Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 137   Go Down

Author Topic: Without Prejudice 2  (Read 712095 times)

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2120 on: November 06, 2016, 04:35:00 pm »

Interesting technical thing in the Warhol: the top of that railing looks saturated, but it's not. Just very uniform reflectance...
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25142
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2121 on: November 06, 2016, 05:31:32 pm »

Interesting technical thing in the Warhol: the top of that railing looks saturated, but it's not. Just very uniform reflectance...


Maybe, but regardless, it matches the hair very well!

Regarding Lille-Mor: I think he did a spectacular job of her on Pg 74. And the grain: close to what I can fake using Noise. Any more, and Noise looks so, so false. Seems it works well either in very small doses, or really very OTT.

Rob

graeme

  • Guest
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2122 on: November 06, 2016, 08:38:36 pm »

Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2123 on: November 07, 2016, 03:48:05 am »

Here's a challenge... it's interesting that looking through the viewfinder it seemed obvious what was reflection, what was bill-board etc. Looking now, I have to stare at it for a bit to sort out the layers.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25142
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2124 on: November 07, 2016, 03:51:07 am »

Here's a challenge... it's interesting that looking through the viewfinder it seemed obvious what was reflection, what was bill-board etc. Looking now, I have to stare at it for a bit to sort out the layers.


Have you looked at this one in B/W?

Rob

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2125 on: November 07, 2016, 04:36:23 am »

No, I was enjoying all those chocolatey winter colours too much, and I think the guy in the blue shirt moving chairs would be lost entirely. I'll probably have another look tonight.
There was another where I did hesitate between colour and B&W and for the moment I'm liking the mono... do you like waffles ? :)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25142
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2126 on: November 07, 2016, 06:42:25 am »

No, I was enjoying all those chocolatey winter colours too much, and I think the guy in the blue shirt moving chairs would be lost entirely. I'll probably have another look tonight.
There was another where I did hesitate between colour and B&W and for the moment I'm liking the mono... do you like waffles ? :)


Of course; I waffle about all the time! Bad for the eyes, though.

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25142
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2127 on: November 07, 2016, 10:07:52 am »



Rob

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2128 on: November 08, 2016, 04:42:45 am »

More Leitering
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2129 on: November 08, 2016, 04:48:24 am »

Regarding Lille-Mor: I think he did a spectacular job of her on Pg 74.

Yep. there is some sort of coherence in seeing grain, low contrast and dark tones that says low light, intimacy, sombre mood. I wonder if we have learnt that from seeing grain when photos are taken in low light, or because the eye itself starts to work more impressionistically in low light?

Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25142
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2130 on: November 08, 2016, 08:40:17 am »

Yep. there is some sort of coherence in seeing grain, low contrast and dark tones that says low light, intimacy, sombre mood. I wonder if we have learnt that from seeing grain when photos are taken in low light, or because the eye itself starts to work more impressionistically in low light?

I think it might be a mixture of both.

I sometimes look at books, that I know to be well printed, under lowish (40W) table lamp lighting. To my surpise those years ago when I first noticed, the quality of b/white repro seems to improve a lot under poorish light. Not so much colour pages, but definitely so b/white. I can't decide if that's because of the colour of domestic bulbs putting some sort of yellow filter over the b/w repro, or just that it hides flaws.

However, back to Lille-Mor: I think the lighting makes for a feeling of intimacy, and in her case, who'd have complained? After all, that's the purpose of lighting a subject... if he lit or simply grabbed, that is, as I think Bailey used to do with Marie H around bedtime.

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2131 on: November 08, 2016, 07:31:56 pm »

Rob, "Outlet" is an eye-grabber. Well done.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25142
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2132 on: November 09, 2016, 04:17:49 am »

Rob, "Outlet" is an eye-grabber. Well done.


Thanks, Bob; I enjoy the darker side of photos... ;-)

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25142
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2133 on: November 10, 2016, 02:47:45 pm »



Rob

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2134 on: November 10, 2016, 07:51:48 pm »

At my favorite Kona café. Maybe explains why it's always so quiet.

Taken with iPhone.

-Dave-
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18209
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2135 on: November 10, 2016, 11:21:21 pm »

At my favorite Kona café...

Wrong thread.

This belongs to the election thread, Cafe Corner, in particular as an illustration for the anti-Trump post-election demonstrations.  ;)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25142
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2136 on: November 11, 2016, 12:13:41 pm »

Dirty Picture:



Rob

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9263
    • site
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2137 on: November 11, 2016, 12:21:53 pm »

Dirty Picture

A bit of road tar and it could be one of Eric's. Corbyn would like the manhole cover, too.

Jeremy
Logged

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1077
    • flickr
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2138 on: November 11, 2016, 12:34:38 pm »

In "Nightmare" I like the central strolling gent who adds another witness to the calamity with who knows what point of view.

Bruce
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Without Prejudice 2
« Reply #2139 on: November 11, 2016, 01:37:17 pm »

Wrong thread.

Nah, if I'd wanted to post a Trump-related pic I would've started a With Prejudice thread.

-Dave-
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 137   Go Up