Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: cjogo on March 28, 2013, 04:45:32 am
-
I had to sneak in a camera at this Church in Poland ... I smuggled in a SWC Hassy and sat it on the pew that I was kneeling on here ...hence the angle straight up .. 1/4 second at f11 > cable release of course and a quiet shutter
-
The first things I see are blocked shadows, blown highlights and dust spots. You really need to improve your processing skills if you want to impress people.
Having processed images professionally for fourteen years these problems really stick out.
Sorry, but basic image processing processing knowledge and skills are essential if you want to impress people.
Cheers,
-
There maybe a good reason for the blocked shadows. No information there that could be captured at the time and if the shadows were lifted then only noise. Then again some people like small areas to be pure black which means good contrast. If the sun is hitting a particular area then it means that the area is blown to pure white and there is little that can be done in post processing. Interiors of churches tend to be high contrast?
<Having processed images professionally for fourteen years these problems really stick out.>
Sorry they are problems in your mind but not in others.? BTW stating your professional qualifications mean little or nothing. As to the image then I quite like the rendering and composition and wouldn't change anything. :)
-
You've got to be joking.
Blown highlights, blocked shadows, crappy processing, there is no excuse.
Cheers,
-
Tom out of curiosity I had a look at your site and saw this image.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i_EQBgEwRZ8/URH67Y7tkoI/AAAAAAAABNU/cuvUnvJMqtA/s1600/boab.jpg
Assuming my monitor's profile is still working I saw blocked shadows and blown highlights. Do you agree? ;) As to the processing I will leave it for others to judge. :)
-
I love the different, intersecting arches, my eyes go to the brightest point (ie. the center of the image).
-
You've got to be joking.
Blown highlights, blocked shadows, crappy processing, there is no excuse.
Cheers,
Seeing such harsh words I too was drawn straight to Tom's website, and the first albums I clicked onto had the most incredibly blocked shadows.
http://www.tombrown.id.au/monochrome/pyrmont_bridge/album/index.html
Tom, is the author trying to make excuses, and is he trying to sell these pictures? Your opinions are yours, but using terms like "crappy processing" is not very helpful. Personally, and I might be in a minority of one for all I care, I cannot see the problems with shadow areas with no detail. Likewise blown highlights. The photography world is full of 'rules' and the worse for it. Which perhaps explains why the internet is full of over-processed HDR'd, dross! Have you ever considered that completely black areas could be a creative decision?
I quite like some of your work by the way, but by your own stated standards you must think a lot of your own work suffers from the same 'problems' as the picture in this post.
Jim
-
Cat's got somebody's tongue. If he was so inclined, I suspect cjogo could "fix" all the ills in Photoshop but like may of the others on here, I question the why of it all. More and more I see where the "rules" of photography get in the way of a good presentation. I'm am certainly not advocating everyone shoot willy-nilly and hope for the best, but it is not always bad to have blown out areas, or very dark-dark-darks. Personally, I like the idea of detail in the shadows and the highlights but that comes from too many years trying to perfect Zone scale shooting but not so dyed in the wool tied to it as some are.
-
The first things I see are blocked shadows, blown highlights and dust spots. You really need to improve your processing skills if you want to impress people.
Having processed images professionally for fourteen years these problems really stick out.
Sorry, but basic image processing processing knowledge and skills are essential if you want to impress people.
Cheers,
14 years? Wow. I couldn't tell from the shots at your website.
I'll bet if you asked here, however, you'd get a lot of helpful advice.
-
The first things I see are blocked shadows, blown highlights and dust spots.
Didn't notice any of those things.
Quite liked the image, though not as much as some of the others that cjogo has posted ( which have been very good ).
My main criticism of the image would be that it probably shouldn't exist in the first place if visitors to the church had been requested not to take photos inside the building.
Having produced stained glass professionally for seventeen years that's a problem that really sticks out.
Graeme
-
As to the image then I quite like the rendering and composition and wouldn't change anything. :)
I'm with Stamper. I like it just as it is.
-
The first things I see are blocked shadows, blown highlights and dust spots. You really need to improve your processing skills if you want to impress people.
Having processed images professionally for fourteen years these problems really stick out.
Sorry, but basic image processing processing knowledge and skills are essential if you want to impress people.
Cheers,
I didn't get the chance to use my meter, on this one >> but carrying a camera around since the early 70's ..I had a little idea on the exposure. ;) And no doubt you have maybe some basics you suggested > that I missed. Was processing my first sheet of 8X10 film back in 1976.
My scanner seems to be just too high of quality > would never see this amount of dust with a conventional darkroom process. This was scanned on a Minolta Pro about 1996 .. the only real "burned" highlight (250 or higher ) is the outside window. The right arch is still in a Zone 9 >> But yes I should had had a minus development on this HP5 film. . Even with dual filters in our water system > never realized just how dirty until I started scanning. I probably only spent maybe 25 minutes spotting /and then some curves...
-
I never rinsed in anything but distilled water for one minute at the end of my regular wash - even then, it's hard to get all the crap off a negative.
-
... You really need to improve your processing skills if you want to impress people.
Having processed images professionally for fourteen years these problems really stick out.
Sorry, but basic image processing processing knowledge and skills are essential if you want to impress people.
You've got to be joking.
Blown highlights, blocked shadows, crappy processing, there is no excuse.
One thing comes to mind, Tom, the concept of "opening the door." By introducing the harsh and critical language, you opened the door for responses in kind:
Seriously!?
Someone's processing skills is what impresses people!?
Which people, by the way? Photographers? Or just anal-retentive photographers?
Because ordinary folks (and non-anal-retentive photographers) could not care less about processing skills, blown highlights and dust spots. What impresses people, my friend, is the emotional power of the photograph. Get that right, and all else is forgiven, even among photographers.
I am sure you would have had equally harsh words for the D-Day photographs. After all, aren't they all blurry and grainy, indicating perhaps a total lack of not only processing, but also very basic photographic skills?
Have you ever seen ordinary folks going over family albums with tears in their eyes? I mean, most family albums are choke full of out-of-focus, blurry, overexposed, heads-cut-off pictures, but that is not what brings tears to people's eyes. It is the emotional impact of those moments and memories, not photographing or processing skills.
Have you ever seen anyone tearing up over the lack of dust spots or the lack of blown highlights?
In fairness to you, this is a critique section, thus bringing up dust spots and blocked shadows as a nitpick would be generally ok. But treating it as a pre-condition for "impressing people?" Seriously!?
-
Seriously, a couple of dust spots on a random picture would be forgivable. Tens of dust spots, scratches etc on a series of images are really unacceptable. Don't shoot the messenger. I've spent many hours getting rid of dust spots so to me they really stick out to me. Really, for anyone brought up in the film era seeing seeing a really spotty print is a real turn off.
A basic spotting of the top of the image…
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xSp2J2YcaUA/UVSf2-4yi0I/AAAAAAAABPc/CC4_YkxVPzc/s1600/spotting.jpg)
Cheers,
-
I deliver images to a perspective gallery on a DVD or email >> Only images that are to be printed for exposition = are fully corrected.. Had my first show in 1978 >> At the height (90's ) was in 6 galleries > nation wide. So, a little experience with fine art. B&W scans are max for 16X16 ..so yes we spot if necessary / ;)
-
I deliver images to a perspective galleriyon a DVD or email >> Only images that are to be printed for exposition = are fully corrected.. Had my first show in 1978 >> At the height (90's ) was in 6 galleries > nation wide. B&W scans are max for 16X16 ..so yes we spot if necessary / ;)
Obviously we don't deserve to see spotted images, we're meant to just ignore the dust, scratches etc?
Cheers,
-
Obviously we don't deserve to see spotted images, we're meant to just ignore the dust, scratches etc?
Cheers,
I have a limit ... after cloning spots for 20+minutes ..definitely quality enough for the net ;D
Now this is pre --- :o
-
Just a suggestion, but this might be a good time to drop it. I'm not seeing this discussion going anyplace useful.
-
I think a lot of that may just be grain ?? thanks for the cloning though ... I wear my wrist out or a track ball after too many sessions.
-
TOM B >> I will have to learn that trick ;) -- you made it look easy ...that many spots would take me 15+ minutes. Is that an Adjustment app >> highlighted only the spots and eliminated them ??
-
Last suggestion, smaller image, well spotted. I think that anyone who has spent a lot of time correcting images will see the problems with an image first. Sorry, when I look at your images I see dust spots and it really does distract. Digital photography has brought us an era of spot free photography for some time now.
Final thought.
Cheers,
-
Tom B -- how did you highlight the spots and erase ?? Is it a simple CS app ??
-
Cat's got somebody's tongue. If he was so inclined, I suspect cjogo could "fix" all the ills in Photoshop but like may of the others on here, I question the why of it all. More and more I see where the "rules" of photography get in the way of a good presentation. I'm am certainly not advocating everyone shoot willy-nilly and hope for the best, but it is not always bad to have blown out areas, or very dark-dark-darks. Personally, I like the idea of detail in the shadows and the highlights but that comes from too many years trying to perfect Zone scale shooting but not so dyed in the wool tied to it as some are.
I shot everything Zone System related after I meet Ansel ... he made it so easy to understand. But the more I scan > the why of it all puzzles me with all the spotting. I go a certain level of CS work < to show the image to galleries. If they select a dozen from the portfolio > then they are printed and every noticeable spot is removed from the 11X11 or 16X16 to be delivered.
-
Sorry, I don't know what you are asking.
The illustration that I put up was red dots representing where I would use the Spot Healing Brush Tool
on the top half of the image. The second half was your original image. Spotting at 200% makes it easier to see the dust.
Hope that clears things up.
Cheers,
-
Sorry, I don't know what you are asking.
The illustration that I put up was red dots representing where I would use the Spot Healing Brush Tool
on the top half of the image. The second half was your original image. Spotting at 200% makes it easier to see the dust.
Hope that clears things up.
Cheers,
Thanks Kindly ... never really get the Healing Brush to work correctly. How did you get the red spot to appear allowing the selection to be seen easier ?? Was that via THRESHOLD ??
-
The red dots were done with a normal brush (red foreground colour) to simulate how the healing brush would be used. The Spot Healing Brush Tool is easy to use, just use the [] keys to adjust the size of the brush and the click on the dust spot. I've spent many years removing dust spots from scans, so I notice them more than a casual observer. My work was for a government department so calibrated monitors weren't a high priority.
I normally don't make comments in the User Critiques section but it just seemed something as basic as spotting was not being mentioned.
Cheers,
-
The red dots were done with a normal brush (red foreground colour) to simulate how the healing brush would be used. The Spot Healing Brush Tool is easy to use, just use the [] keys to adjust the size of the brush and the click on the dust spot. I've spent many years removing dust spots from scans, so I notice them more than a casual observer. My work was for a government department so calibrated monitors weren't a high priority.
I normally don't make comments in the User Critiques section but it just seemed something as basic as spotting was not being mentioned.
Cheers,
The brush always seems to sample extraneous areas ... need to be able to change the tolerance somehow ... Most my work is fairly well spotted on the site here ....
-
I normally don't make comments in the User Critiques section but it just seemed something as basic as spotting was not being mentioned.
Cheers,
I see you have now decided to make less noise about the blocked shadows and blown highlights. Good thing too.
Commenting on dust spots on pictures that were originated on film and not presented for exhibition is unnecessary too. I would say that it is quite obvious that cjogo is an experienced and quite accomplished photographer. I should think he's looking for comments on the aesthetic and content of his pictures, not the fine technical points. Technical critique is more useful for beginners.
Jim
-
Regarding the dust spots I thought the few that I saw - not at 200% - actually added to the image giving it a rather old world effect which most churches tend to exude. Personally I don't look for a perfect image because that would be futile. If there are small imperfections and the image is otherwise appeals to me then I will ignore them and accept the image as being acceptable and pleasing. Looking at something with a magnifying glass approach will always find something wrong. Blocked shadows are a matter of taste and shouldn't be seen as a fault, rather a choice of the originator. 8)
-
Look at the PRE shot I loaded previously ::
As for blocked shadow areas >> would you want to open up these areas with all this grain/noise/spots ? ;D You would be spotting til your mouse incinerated ::)..
AS FOR TECH :: If this was on a tripod with a spot meter in hand ....I am sure I would had metered the low values and minus development to save the highlights ... but this was clandestine photography ;D Officials and signs forbid cameras , at the entrance < the SWC was just small enough to hide under my jacket and has a very quiet leaf shutter.
I guessed the best exposure ~knew I could not expect much sharpness past 1/4 of second , even resting on the wooden pew top. The Biogon had enough DOF to pull all this focus off, according to the scale on the lens barrel. The 6in cable release fired smoothly > but you don't see the results for weeks... no going back ;)
-
I see you have now decided to make less noise about the blocked shadows and blown highlights. Good thing too.
Commenting on dust spots on pictures that were originated on film and not presented for exhibition is unnecessary too. I would say that it is quite obvious that cjogo is an experienced and quite accomplished photographer. I should think he's looking for comments on the aesthetic and content of his pictures, not the fine technical points. Technical critique is more useful for beginners.
Jim
Thanks kindly Jim et al > Yes, I am looking more in the direction of aesthetics /content of the images I post. Although I should be conscious of all technical suggestions.