Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RedwoodGuy on February 16, 2013, 01:27:08 pm
-
Attached
-
Good shot. Good light. Good composition.
-
I quite like the shot, but I can't find any part of it in focus, is it the conversion to Jpg do you think?
Dave
-
Can't be, Dave. I didn't look that closely until you mentioned it, but it looks like camera motion to me. Either that or a very, very bad lens.
-
Thanks RSL...
And yes, I think my focus was a tad short. This was taken about the time I realized it was time for an autofocus system.
-
My sympathy. My aging eyes don't like to focus manually any more. It's auto-focus all the way. Russ seems to keep his eyes young and sharp.
Focus aside, I like the tonalities in the forest a lot in this image.
-
Avenue of the Giants?
-
Avenue of the Giants?
Yes it is. Last spring.
-
Thought I recognized it. It's an awesome piece of road, in many ways. I think this is a good picture, and it's worth noting that I find it evokes that particular road perfectly and almost completely. This photo is a virtually perfect summary of a really beautiful and spectacular thing.
-
Thought I recognized it. It's an awesome piece of road, in many ways. I think this is a good picture, and it's worth noting that I find it evokes that particular road perfectly and almost completely. This photo is a virtually perfect summary of a really beautiful and spectacular thing.
It's a technically flawed photograph, but I keep it around because I love looking at it (the print). I was sad when I saw the focus problem a few days later, because I could have re-shot it that day, but I thought I had it nailed (film) and packed up.
-
It's a technically flawed photograph, but I keep it around because I love looking at it (the print). I was sad when I saw the focus problem a few days later, because I could have re-shot it that day, but I thought I had it nailed (film) and packed up.
Technical flaws be b*gg*r*d - it's an excellent image. Obviously, it can be adjusted a bit but it's beauty is in the eye of any beholder. http://tonysx.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v57/p1435147820.jpg
-
What is going on here? Why is Tonysx having RedwoodGuy's photo on his site?
-
What is going on here? Why is Tonysx having RedwoodGuy's photo on his site?
+1
With Tonysx's copyright on it no less, as seen here:
http://tonysx.zenfolio.com/p482882857/h558a9e2c#h558a9e2c
Either he and RG are the same person or someone is stealing the credit for the shot.
-
Tony's image is a lot sharper and looks like it is in focus. I am wondering if the posted image is a screen capture?
-
Edited: All cleared up now.
-
What is going on here? Why is Tonysx having RedwoodGuy's photo on his site?
+1
With Tonysx's copyright on it no less, as seen here:
http://tonysx.zenfolio.com/p482882857/h558a9e2c#h558a9e2c
Either he and RG are the same person or someone is stealing the credit for the shot.
Because I didn't realise that I could post the version I produced directly into a thread. So I took a copy of the image, mofified it slightly and moved it to Zenfolio. Additionally I don't like posting actual modified images into the original thread - hence the link. And I claim no copyright whatsoever. My apologies for pointing out that the image could be improved for for obviously upsetting at least 2 members here.
-
Clear as mud.
-
Tony made an edit to RG's image, and posted the edit to his zenfolio site so he could link to it from here.
See Tony's earlier post in the thread. It's not Tony's image.
-
Thanks for the information. Now how did he manage to sharpen it and somehow add focus?
-
You'll have to ask Tony. I assume he added local contrast. Luckily, he's posted in the thread twice, and might be persuaded to post again with some details.
-
Thanks for the information. Now how did he manage to sharpen it and somehow add focus?
You'll have to ask Tony. I assume he added local contrast. Luckily, he's posted in the thread twice, and might be persuaded to post again with some details.
Posted image + LR4.
Sharpening
" radius
" detail
Edge masking
Luminance smoothing
" detail
" contrast
Color noise reduction
Contrast
Clarity
Vibrance
No local adjustments at all.
-
Your settings certainly worked. They made a so so image into a very nice one. The before and after should be an exercise for anyone who thinks that an image straight from the camera can't - or shouldn't - be improved by careful processing. :)
-
And I claim no copyright whatsoever.
Excuse me, but that's not true. Your copyright appears right below RG's image on your gallery page.
I checked again today and it's still there.
-
I think discussion of how Tony's Zenfolio site works is probably a bit far afield. The facts are quite clear at this point, and any claims of copyright are accidental and unenforceable.
-
Your settings certainly worked. They made a so so image into a very nice one.
I disagree. By ramping up the contrast he tossed the subtle lighting and mid values right out the window.
-
I think discussion of how Tony's Zenfolio site works is probably a bit far afield. The facts are quite clear at this point, and any claims of copyright are accidental and unenforceable.
Nonsense. Claiming credit for someone else's work is never excusable. It doesn't matter how his site works.
If "TonySx" can't figure out how to remove his copyright from someone else's picture on his gallery he should take it down.
-
I disagree. By ramping up the contrast he tossed the subtle lighting and mid values right out the window.
The "subtle lighting" you refer to was defocused areas of the image that even the author acknowledged weren't in focus. :(
-
The "subtle lighting" you refer to was defocused areas of the image that even the author acknowledged weren't in focus. :(
It's in no better focus now than before. I like the original better. We continue to disagree.
-
If there is a way to make an OOF photo in focus, I am all ears - - I have a lot of them!
-
Nonsense. Claiming credit for someone else's work is never excusable. It doesn't matter how his site works.
If "TonySx" can't figure out how to remove his copyright from someone else's picture on his gallery he should take it down.
Zenfolio requires a copyright statement. In my defence, I've never had so much flack tossed at me for what was a genuine mistake on my part. To satisfy Mr. Frost the copyright statement has been altered.
I disagree. By ramping up the contrast he tossed the subtle lighting and mid values right out the window.
If you had bothered to read my mods, you would have seen that I reduced the contrast. But who's reading further than an inadvertent copyright? If you meant I ramped up the clarity, don't be bashful, go ahead and say so!
The title of this forum is User Critiques. My original post here was complimentary regarding the subject with the comment that I thought it could look better. But negative criticism serves no purpose, hence the modified image.[/color]
-
Zenfolio requires a copyright statement. In my defence, I've never had so much flack tossed at me for what was a genuine mistake on my part. To satisfy Mr. Frost the copyright statement has been altered....
I accept that what you did was a genuine, unintentional mistake. But it does not change the result, which was, and remains to be, unauthorized use of someone's photograph, with or without copyright statement.
Most of us on this Critique forum do what you did: reprocess someone's posted photograph to show what you mean or how it could be improved. No problem there. Most of us, however, post it by uploading it from their computer directly to the forum, using the attach button at the bottom of the preview-reply window. I also change the title of the re-posted image by adding "..._Edit_by_SB," just to avoid any misunderstanding.
There are professional hosting sites, PhotoShelter for instance, who would let you have a folder of images you can link to, yet not available to see to the visitors of your site there. I am not sure whether Zenfolio has a similar arrangement. It might be your own work in progress you do not want the general public to see, yet you want to post it to some forum for discussion or advice. Or it can be the case like this one, where you are re-posting someone else's photograph, and you do not want the visitors to your own site think it is yours.
The way you ultimately did it, however, is exactly the opposite of what i described in the previous sentence: you are now leaving no doubt on anyone's mind that the image is yours!?
1. It is on you site, part of your portfolio
2. It is even available for sale!?
3. Many of your own images have a title or your own description... this one does not... it could have said something like: "Copyright of this image belongs to RedwoodGuy and is used here only for forum-discussion purposes, and not available for sale or downloads."
I continue to assume that you intended no malice, thus my post here is meant to help, not berate.
-
If that image sells - please donate the proceeds to www.savetheredwoods.org. - Thanks.
-
Zenfolio requires a copyright statement. In my defence, I've never had so much flack tossed at me for what was a genuine mistake on my part. To satisfy Mr. Frost the copyright statement has been altered.
It shouldn't be about satisfying me. You should simply do the right thing. If Zenfolio requires a copyright on every image it means they require proper attribution. You haven't fixed anything.
All of this could have been avoided by simply posting your modified image directly on this forum.
By the way, are you aware that you can go back and modify your previous posts? You could, for example, remove the link to your Zenfolio site and replace it with a direct upload of the same image.
That way, you could remove RG's photograph from your portfolio, restore your copyright notice on your own photos and still show everyone here your modified image. Problem solved.
-
If you had bothered to read my mods, you would have seen that I reduced the contrast. But who's reading further than an inadvertent copyright? If you meant I ramped up the clarity, don't be bashful, go ahead and say so!
The title of this forum is User Critiques. My original post here was complimentary regarding the subject with the comment that I thought it could look better. But negative criticism serves no purpose, hence the modified image.
Of course I read your "mods". Do you have any understanding of how Lightroom or Photoshop work? By jacking up the clarity and vibrance you also increased the contrast of the image!
Or did you not bother to look at what you did? Don't talk to me about the labels on your sliders. Your version is a lot more contrasty.
-
"local contrast" is just another way of saying "sharpening" by the way, or at any rate any differences are beyond my understanding.