Visitor

[RSL]

Passing through. . .

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Too much clarity? Makes it a very busy picture.

[RSL]

It's not a clarity problem, Slobodan. It's a direct sunlight problem. I probably should have erected a 6'x6' silk in the street, camera left, just out of the frame, before I made the shot. The other problem is that I was carrying a D3 with 24-120 lens and I didn't have time to get closer, so I just zoomed and shot. It is what it is.

[stamper]

I like the framing. It looks like two images in one. Well seen.

[petermfiore]

The value structure is out of the norm for a spatial understanding. When values cross over from the shadow into the light, the space is flattened. This holds true for light values crossing into the shadow group. For this very reason is why Overdone HDR tends to look odd.

Peter

[RSL]

Ah yes. That's the mathematical explanation.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Either that lens has a rather bad bokeh, or I still think it is too much Clarity. Just check the edge of the guy's hair:

[RSL]

Yeah, I see what you're seeing, Slobodan, so I went back to the original and re-ran the whole process. What I conclude is that what you're seeing is actually the guy's hair, sort of puffed up so that when you convert to B&W and to jpeg that part of his hair looks like a fringe. The guy is in the foreground and badly out of focus. I don't see any signs of a bokeh problem with the out-of-focus background. Just for kicks, here's the original color version with zero clarity.

Oh, and I shot this with the D3 and Nikon's new 24-120 mm f/4. The bokeh from that lens isn't as great as the bokeh from the 24-70 f/2.8, but it's not bad.

[petermfiore]

Ah yes. That's the mathematical explanation.

Not Mathematical at all, It's the laws of nature.

Actually it's from Howard Pyle on the Art of Painting.
Any good painter working in a representation manor knows this basic fact for capturing the effect of light.
Holds true in any 2D arena. Russ, yes, photography does fall into that slot.

Peter

[RSL]

In retrospect, Peter, I think I prefer the color version. It seems to have less of the problem upon which you've put your finger.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In retrospect, Peter, I think I prefer the color version...

Me too. It adds color to separate focus layers, e.g. blue t-shirt vs. green grass. It is also gentler, less crunchy, in out-of-focus areas.

Btw, I knew you are going to use that "natural hair" argument the moment I selected it as an example. However, I myself have a curly/frizzy hair, and know hot it looks like (i.e., not like in your pictures). What is most likely the case is, once again, the bokeh of that lens, i.e., specifically how it renders OOF sharp transitions between light and dark areas. It is visible in the color version as well, just to a lesser effect.

Your b&w post conversion made that bokeh effect worse, crunchy. There are other, non-bokeh related, post-processing artifacts (PPA). You can clearly see it in the attached comparison. Look for the exaggerated and too crunchy areas next to his nose, on the chin, Adam's apple. These are all PPA, whether caused by Clarity, overall contrast or whatever post processing technique you employed.

If I understood correctly what Peter is saying, then I would agree that areas that are OOF and in the shade can not possibly have such a contrast and crunchiness to remain believable or at least non-distracting.

[RSL]

I have the same kind of hair, at least as much as this guy has, Slobodan, so, like you, I know something about "natural hair," and I'm still not convinced that fringe isn't simply the guy's hair. In any case, here are some points to consider: (1) As I said earlier, bokeh from the 24-120 isn't as good as bokeh from the 24-70 f/2.8, or for that matter, from the 70-200 --  either the f/2.8 version or the f/4.0 version, but bokeh in an out-of-focus foreground always is crappy compared with bokeh in an out-of-focus background, and this example is no exception. (2) Yes, the B&W conversion made the situation worse, but simply converting to jpeg also made it worse. Everything in photography is a tradeoff. (3) I don't see anything in the picture I'd call "crunchy." (4) But regardless of who's right, so what? This isn't landscape. It's street. Small technical imperfections are beside the point. That's something landscape photographers never seem to be able to grasp, so they get wrapped around the axle about technical details and miss the whole point of the picture.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... (4) But regardless of who's right, so what? This isn't landscape. It's street. Small technical imperfections are beside the point. That's something landscape photographers never seem to be able to grasp, so they get wrapped around the axle about technical details and miss the whole point of the picture.

Russ, let's not make it another street vs. landscape. The first rule of post processing, landscape or street or whatever else, is similar to Hippocratic oath:

"First, do no harm"

I get it that street does not have to deal with "small technical imperfections" the way other genres need to. However, those imperfections are typically at the shooting stage: blurred movement, slight out of focus, grain, etc., simply because it was more important to catch that decisive moment. I get that. But that does not extend to easily avoidable technical imperfections in the post-processing stages. Again, the rule is "first, do no harm" to the existing file. Leave it as it is, improve it, fine, but do not make it worse. As I already said, your shot was fine as-is.

It is not street vs. landscape, it is about human perception. If your main subject is in focus, and the rest is not, that is fine, because the main point of interest is not in the OOF foreground or OOF background. Because of that, do not divert attention to the OOF areas by making them appear "sharper" via Clarity, by accentuating details that were soft and subdued in the first place (and should stay that way).

Again, this is not about attempts to save a bad capture through some post-processing magic, it is about not ruining a good capture by bad post-processing. And if that was not clear from the beginning, my comments were aimed to help, not to criticize. If that was not needed, then sorry for wasting everybody's time.

[RSL]

Hi Slobodan, I'm sorry this has degenerated into an argument. I appreciate your skills, and in landscape I've profited from them. But let's get some things straight:

I get it that street does not have to deal with "small technical imperfections" the way other genres need to. However, those imperfections are typically at the shooting stage: blurred movement, slight out of focus, grain, etc., simply because it was more important to catch that decisive moment. I get that. But that does not extend to easily avoidable technical imperfections in the post-processing stages. Again, the rule is "first, do no harm" to the existing file. Leave it as it is, improve it, fine, but do not make it worse. As I already said, your shot was fine as-is.

Again, this is not about attempts to save a bad capture through some post-processing magic, it is about not ruining a good capture by bad post-processing.

First: You certainly should know by now that I agree with what you're saying. I've said, over and over, "leave this stuff alone." I'm against hasty cropping, overdone HDR, wild corrections in post-processing, and I think I've made myself clear that I believe the picture that made you raise the camera in the first place almost always is the best picture in a series.

Second: You must have missed what I said when I posted the color version of this picture. There IS no post-processing in this version of the picture other than some automatic capture sharpening. The only things that could create what you see as "crunchiness" are (1) a lens problem, or (2) conversion to jpeg. The clarity, vibrance and saturation sliders are all zeroed. As far as a lens problem is concerned, bokeh in the new Nikon 24-120 isn't as great as I'd like it to be, but it's not that bad either. Foreground bokeh always is crappy, no matter the lens.

But, bottom line, the reason I posted this picture, even with its obvious technical imperfections is that I haven't seen a picture of a human being on User Critiques for two weeks. As I said in another thread, all I see is technically excellent, boring tourist snapshots and technically excellent ho-hum flower pictures that wouldn't make it into a seed catalogue.

What I see happening in User Critiques is degeneration into technical quibbling. Five years ago, when I first came on LuLa a significant part of our discussions had to do with the content, composition, and significance of the pictures we were critiquing. Sure, there was some technical instruction, especially in cases where the poster asked for it, but User Critiques didn't give the impression that all anyone was concerned about was whether or not the pictures contained "crunchiness" or processing errors. I've stayed in contact with Rob, and I know the degeneration I'm seeing is one of the reasons Rob's backed away from LuLa.

I'm right on the verge myself. If we can't get back to posting at least some of the kinds of pictures that might be given a thumbs-up by people like HCB, Gene Smith, Kertesz, Eisenstadt, Evans, Erwitt, Lange, Karsh, Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander, McCurry, and in a more recent vein, Greg Heisler, then User Critiques is going to become more and more useless as a teaching vehicle.

Technical perfection is one thing. But, though it may incorporate technical perfection, art is something else.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Second: You must have missed what I said when I posted the color version of this picture. There IS no post-processing in this version of the picture other than some automatic capture sharpening. The only things that could create what you see as "crunchiness"...

Russ, it looks like we are talking past each other. The way I read the above sentence, you are saying that the color version of the picture has no post-processing? I never disputed that. I actually said I like it better, it is less crunchy, good as-is, etc. I do not see any crunchiness in the color version either. I was talking about botched (IMHO) conversion to b&w.

If you do not think we should discuss any technical issues in User Critiques whatsoever, then o.k., I will bear that in mind and refrain from it in the future, at least when it comes to your images. My stance is that it still matters (up to a degree, of course), even in the artiest of street. After all, if HCB could rely on a Serbian expert to print his images, why would RSL refuse to benefit from another Serbian "expert" 

[RSL]

Fair enough, Slobodan. Yes, it looks as if we may have been talking past each other -- at least to some extent. Seems to me I remember a couple of red arrows pointing to "crunchiness" in the color version of the out-of-focus guy's face, but I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

I don't think I'd call the B&W conversion "botched," but I do agree that Nik's "high structure" probably was the "wrong" conversion. Mea culpa. Sometimes I'm in too big a hurry.

I think discussing technical issues is important, but not to the exclusion of what really matters: things like subject significance and composition. I easily can forgive HCB his frequent fuzziness because in his fuzzy pictures both subject significance and composition are exceptional. But I get the feeling that were HCB posting on User Critiques our critiques mostly would involve discussions of the fuzziness. I'm certain there'd be calls for him to crop this way or that.

You're right. If HCB could benefit from Voja Mitrovic's printing, I certainly can benefit (and have benefited) from Slobodan Blagojevic's suggestions. But you have to remember that Henri selected Voja to do his printing because Voja printed the way Henri wanted the printing done. Hmmm. . . I wonder what would be a parallel requisite.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Hmmm. . . I wonder what would be a parallel requisite.

How about this, would this be to your liking?

[RSL]

Okay, Slobodan, That's the best of the three. When I'm famous you can do my printing. Be sure to keep your day job for the time being, though.

[petermfiore]

How about this, would this be to your liking?

Spot on!

Peter

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Spot on!

Peter

+1.