreground, so I have been playing with HDR and Photoshop to extract the foreground detail. I really can't decided if I like the HDR yet, but I do enjoy experimenting. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/279...92789669cZfGwh I like the less processed one better. |
Atlanta Sunset
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB I know what you tried to do, but frankly, it's not very good. To start with, it's way over sharpened. Viewed in it's original size, you can see where the over sharpening detracts from the intended effect. Looking at the hotel windows on the left and right, you can see where it's over pixalated and the bleed through ruins the effect. On the right where the squared towers, you see ghost pixels which is also indicative of over sharpening. You can also see this bleed through in the two curves arches - in fact, the one on the left goes from white through green. There is also an exposure problem in which the wrong areas were highlighted. What I might have done in this instance was to take double the exposures, maybe even triple the exposures to obtain the necessary dynamic range for processing focusing on the different light zones - longer for the bottom third, a tad shorter for the middle zone and shorter for the top zone. This is largely a shutter speed photo as compared to an aperture size photo - meaning that the shutter/aperture is more important than the aperture/shutter relationship. So, to put it down in one sentence, three zones, three exposures times three, color correct slightly to compensate for the different light levels, noise process (Noise Ninja is the way to go), then HDR combining the best of the exposures. It would be a much better image that way. Thanks, I will give it a try. |
Atlanta Sunset
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB I know what you tried to do, but frankly, it's not very good. To start with, it's way over sharpened. Viewed in it's original size, you can see where the over sharpening detracts from the intended effect. Looking at the hotel windows on the left and right, you can see where it's over pixalated and the bleed through ruins the effect. On the right where the squared towers, you see ghost pixels which is also indicative of over sharpening. You can also see this bleed through in the two curves arches - in fact, the one on the left goes from white through green. There is also an exposure problem in which the wrong areas were highlighted. What I might have done in this instance was to take double the exposures, maybe even triple the exposures to obtain the necessary dynamic range for processing focusing on the different light zones - longer for the bottom third, a tad shorter for the middle zone and shorter for the top zone. This is largely a shutter speed photo as compared to an aperture size photo - meaning that the shutter/aperture is more important than the aperture/shutter relationship. So, to put it down in one sentence, three zones, three exposures times three, color correct slightly to compensate for the different light levels, noise process (Noise Ninja is the way to go), then HDR combining the best of the exposures. It would be a much better image that way. Thanks, I will give it a try. Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. |
Atlanta Sunset
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB I know what you tried to do, but frankly, it's not very good. To start with, it's way over sharpened. Viewed in it's original size, you can see where the over sharpening detracts from the intended effect. Looking at the hotel windows on the left and right, you can see where it's over pixalated and the bleed through ruins the effect. On the right where the squared towers, you see ghost pixels which is also indicative of over sharpening. You can also see this bleed through in the two curves arches - in fact, the one on the left goes from white through green. There is also an exposure problem in which the wrong areas were highlighted. What I might have done in this instance was to take double the exposures, maybe even triple the exposures to obtain the necessary dynamic range for processing focusing on the different light zones - longer for the bottom third, a tad shorter for the middle zone and shorter for the top zone. This is largely a shutter speed photo as compared to an aperture size photo - meaning that the shutter/aperture is more important than the aperture/shutter relationship. So, to put it down in one sentence, three zones, three exposures times three, color correct slightly to compensate for the different light levels, noise process (Noise Ninja is the way to go), then HDR combining the best of the exposures. It would be a much better image that way. Thanks, I will give it a try. Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. Why can't it be done by tweaking a photograph? Aren't the end results the same? It's a matter of taste, I suppose. If I want impressionism, I go to an art gallery and look at paintings. |
Atlanta Sunset
"HK" wrote in message ... Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. My worthless opinion? I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape. The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing. This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore. Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental health doctor or therapist. No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion. Eisboch |
Atlanta Sunset
"D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. My worthless opinion? I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape. The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing. This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore. Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental health doctor or therapist. No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion. Eisboch BTW, what is your opinion? :) about what? Eisboch |
Atlanta Sunset
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. My worthless opinion? I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape. The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing. This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore. Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental health doctor or therapist. No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion. Eisboch BTW, what is your opinion? :) |
Atlanta Sunset
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. My worthless opinion? I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape. The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing. This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore. Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental health doctor or therapist. No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion. Eisboch BTW, what is your opinion? :) about what? Eisboch Disclaimers :) |
Atlanta Sunset
"D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. My worthless opinion? I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape. The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing. This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore. Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental health doctor or therapist. No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion. Eisboch BTW, what is your opinion? :) about what? Eisboch Disclaimers :) I got cut off. Couldn't type fast enough. My opinion may cause rare but severe reactions including, but not limited to, headache, constipation, liver damage and four hour erections. Stop considering my opinion and seek medical advice should you experience any of these symptoms. Eisboch |
Atlanta Sunset
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. My worthless opinion? I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape. The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing. This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore. Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental health doctor or therapist. No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion. Eisboch Eisboch, Thanks for the comment, and I too disagree with Harry about a photograph should be limited to "You are there" or "Postcard" record of a scenic view. If I limited myself to this kind of photography, I would get bored very quickly. The best photos I have seen have been manipulated in some fashion, either by perspective, a very unique angle, shutter speed (to enrich the colors or blur all or part of the photo, using the aperture to change the depth of field, deliberately blurring part or all of the scene (by moving the camera or zooming the lens while using a slow shutter speed, HDR or other post processing techniques. That was the reason I found SWS comments so interesting and helpful. He didn't disagree with my concept, but my execution of the concept. Since I am really a novice at all of this, I am very interested in ideas that will help me move along in my skills. I do have a problem with over sharping images, and that was my first attempt at using Photomatrix to develop an HDR photo. I play on redoing this photo using SWS suggestions. I actually processed this HDR from one photo shot in RAW, and adjusted the exposure and brightness in post processing, saving the photo in PSD and then combining them using Photomatrix. The fact that I disagree with Harry's opinion of photography, does not mean I didn't appreciate it. I did ask for his opinion, partly because I knew Harry would have a definite opinion and would not pull any punches. I also hoped his response would generate more comments. He is not alone in thinking photography should be limited to the "You are there" style. While I know I am a novice, I also know there are many people who don't like Picasso and Pollock, so if I ask for comments I have to expect many will not like my work. |
Atlanta Sunset
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. My worthless opinion? I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape. The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing. This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore. Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental health doctor or therapist. No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion. Eisboch BTW, what is your opinion? :) about what? Eisboch Disclaimers :) I got cut off. Couldn't type fast enough. My opinion may cause rare but severe reactions including, but not limited to, headache, constipation, liver damage and four hour erections. Stop considering my opinion and seek medical advice should you experience any of these symptoms. Eisboch Four hours, hmmmmm. Where were you when I was younger? :) |
Atlanta Sunset
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch, Thanks for the comment, and I too disagree with Harry about a photograph should be limited to "You are there" or "Postcard" record of a scenic view. If I limited myself to this kind of photography, I would get bored very quickly. The best photos I have seen have been manipulated in some fashion, either by perspective, a very unique angle, shutter speed (to enrich the colors or blur all or part of the photo, using the aperture to change the depth of field, deliberately blurring part or all of the scene (by moving the camera or zooming the lens while using a slow shutter speed, HDR or other post processing techniques. You "misunderstood" my comment. I often change perspective, angle, shutter speed or aperture myself, but when I do, I am still looking for a photo found in nature. |
Atlanta Sunset
D.Duck wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. My worthless opinion? I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape. The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing. This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore. Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental health doctor or therapist. No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion. Eisboch BTW, what is your opinion? :) about what? Eisboch Disclaimers :) I got cut off. Couldn't type fast enough. My opinion may cause rare but severe reactions including, but not limited to, headache, constipation, liver damage and four hour erections. Stop considering my opinion and seek medical advice should you experience any of these symptoms. Eisboch Four hours, hmmmmm. Where were you when I was younger? :) This is when you need it. When I was younger 4 hours was nothing. Heck, when I was younger, I could go all night. ;) |
Atlanta Sunset
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should look. My worthless opinion? I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape. The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing. This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore. Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental health doctor or therapist. No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion. Eisboch Eisboch, Thanks for the comment, and I too disagree with Harry about a photograph should be limited to "You are there" or "Postcard" record of a scenic view. If I limited myself to this kind of photography, I would get bored very quickly. The best photos I have seen have been manipulated in some fashion, either by perspective, a very unique angle, shutter speed (to enrich the colors or blur all or part of the photo, using the aperture to change the depth of field, deliberately blurring part or all of the scene (by moving the camera or zooming the lens while using a slow shutter speed, HDR or other post processing techniques. That was the reason I found SWS comments so interesting and helpful. He didn't disagree with my concept, but my execution of the concept. Since I am really a novice at all of this, I am very interested in ideas that will help me move along in my skills. I do have a problem with over sharping images, and that was my first attempt at using Photomatrix to develop an HDR photo. I play on redoing this photo using SWS suggestions. I actually processed this HDR from one photo shot in RAW, and adjusted the exposure and brightness in post processing, saving the photo in PSD and then combining them using Photomatrix. The fact that I disagree with Harry's opinion of photography, does not mean I didn't appreciate it. I did ask for his opinion, partly because I knew Harry would have a definite opinion and would not pull any punches. I also hoped his response would generate more comments. He is not alone in thinking photography should be limited to the "You are there" style. While I know I am a novice, I also know there are many people who don't like Picasso and Pollock, so if I ask for comments I have to expect many will not like my work. A wise old sage once said, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". |
Atlanta Sunset
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Eisboch, Thanks for the comment, and I too disagree with Harry about a photograph should be limited to "You are there" or "Postcard" record of a scenic view. If I limited myself to this kind of photography, I would get bored very quickly. The best photos I have seen have been manipulated in some fashion, either by perspective, a very unique angle, shutter speed (to enrich the colors or blur all or part of the photo, using the aperture to change the depth of field, deliberately blurring part or all of the scene (by moving the camera or zooming the lens while using a slow shutter speed, HDR or other post processing techniques. You "misunderstood" my comment. I often change perspective, angle, shutter speed or aperture myself, but when I do, I am still looking for a photo found in nature. Thanks for the clarification, and you were correct, my photo was definitely not what one would see in the real world. |
Atlanta Sunset
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote: You "misunderstood" my comment. I often change perspective, angle, shutter speed or aperture myself, but when I do, I am still looking for a photo found in nature. Thanks for the clarification, and you were correct, my photo was definitely not what one would see in the real world. PS - I also take some photos that are found in natu http://community.webshots.com/album/561702755BFhzVR |
Atlanta Sunset
Eisboch, Thanks for the comment, and I too disagree with Harry about a photograph should be limited to "You are there" or "Postcard" record of a scenic view. If I limited myself to this kind of photography, I would get bored very quickly. The best photos I have seen have been manipulated in some fashion, either by perspective, a very unique angle, shutter speed (to enrich the colors or blur all or part of the photo, using the aperture to change the depth of field, deliberately blurring part or all of the scene (by moving the camera or zooming the lens while using a slow shutter speed, HDR or other post processing techniques. That was the reason I found SWS comments so interesting and helpful. He didn't disagree with my concept, but my execution of the concept. Since I am really a novice at all of this, I am very interested in ideas that will help me move along in my skills. I do have a problem with over sharping images, and that was my first attempt at using Photomatrix to develop an HDR photo. I play on redoing this photo using SWS suggestions. I actually processed this HDR from one photo shot in RAW, and adjusted the exposure and brightness in post processing, saving the photo in PSD and then combining them using Photomatrix. Reg- I always enjoy viewing your photos. I've posted a few of my Photomatix HDR experiments "over there" for your review. RG |
Atlanta Sunset
RG wrote:
Eisboch, Thanks for the comment, and I too disagree with Harry about a photograph should be limited to "You are there" or "Postcard" record of a scenic view. If I limited myself to this kind of photography, I would get bored very quickly. The best photos I have seen have been manipulated in some fashion, either by perspective, a very unique angle, shutter speed (to enrich the colors or blur all or part of the photo, using the aperture to change the depth of field, deliberately blurring part or all of the scene (by moving the camera or zooming the lens while using a slow shutter speed, HDR or other post processing techniques. That was the reason I found SWS comments so interesting and helpful. He didn't disagree with my concept, but my execution of the concept. Since I am really a novice at all of this, I am very interested in ideas that will help me move along in my skills. I do have a problem with over sharping images, and that was my first attempt at using Photomatrix to develop an HDR photo. I play on redoing this photo using SWS suggestions. I actually processed this HDR from one photo shot in RAW, and adjusted the exposure and brightness in post processing, saving the photo in PSD and then combining them using Photomatrix. Reg- I always enjoy viewing your photos. I've posted a few of my Photomatix HDR experiments "over there" for your review. RG RG, All I have to say is WOW, DAMN NICE. It is obvious I need to improve my skills. |
Atlanta Sunset
RG,
All I have to say is WOW, DAMN NICE. It is obvious I need to improve my skills. Thanks. Have you taken a look at Capture NX yet? I started using it a few months ago, and it quickly became my raw converter and image editor of choice. I now do all of my raw conversion and most of my editing in CNX, only going to Photoshop when I need to use some specialized tools that are unique to Photoshop. For someone who shoots Nikon raw files, CNX has a lot to offer. |
Atlanta Sunset
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:03:46 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message ... The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta. I am interested in any feedback. Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your feedback too. http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB Surreal.... That it is. The image is striking, no question about it, but has an unnatural quality to it. I guess it depends on what kind of effect you were trying to achieve. |
Atlanta Sunset
RG wrote:
RG, All I have to say is WOW, DAMN NICE. It is obvious I need to improve my skills. Thanks. Have you taken a look at Capture NX yet? I started using it a few months ago, and it quickly became my raw converter and image editor of choice. I now do all of my raw conversion and most of my editing in CNX, only going to Photoshop when I need to use some specialized tools that are unique to Photoshop. For someone who shoots Nikon raw files, CNX has a lot to offer. I am using Lightroom for Raw Conversations, do you know the difference between Lightroom and Capture NX? |
Atlanta Sunset
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
RG wrote: RG, All I have to say is WOW, DAMN NICE. It is obvious I need to improve my skills. Thanks. Have you taken a look at Capture NX yet? I started using it a few months ago, and it quickly became my raw converter and image editor of choice. I now do all of my raw conversion and most of my editing in CNX, only going to Photoshop when I need to use some specialized tools that are unique to Photoshop. For someone who shoots Nikon raw files, CNX has a lot to offer. I am using Lightroom for Raw Conversations, do you know the difference between Lightroom and Capture NX? Hmmm. Many people prefer to have their "raw conversations" in a more dimly lit room. |
Atlanta Sunset
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. RG wrote: RG, All I have to say is WOW, DAMN NICE. It is obvious I need to improve my skills. Thanks. Have you taken a look at Capture NX yet? I started using it a few months ago, and it quickly became my raw converter and image editor of choice. I now do all of my raw conversion and most of my editing in CNX, only going to Photoshop when I need to use some specialized tools that are unique to Photoshop. For someone who shoots Nikon raw files, CNX has a lot to offer. I am using Lightroom for Raw Conversations, do you know the difference between Lightroom and Capture NX? The difference is night and day. A completely different paradigm in raw conversion. Lightroom uses the Adobe Camera Raw engine, the same as PhotoShop and Elements. The only in-camera setting that Adobe has direct access to and can change is the white balance setting. In NX, since it is a Nikon product, you can access and change any of the optimization settings such as tone, sharpening and color space. This means that NX will at first render the image using the settings that were in place in the camera at the time of exposure, something that ACR can't do. From there, you can change them ex post facto. For instance, I like to use in-camera sharpening to aid in viewing shots on the camera's LCD for immediate review. But once I open the image in NX, I turn off in-camera sharpening and do my sharpening in NX. To me, the interface of the NX raw converter is much easier to deal with than the ACR interface. I also get much better colors out of the NX converter. But best of all, from the perspective of raw files, is how the edits are handled within the NEF file. All conversion settings and further edits are saved non-destructively right in the NEF file. At first glance, it might not be obvious how huge this is, but trust me, it's big. In ACR once you convert a NEF file, you import it into PS or LR, do your edits from there, and then save the file in whatever format you choose. If you ever want to revisit the NEF file again and process it differently, you have to start completely from scratch. In NX, the conversion settings and further edits are saved as a list of instructions inside the NEF file. The concept is sort of like a combination of layers and the history palette in PS. Any time you subsequently open the NEF file, all of your conversion settings and edits are in place,and any of them can be altered or deleted as you see fit. This means that you can pick right up where you left off and do a minor modification or revert the file back to its original state and start over from scratch, or anything in between. You can even save multiple versions of a photo inside the original NEF file. Again, the actual pixel data is never modified, only a set of instructions on how to manipulate and render those pixels is added to the file. This means that inside the NEF file the original pixel data is always there and immediately available, but in addition, I might have a full-sized full resolution version as well as a cropped version with a completely different size and DPI resolution saved within the NEF file. All I am doing is saving different instruction sets within the original file. Everything is non-destructive. After the raw conversion is done, the other thing that is way cool is the color control points, a technology created by Nik Software. Using this technology, I can make local changes to a photo in a snap that would take forever in PhotoShop. It's very difficult to explain how these control points work, you almost need to see them in action. To that end, I direct you to the NX web site and encourage you to download the 30-day free trial. Make sure you watch the flash demo of the color control point on the sky. The program is a fairly small download, and is fully functional for 30 days. I was hooked almost right away. If you do this, I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. http://www.capturenx.com/ Here's a link to a good eBook that is available for NX. Jason is an active participant at Nikonians. http://www.luminescentphoto.com/capturenx.html RG |
Atlanta Sunset
"RG" wrote in message .. . Eisboch, Thanks for the comment, and I too disagree with Harry about a photograph should be limited to "You are there" or "Postcard" record of a scenic view. If I limited myself to this kind of photography, I would get bored very quickly. The best photos I have seen have been manipulated in some fashion, either by perspective, a very unique angle, shutter speed (to enrich the colors or blur all or part of the photo, using the aperture to change the depth of field, deliberately blurring part or all of the scene (by moving the camera or zooming the lens while using a slow shutter speed, HDR or other post processing techniques. That was the reason I found SWS comments so interesting and helpful. He didn't disagree with my concept, but my execution of the concept. Since I am really a novice at all of this, I am very interested in ideas that will help me move along in my skills. I do have a problem with over sharping images, and that was my first attempt at using Photomatrix to develop an HDR photo. I play on redoing this photo using SWS suggestions. I actually processed this HDR from one photo shot in RAW, and adjusted the exposure and brightness in post processing, saving the photo in PSD and then combining them using Photomatrix. Reg- I always enjoy viewing your photos. I've posted a few of my Photomatix HDR experiments "over there" for your review. RG Very nice.... |
Atlanta Sunset
RG wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. RG wrote: RG, All I have to say is WOW, DAMN NICE. It is obvious I need to improve my skills. Thanks. Have you taken a look at Capture NX yet? I started using it a few months ago, and it quickly became my raw converter and image editor of choice. I now do all of my raw conversion and most of my editing in CNX, only going to Photoshop when I need to use some specialized tools that are unique to Photoshop. For someone who shoots Nikon raw files, CNX has a lot to offer. I am using Lightroom for Raw Conversations, do you know the difference between Lightroom and Capture NX? The difference is night and day. A completely different paradigm in raw conversion. Lightroom uses the Adobe Camera Raw engine, the same as PhotoShop and Elements. The only in-camera setting that Adobe has direct access to and can change is the white balance setting. In NX, since it is a Nikon product, you can access and change any of the optimization settings such as tone, sharpening and color space. This means that NX will at first render the image using the settings that were in place in the camera at the time of exposure, something that ACR can't do. From there, you can change them ex post facto. For instance, I like to use in-camera sharpening to aid in viewing shots on the camera's LCD for immediate review. But once I open the image in NX, I turn off in-camera sharpening and do my sharpening in NX. To me, the interface of the NX raw converter is much easier to deal with than the ACR interface. I also get much better colors out of the NX converter. But best of all, from the perspective of raw files, is how the edits are handled within the NEF file. All conversion settings and further edits are saved non-destructively right in the NEF file. At first glance, it might not be obvious how huge this is, but trust me, it's big. In ACR once you convert a NEF file, you import it into PS or LR, do your edits from there, and then save the file in whatever format you choose. If you ever want to revisit the NEF file again and process it differently, you have to start completely from scratch. In NX, the conversion settings and further edits are saved as a list of instructions inside the NEF file. The concept is sort of like a combination of layers and the history palette in PS. Any time you subsequently open the NEF file, all of your conversion settings and edits are in place,and any of them can be altered or deleted as you see fit. This means that you can pick right up where you left off and do a minor modification or revert the file back to its original state and start over from scratch, or anything in between. You can even save multiple versions of a photo inside the original NEF file. Again, the actual pixel data is never modified, only a set of instructions on how to manipulate and render those pixels is added to the file. This means that inside the NEF file the original pixel data is always there and immediately available, but in addition, I might have a full-sized full resolution version as well as a cropped version with a completely different size and DPI resolution saved within the NEF file. All I am doing is saving different instruction sets within the original file. Everything is non-destructive. After the raw conversion is done, the other thing that is way cool is the color control points, a technology created by Nik Software. Using this technology, I can make local changes to a photo in a snap that would take forever in PhotoShop. It's very difficult to explain how these control points work, you almost need to see them in action. To that end, I direct you to the NX web site and encourage you to download the 30-day free trial. Make sure you watch the flash demo of the color control point on the sky. The program is a fairly small download, and is fully functional for 30 days. I was hooked almost right away. If you do this, I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. http://www.capturenx.com/ Here's a link to a good eBook that is available for NX. Jason is an active participant at Nikonians. http://www.luminescentphoto.com/capturenx.html RG Thanks, I will do that. |
Atlanta Sunset
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:41:34 GMT, "RG" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message ... RG wrote: RG, All I have to say is WOW, DAMN NICE. It is obvious I need to improve my skills. Thanks. Have you taken a look at Capture NX yet? I started using it a few months ago, and it quickly became my raw converter and image editor of choice. I now do all of my raw conversion and most of my editing in CNX, only going to Photoshop when I need to use some specialized tools that are unique to Photoshop. For someone who shoots Nikon raw files, CNX has a lot to offer. I am using Lightroom for Raw Conversations, do you know the difference between Lightroom and Capture NX? The difference is night and day. A completely different paradigm in raw conversion. Lightroom uses the Adobe Camera Raw engine, the same as PhotoShop and Elements. The only in-camera setting that Adobe has direct access to and can change is the white balance setting. In NX, since it is a Nikon product, you can access and change any of the optimization settings such as tone, sharpening and color space. This means that NX will at first render the image using the settings that were in place in the camera at the time of exposure, something that ACR can't do. From there, you can change them ex post facto. For instance, I like to use in-camera sharpening to aid in viewing shots on the camera's LCD for immediate review. But once I open the image in NX, I turn off in-camera sharpening and do my sharpening in NX. To me, the interface of the NX raw converter is much easier to deal with than the ACR interface. I also get much better colors out of the NX converter. But best of all, from the perspective of raw files, is how the edits are handled within the NEF file. All conversion settings and further edits are saved non-destructively right in the NEF file. At first glance, it might not be obvious how huge this is, but trust me, it's big. In ACR once you convert a NEF file, you import it into PS or LR, do your edits from there, and then save the file in whatever format you choose. If you ever want to revisit the NEF file again and process it differently, you have to start completely from scratch. In NX, the conversion settings and further edits are saved as a list of instructions inside the NEF file. The concept is sort of like a combination of layers and the history palette in PS. Any time you subsequently open the NEF file, all of your conversion settings and edits are in place,and any of them can be altered or deleted as you see fit. This means that you can pick right up where you left off and do a minor modification or revert the file back to its original state and start over from scratch, or anything in between. You can even save multiple versions of a photo inside the original NEF file. Again, the actual pixel data is never modified, only a set of instructions on how to manipulate and render those pixels is added to the file. This means that inside the NEF file the original pixel data is always there and immediately available, but in addition, I might have a full-sized full resolution version as well as a cropped version with a completely different size and DPI resolution saved within the NEF file. All I am doing is saving different instruction sets within the original file. Everything is non-destructive. After the raw conversion is done, the other thing that is way cool is the color control points, a technology created by Nik Software. Using this technology, I can make local changes to a photo in a snap that would take forever in PhotoShop. It's very difficult to explain how these control points work, you almost need to see them in action. To that end, I direct you to the NX web site and encourage you to download the 30-day free trial. Make sure you watch the flash demo of the color control point on the sky. The program is a fairly small download, and is fully functional for 30 days. I was hooked almost right away. If you do this, I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. http://www.capturenx.com/ Here's a link to a good eBook that is available for NX. Jason is an active participant at Nikonians. http://www.luminescentphoto.com/capturenx.html RG Very nice shots 'over there'! -- John H |
Atlanta Sunset
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 06:15:26 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: The best photos I have seen have been manipulated in some fashion, either by perspective, a very unique angle, shutter speed (to enrich the colors or blur all or part of the photo, using the aperture to change the depth of field, deliberately blurring part or all of the scene (by moving the camera or zooming the lens while using a slow shutter speed, HDR or other post processing techniques. All photos are "manipulated" in some way by the very fact of being taken in the first place. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com