Another difficult shot

[cjogo]

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 ??

[tom b]

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,

[cjogo]

Tom B -- how did you highlight the spots and erase ??  Is it a simple CS app ??

[cjogo]

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. 

[tom b]

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,

[cjogo]

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 ??

[tom b]

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,

[cjogo]

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 ....

[Jim Pascoe]

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

[stamper]

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.

[cjogo]

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 ?    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  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

[cjogo]

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.