Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
 on: October 21, 2016, 03:25:06 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by Rob C
I prefer black gaffer's tape - no gooey mess and it's not shiney  ;D




 on: October 21, 2016, 03:20:05 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by Rob C
Alain's article raises several questions to which the answers must vary with the individual pohotographer attempting to answer them.

I come from film, starting out professionally in the photo unit of an engineering giant back in '60. Part of my work included making colour prints of jet engine flame tubes etc. where colour fidelity was vital, not to produce a pretty picture, but to provide information to engineers, who could interpret colour in terms of actual temperatures, as in heat.

One of my self-authorised perks was to make colour prints out of some of my b/white negatives of girls. In effect, the method was to expose different parts of the image through different CC filter gels, and thus produce a final, coloured image via multiple exposures on the single sheet of paper. I did that to see if I could make it work. To an extent, I got to where I expected to get, but it wasn't art. Frankly, it was neither one thing nor the other, and I soon abandoned that path.

So, in terms of mixing things up and creating a final result out of primitive 'layers' as just described, you could say that PS isn't that new to me as concept. Basic PS, that is!

Since getting involved in PS I have clearly been provided with tools to expand on that sort of early experimentation, but I really don't feel much desire so to do. In fact, my early resistance to PS was based on the monstrosities that stock libraries used to delight in hawking: canoes going over Niagara and so forth. I hated that kind of cheap trick and it kept me away from digital for a long time. Eventually, I was left with little choice but to stop using film (this was post-retirement) and either give photography up altogether, or climb aboard the Dark Side Express, close down my soul and hope I'd get away with the trespasses for which I would later seek forgiveness. In the first few weeks, I did mess about like that, giving a picture of myself more hair etc. etc. as, I suppose, an amused attempt to learn some techniques.

Now, I don't think I do the equivalent of anything like that; once in a blue moon I do leave a part of a picture in colour - again, just for the hell of it - but I find very few such blue Moons! In fact, I now think of digital photography in exactly the same way as I did film, observing the same general boundaries, but this time becauses of conviction of their rightness.

So, am I being shy? Am I afraid of expressing a personal photographic point of view? I don't think so; I think that I have just accepted that tradition isn't just there to be discarded, that it's there for a reason: it works.

In fact, more and more I'm drawn to neglecting colour and doing most of the processing in terms of black and white. Why? Maybe because most of the photographers - usually commercial people in one guise or another - for whom I have retained love over the years, work a lot in black/white. Or, it's that part of their work that grabs me. Of course, I also love people like Feurer who almost never does anything but colour these days. In such cases, the allure is all about style, genre and the infallible taste with which the stylists etc. cooperate to make a wonderful whole.

Those people are certainly never shy; they push outwards to the edge all the time, but somehow, that pushing is within a natural structure that stops them going too far and making a nonsense of everything.

Black/white is, as I say, my usual space; I think that's so because it is far more flexible a medium with which to play than colour can ever be: colour can easily shock when out of control, but black/white is more forgiving of excesses. I think, too, as people often point out, black/white already starts from a step beyond reality, and has historic acceptance of that. It's well-insulated from shock. But above and beyond, I just find black/white to be more interesting and offering far more scope for visual adventure and self-expression.

The elephant in this particular room, of course, is that as amateur, I need only please myself. I never give a thought to an audience; indeed, if I do after the event, it's to delight in going somewhere in the images that few want to follow. For an 'artist' whatever that is, I guess the challenge is always split between what he/she likes and what they can sell.

Shyness may affect the neophyte; I doubt people with more experience feel they don't want to shine. Will that keep them in the mainstream, or will they do their own thing? In the end, folks end up doing whatever they know how to do; habit kicks in...


 on: October 21, 2016, 03:14:40 PM 
Started by Glenn Bartley - Last post by Arlen
Maybe he'll be photographing pigs next.   ;)

When they fly?  ;)

But back on point, the photos are indeed excellent.

 on: October 21, 2016, 03:08:47 PM 
Started by Arlen - Last post by Arlen
Thanks to all of you for your comments, recursive and otherwise. And to those who have taken the time to offer suggestions, I will certainly consider them.

Marissa is my cousin's daughter, and a treat to photograph. I don't get many chances to photograph kids these days, since my son is grown and gone without yet providing grandkids. Family is on the other side of the country, and it's mostly on those occasional visits that I get to interact with the very young. That's when my camera can come out in a relaxed environment.

 on: October 21, 2016, 02:56:24 PM 
Started by Arlen - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
I would say your portrait has a subtle natural look which I really like. The judges in my club might, and often do say, they want to see a catch light in the eyes. They say the same about birds. I do see a faint glimmer in her left eye. Maybe raise the brightness in her left eye a touch, so that it still looks natural. Having said that, it is fine by me, as is, because the natural expression is so powerful, that is what the viewer immediately notices and takes away.

Well done,

It's a good thing that most viewers of photographs are not club judges.   ;)

 on: October 21, 2016, 02:53:37 PM 
Started by Glenn Bartley - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
Stunning, as ever: but two of them don't have wings!

Glen is branching out. Maybe he'll be photographing pigs next.   ;)

 on: October 21, 2016, 02:52:51 PM 
Started by AFairley - Last post by Tim Lookingbill
Thanks for the heads up on the updated Silverfast.

It would help if you could show an A/B comparison image showing the improvements.

I've had so much trouble getting good color with my old Epson scanner that I've stopped shooting film and won't bother scanning my personal family and general interests shots I've had tucked away with the Epson in my closet.

Any improvements in print negative color? That's mostly what I have.

 on: October 21, 2016, 02:52:03 PM 
Started by Chris Calohan - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
Well performed, carefully threaded encouragements to magical thinking/seeing. Glad I was able to sneak in at the half, and well worthy of standing room only~

Thank you both for the willingness to reveal some of your layers.
Thanks to both of you.

 on: October 21, 2016, 02:46:04 PM 
Started by EinstStein - Last post by Tim Lookingbill
Post a sample image of yours that you consider over cranked in sharpness and saturation.

This is a highly visually subjective based issue with many influences to sort out some of which may involve your eyesight (affected by warm room lighting surrounding a 6500K display), display calibration/profiling and type of scene edited that may or may not need more saturation and sharpening. Sunsets, vibrant flowers lit by direct sunlight are highly subjective and creative types of scenes.

I have to admit I have the same problem working on landscapes lit with mixed cool/warm/red/green color temperatures where studio shots in controlled lighting are not much of a problem.

 on: October 21, 2016, 02:38:16 PM 
Started by Chris Calohan - Last post by Chris Calohan
We lose a few each time as well. Most get squished by cars turning into their paths. Some though through sheer stupidity mixed with a little Jack Daniels

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10