Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: midnight church  (Read 4707 times)

Phuong

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
midnight church
« on: August 05, 2006, 11:56:45 pm »

someone correct me if i'm wrong, but i really think there's a small dust spot right at about 1/3 from left, in the cloud area
and dont get me wrong, i like the picture a lot. just that the spot really bothers me
Logged

jeffball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
    • www.earthandskyphoto.com
midnight church
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2006, 01:19:13 am »

If the photograph was processed totally with LR, then as far as I know, there is no way to post-process dust spots out of an image.  I believe one of the main
goals of the LR Adventure is to process exclusively while in the field with LR to fully explore the software and its creative and functional potential.  My guess is that this would be a "quickie" for Michael as he and the entire team are working extremely long days in the field and nearly real-time post-processing.  I am sure that for printing the image would be "print ready" with appropriate spotting.
Logged
Jeff Ball
[url=http://www.earthandskypho

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
midnight church
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2006, 02:37:33 am »

I agree. The image doesn't look quite finished. Nice ingredients but perhaps a bit lack-lustre. My first reaction was, not quite up to Michael's usual standards.

On the other hand, the sight of a church, anywhere, in any circumstances, will have an emotional impact on some people. In this scene, you have a church, a community, set against a barren and desolate background, which makes it more poignant, or special, or interesting, whatever the word is.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2006, 02:41:34 am by Ray »
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
midnight church
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2006, 04:34:13 pm »

When I zoom in (in my browser), the funny dark thing doesn't look like dust. It may be an unusual shadow in the clouds. In any case, I agree with jeffball that removing it is probably beyond the scope of Lightroom.

Whether dust or other, it adds nothing to the picture, so I'm sure Michael would remove it before printing.

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Pete JF

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
midnight church
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2006, 10:37:53 pm »

You guys are killing me. The dude posted an image, wanted you to see it. Enough said. Maybe Im missing something here but when did the crits start? Does it all have to be so damn perfect? I would be willing to bet that Mike knows that this may not be his "best" or most moving image. Im not sure that he expects every image he posts here to be disected (maybe he does at this point?)..it's really sort of trying to watch it happen sometimes...this thread is almost like listening in on a secret conversation at an  art opening that is being broadcast throughout the entire city via hidden microphone.

ok, Ill shut up... go back to whatever it is that you are doing.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2006, 10:38:14 pm by Pete JF »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
midnight church
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2006, 11:09:59 pm »

Quote
...this thread is almost like listening in on a secret conversation at an  art opening that is being broadcast throughout the entire city via hidden microphone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, that would certainly be interesting, don't you think?
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
midnight church
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2006, 04:23:17 am »

Quote
If the photograph was processed totally with LR, then as far as I know, there is no way to post-process dust spots out of an image.  I believe one of the main
goals of the LR Adventure is to process exclusively while in the field with LR to fully explore the software and its creative and functional potential.  My guess is that this would be a "quickie" for Michael as he and the entire team are working extremely long days in the field and nearly real-time post-processing.  I am sure that for printing the image would be "print ready" with appropriate spotting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Jeff,

Long time no see!

While I agree with you, I cannot help wondering why fine art photographers do have to embark on such marathons... when the real outcome of a week of shooting of most but truly super-human shooters is typically only a handful of images.

Just thinking out loud.

Cheers,
Bernard

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
midnight church
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2006, 09:37:45 am »

Quote
I cannot help wondering why fine art photographers do have to embark on such marathons... when the real outcome of a week of shooting of most but truly super-human shooters is typically only a handful of images.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe because it's fun?

Cheers,
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

boku

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
    • http://www.bobkulonphoto.com
midnight church
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2006, 12:31:05 pm »

I don't really want to start anything here, but I have been wondering silently.

I am hip to all the hype about Lightroom. Watched the video, saw MR demonstrate it in Toronto. Read the Blog. Listened to the podcasts.

I am a PC guy and have hesitated on beta3 because of all the negative response regarding performance and incomplete features. But I will download it soon. I cannot afford to have my head in the sand.

Just one little observation...

In all the haste to use a high production digital workflow tool like Lightroom, has anyone other than me sort of got the impression that the images being exampled are, at best, so-so compared to the work these artists turned out a year ago with traditional Photoshop?

I have perused the galleries on O'Reilly blog site. I am not inspired. Michael's work from his previous Iceland trips is much more powerful. I'm guessing it has something to do with workflow compromises.

And I'm not referring to a dust spot. Check out those galleries and tell me if you think that work will promote the Lightroom product to the extent intended.
Logged
Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...[b

Tim Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
    • http://www.timgrayphotography.com
midnight church
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2006, 02:11:18 pm »

Quote
I have perused the galleries on O'Reilly blog site. I am not inspired. Michael's work from his previous Iceland trips is much more powerful. I'm guessing it has something to do with workflow compromises.

And I'm not referring to a dust spot. Check out those galleries and tell me if you think that work will promote the Lightroom product to the extent intended.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree - I'm not sure what the marketing theory is behind the "average" images and the buggy gallery.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up