Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Tom Perkins on April 08, 2007, 10:59:17 am
-
I wanted to capture that dusk atmosphere, the soft glow you get after sunset. The sky was featureless, so I chose to go in close, and spotted this little collection of pebbles washed into the arc of an old weathered dead tree.
The exposure was quite long, and it was very windy, so it's not really really sharp, however I don't think that matters to much. I could have done with a bit more depth of field (bottom right corner) however I was already at f32 and the exposure was long enough as it was.
Any critique very welcome.
One of the first shots from my Ebony RSW45 and Schneider 90mm f/5.6, on velvia 100.
(http://www.tomperkinsphotography.com/forum/Stones.jpg)
-
I like it. The deep saturation, the shadow balance, the composition all work for me. Thanks for sharing!
Mike.
-
Thanks very much Mike.
Glad you like it.
-
Hi
I love the composition and the feeling your photo transmits. I can see the colors are great but they seem a bit "off" to me. In my opinion, the photo could use a little "pop".
But what I noticed more is that it seems to have a grey overcast that makes it "plain". It lacks some more light and only a bit of contrast to create some volume (but just a little otherwise you can loose the softness of the image).
Hope it heps
-
I agree with Sr. Cordeiro. If it were mine, I would probably increase local contrast a little in Photoshop to bring out just a bit more of the light on the white stone near the top and some of the lighter sand below it. But be very careful: too much will destroy the lovely mood you have here.
Very nice photo. Thanks for sharing.
-
Thanks very much guys, I see what your getting at. Unfortunately I can't use the unsharp mask to increase the local contrast (thats what you mean right?), because it brings out the grain to much, which spoils it. I had a go with a couple of curves, it's so hard not to go to far, what do you think?
(http://www.tomperkinsphotography.com/forum/Stones_2.jpg)
-
Yes, it's unsharp mask I was thinking of, although curves may be better for this one. I'm still tempted to do a teensy bit more, but if that seems like too much, come back to this. I like it.
-
Hows that? (image in last post)
-
A possible interpretation:
(http://beautiful-landscape.com/OPP/Stones.jpg)
-
Thanks for sharing the image.
It might be just me, but there seems to be a significant amount of light fall off, which, together with what appears to be a slight under-exposure, results in very dark corners.
Have you considered using a center filter to compensate for this?
It is difficult to assess the accuracy of the exposure since the white stone appears to be pretty light already, but with this type of light, I would expect everything to fall well within 4 stops. Scanning could be responsible for this. What did you scan this with if I may ask?
Anyway, forgive me if the image is in fact not under-exposure, or if I state the obvious, but have you taken into account the need to add some exposure to compensate for below extension?
Regards,
Bernard
-
It might be just me, but there seems to be a significant amount of light fall off, which, together with what appears to be a slight under-exposure, results in very dark corners.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. The scan also did not capture details in the shadows. This limited how much I could do in my optimized version. I corrected the deep magenta cast and opened the shadows as much as I could while compensating for the center being brighter than the edges, but I couldn't do anything about areas that are pure black. Since this was an overcast day, there shouldn't have been much contrast and thus the whole scene should have been recorded with details everywhere.
-
I agree. The scan also did not capture details in the shadows. This limited how much I could do in my optimized version. I corrected the deep magenta cast and opened the shadows as much as I could while compensating for the center being brighter than the edges, but I couldn't do anything about areas that are pure black. Since this was an overcast day, there shouldn't have been much contrast and thus the whole scene should have been recorded with details everywhere.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello Alain,
Yes, your attempt made me realize that the image was probably difficult to recover.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Thanks for the replies guys, yes, the image was slightly underexposed, I've never really shot film before so I have a lot to learn, I tried to add some for extension but obviously not enough, it will be interesting to see my next bunch of transparencies which I should get back by the end of the week.
The day wasn't overcast, rather the opposite, there weren't any clouds at all. The time of day though did help reduce contrast, and yes, I was probarbly a stop under what I could have used. Currently I'm using my d200 as a light meter, which doesn't help, but the main problem is just my lack of experience.
This was scanned at home on an Epson V700, there is actually much more detail in the shadows on the transparency, so it hasn't captured everything, which is a shame.
I added most of the vignetting in PS during processing, I thought it helped stop your eye wandering out of the frame and added to the atmosphere, whilst helping to hide the oof bottom right corner and the very dark shadows which seem to be due to the scanner. Should I remove it?
With the colour cast, I left some of it in because thats how I remember the scene, is it very distracting?
-
I added most of the vignetting in PS during processing (...) Should I remove it?
With the colour cast, I left some of it in because thats how I remember the scene, is it very distracting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Both are your call :-) You are the artist, you are in charge of the artistic decisions. This is why I titled my version "a possible interpretation". This is how I would do it. How you do it is for you to decide. Part of learning photography, and any artistic medium for this matter, is learning what you like in addition to learning the technique. It is a combination of art & science.
In your instance, you need to learn how to expose correctly, you need to learn how to scan correctly, and you need to learn which artistic rendering you like best. The two versions you have --yours & mine-- are poles apart. I removed the color cast, the vignetting and the high contrast. You left the color cast, added vignetting and increased contrast...
Which one do you like best?
-
Both are your call :-) You are the artist, you are in charge of the artistic decisions. This is why I titled my version "a possible interpretation". This is how I would do it. How you do it is for you to decide. Part of learning photography, and any artistic medium for this matter, is learning what you like in addition to learning the technique. It is a combination of art & science.
In your instance, you need to learn how to expose correctly, you need to learn how to scan correctly, and you need to learn which artistic rendering you like best. The two versions you have --yours & mine-- are poles apart. I removed the color cast, the vignetting and the high contrast. You left the color cast, added vignetting and increased contrast...
Which one do you like best?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I found these two "interpretations" of the same image fascinating. Alain's goes for the richness of colors that one sees in his own landscapes, while Tom's goes for a more somber mood. Both good versions, but they make the same image say very different things.
-
Thanks again for more replies, I too find the different ways people have interpreted this shot interesting, my version is very much influenced by the evening when it was taken, which as you say, had a very sombre and mysterious atmosphere. I guess thats what I was trying to convey. Alain's changes have created a whole new image, which is very different.
Thanks,
Tom.
-
I found these two "interpretations" of the same image fascinating. Alain's goes for the richness of colors that one sees in his own landscapes, while Tom's goes for a more somber mood. Both good versions, but they make the same image say very different things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Once you develop a personal style it carries over into a lot of what you do. In this case it carried over into my interpretation of Tom's image. It becomes a way of looking at the world.
-
Alain, I just had a look at your site, some very inspirational work, great colours, may I ask how do you scan yours?
-
Alain, I just had a look at your site, some very inspirational work, great colours, may I ask how do you scan yours?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you for your compliments. There is a combination of digital captures and scanned film images on my site. This being said, the scanned film ones are either scanned on an Imacon 949 or on a Tango drum scanner.
I also have many years of experience doing fine art scans (I made my first scan in 1993). Having the right equipment is only one piece of the puzzle :-) The colors you see are also the result of extremely careful and deliberate post-processing, enhancing and optimization of the image so it matches my memory of the original scene and my emotional response to this scene, something that a camera-captured image cannot do by itself.
-
Thank you for your compliments. There is a combination of digital captures and scanned film images on my site. This being said, the scanned film ones are either scanned on an Imacon 949 or on a Tango drum scanner.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111781\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tom,
Desktop flatbed scanners really don't do justice to 4x5 slides quality.
The 2 scanners used by Alain are very expensive production gear targted at large volume scanning, but you can get very similar results with second hand Imacon Precision III scanners for instance.
Those aren't cheap either, but they can be found on ebay for a bit less than 5.000 US$. Nothing cheaper will enable you to get enough quality out of 4x5 to make it worth the trouble.
I have been using a Precision III for about 1.5 years, and am now getting great results from it. The gap with dedicated film scanners like the Nikon coolscan 9000, yet alone flatbed, is huge.
My d2x images are IMHO close to Coolscan scanned 6x9, but the same 6x9 scanned on the Imacon contains a lot more details. It is really is night and day.
One more thing, most people find Velvia to be real hard to scan because of how contrasty it is. Provia 100F is usually considered to be a better option if scanning is an important part of your process.
This being said, technical excellence is basically taken for granted, what makes the work of Alain standout is vision and talent.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Tom,
I will recommended alain,Printing Mastery Workshop on DVD.
it's really help in colors/printing plus ++ more and more
BlasR
-
Thanks for the help and info, I have found so far that my scans even with the v700 contain far more detail than the raw files from my d200, though I am sure the results from a more professional set up are another huge step up.
I have had another go with the same shot, starting with a fresh scan, and I have been more careful to not lose the shadows, but this has meant losing the very brightest highlights - do better scanners have the ability to capture a greater dynamic range?
Anyway, still needs work, but I think it's getting better:
(http://www.tomperkinsphotography.com/forum/Stones_3.jpg)
Oh, and Alain's DVD looks excellent.
-
I have had another go with the same shot, starting with a fresh scan, and I have been more careful to not lose the shadows, but this has meant losing the very brightest highlights - do better scanners have the ability to capture a greater dynamic range?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
DR is probably where the difference is most obvious.
Drum scanners like the Tango are still one step better than Imacon though.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Hmm, I guess I'll have to make do with scanning twice at different settings and combining the two in PS.
-
Hmm, I guess I'll have to make do with scanning twice at different settings and combining the two in PS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, scan quality is an issue in your work but don't forget that this is both art & science. Fixing the scans will address the science aspect. There will remain the artistic aspect of your work that is equally in need of attention.
-
Oh, of course, the artistic side always needs work, that aspect is really what I am most interested in, but because I have just switched to film I have a lot of technical aspects to sort out. I also need to familiarize myself with the upside down image on the ground glass, and with the method of metering with a hand held meter (currently my SLR). Then I will be a bit more free to explore the creative side again.
Thanks again for all the help,
Tom.