Post by: rabanito on January 19, 2019, 04:06:24 am
There were some solutions proposed (thank you very much) and I investigated (googled) a little about that problem myself
It seems that it happens now and then when merging pictures to HDR.
In the case of this picture I was just playing around with HDR and absolutely unaware of it.
I must confess that I didn't notice the "hallowing" until told by members of LuLa. I had dismissed it as an optical illusion, sort of "moire"
The difference between the expert's hawk eyes and those of the newbie ???
Still much to learn. Good so.
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 19, 2019, 09:42:49 am
The important thing is: you have a good eye for scenes that attract you.
Post by: rabanito on January 19, 2019, 10:42:36 am
That "problem" is a very minor technical issue that you now know how to overcome.
The important thing is: you have a good eye for scenes that attract you.
Nice words. Thank you :)
Post by: luxborealis on January 19, 2019, 12:20:09 pm
That "problem" is a very minor technical issue that you now know how to overcome.
The important thing is: you have a good eye for scenes that attract you.
+1
We’ve all been there. I clearly remember one of my first juried art shows. I submitted what to me was a beautiful black-and-white of animal footprints through snow and around cattails in a marsh. I was devastated when the juror pointed out the flaws. It was as if my photograph was accepted only to be criticized, but that was not the case at all. More importantly, I learned from the experience, as I do with each and every criticism (at least the ones I concur with!) :)
Post by: RSL on January 19, 2019, 12:37:53 pm
Post by: rabanito on January 19, 2019, 03:12:05 pm
I have no problem with my minor problems. On the contrary, being pointed out is what makes things more interesting. There is always something to learn, something to do better.
And as far as I'm concerned, I always got good and friendly advice on almost anything I asked and am really grateful :)
Post by: RSL on January 19, 2019, 07:51:41 pm
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 19, 2019, 11:21:02 pm
I'm glad to hear that, Rab. And I don't mean to knock criticism of technicalities. I just hate to see the technicalities overrule the basic rightness of the thing.+1.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 20, 2019, 12:50:17 am
The way people get wrapped around the axle over minor technical flaws always cracks me up. Some of the greatest photographs in history have obvious technical flaws. Film was slow, resulting in unintended motion blur. Lenses were far from perfect, resulting in distortion and other lens difficulties. But it's what's in the picture that makes the picture, not minor technical problems.
I agree, Russ.
Nothing wrong with trying to avoid the technical cavities as long it doesn’t overshadow what matters.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 20, 2019, 03:43:17 am
The way people get wrapped around the axle over minor technical flaws always cracks me up. Some of the greatest photographs in history have obvious technical flaws. Film was slow, resulting in unintended motion blur. Lenses were far from perfect, resulting in distortion and other lens difficulties. But it's what's in the picture that makes the picture, not minor technical problems.
Absolutely.
Post by: John R on January 20, 2019, 06:54:35 am
I'm glad to hear that, Rab. And I don't mean to knock criticism of technicalities. I just hate to see the technicalities overrule the basic rightness of the thing.All true. But in this age of digital photography, nobody in my club (or outside judges) would accept that technical flaws should appear in competition grade images. I found this out the hard way, coming from slides, where what you is what you get. I'm afraid we can never go back.
JR
Post by: RSL on January 20, 2019, 09:52:50 am
All true. But in this age of digital photography, nobody in my club (or outside judges) would accept that technical flaws should appear in competition grade images. I found this out the hard way, coming from slides, where what you is what you get. I'm afraid we can never go back.
JR
Sorry to hear that, John. But did anyone explain what a "competition grade image" is? I guess they'd have thrown out nearly all of Erwitt's, or HCB's or Frank's. They wouldn't even have considered Winogrand's stuff because he didn't keep his horizons "straight."
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 20, 2019, 10:22:56 am
Really great photography also needs above average levels of creativity. A personality trait usually accompanied by a more open personality, one less bothered by rules and following what others think. A less conservative personality, more open to different points of view.
And there is the problem with photography. It requires personality traits not commonly found in the same person. Not never, but seldom.
Post by: RSL on January 20, 2019, 11:04:52 am
I agree, Russ.
Nothing wrong with trying to avoid the technical cavities as long it doesn’t overshadow what matters.
Actually, Ivo, I suspect we agree on a lot of stuff. And yes, there's no reason to turn up one's nose at technical details. In landscape they're practically the whole thing. In street, where the action or the implication is the thing, they often shade into insignificance.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 20, 2019, 11:56:04 am
Actually, Ivo, I suspect we agree on a lot of stuff. And yes, there's no reason to turn up one's nose at technical details. In landscape they're practically the whole thing. In street, where the action or the implication is the thing, they often shade into insignificance.
I have to agree again.
Post by: RSL on January 20, 2019, 12:20:45 pm
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 20, 2019, 12:21:46 pm
Post by: RSL on January 20, 2019, 12:27:18 pm
Post by: KLaban on January 20, 2019, 12:34:05 pm
All true. But in this age of digital photography, nobody in my club (or outside judges) would accept that technical flaws should appear in competition grade images. I found this out the hard way, coming from slides, where what you is what you get. I'm afraid we can never go back.
JR
John, please, resign.
;-)
Post by: Rob C on January 20, 2019, 01:01:45 pm
It was insulted for looking too professional... that was actually the kindest thing they could have told me, but it was enough for me to realise that camera clubs are for another sort of animal. As with my night school adventure, where the lecturer told me he'd pack in photography if, horrors, his pix resembled David Bailey's; in both cases, I never went back. I don't think we missed one another.
Rob
Post by: Ivophoto on January 20, 2019, 01:32:40 pm
Russ, Ivo, you guys are freaking me out. Stop it.
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 20, 2019, 06:07:57 pm
I'll bet she was stunning. :D
Post by: John R on January 21, 2019, 10:28:19 am
Sorry to hear that, John. But did anyone explain what a "competition grade image" is? I guess they'd have thrown out nearly all of Erwitt's, or HCB's or Frank's. They wouldn't even have considered Winogrand's stuff because he didn't keep his horizons "straight."Russ, anything deemed good enough to enter in any competition should be free from glaring technical errors, according to most judges. Such as tilted horizons (unless deliberate), over/under exposure, etc. Why, because they are considered easily fixable in PP. Studio images are judged even more rigorously because the photographer is considered to be in control of his subjects and lighting. Beginners are given a break. Advanced and above are considered to know better. To be fair, the kind of work you reference is from a different era and from a genre not likely to be judged the same way. After all, most long time photographers in clubs are familiar with the work of the great photographers and would not downgrade their work for their so-called technical faults. The truth is, you don't see almost any "street" work in Camera Clubs. The category would have to be Urban or street for most people to want to enter such asn image. I suspect people don't like "street" unless it is extremely well done. OTOH, we see a lot of images similar to Keith's and Slobodan's, and lots of nature, architecture and portrait style images.
One good example would be arguments between members and judges about what is considered overexposed, or for that matter, underexposed. Tilted horizons in landscapes or architecture, that are deemed fixable and important to the image are downgraded in points. It is sometimes a fine line.
Just wanted you all to know, camera club people are not much different than LuLa members, especially if they have been around a while. I should have made my point differently. Just want to point out, digital imaging and PP, has had a great impact on how images are viewed and judged in today's photography. So I had to learn at least some PP and up my game to ensure my images are the best they can be. Never mind all the fake skies and other PP alterations, which I won't even go into.
JR
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 21, 2019, 11:00:38 am
I've heard rumors that some photographers even go so far as to deliberately jiggle the camera during an exposure.
Absolutely shocking! :D
Eric
Post by: RSL on January 21, 2019, 11:10:50 am
Russ, anything deemed good enough to enter in any competition should be free from glaring technical errors, according to most judges. Such as tilted horizons (unless deliberate), over/under exposure, etc. Why, because they are considered easily fixable in PP. Studio images are judged even more rigorously because the photographer is considered to be in control of his subjects and lighting. Beginners are given a break. Advanced and above are considered to know better. To be fair, the kind of work you reference is from a different era and from a genre not likely to be judged the same way. After all, most long time photographers in clubs are familiar with the work of the great photographers and would not downgrade their work for their so-called technical faults. The truth is, you don't see almost any "street" work in Camera Clubs. The category would have to be Urban or street for most people to want to enter such asn image. I suspect people don't like "street" unless it is extremely well done. OTOH, we see a lot of images similar to Keith's and Slobodan's, and lots of nature, architecture and portrait style images.
One good example would be arguments between members and judges about what is considered overexposed, or for that matter, underexposed. Tilted horizons in landscapes or architecture, that are deemed fixable and important to the image are downgraded in points. It is sometimes a fine line.
Just wanted you all to know, camera club people are not much different than LuLa members, especially if they have been around a while. I should have made my point differently. Just want to point out, digital imaging and PP, has had a great impact on how images are viewed and judged in today's photography. So I had to learn at least some PP and up my game to ensure my images are the best they can be. Never mind all the fake skies and other PP alterations, which I won't even go into.
JR
Thanks, John. You explained quite eloquently why it doesn’t make sense to enter stuff in “camera club” exhibits or competitions. I keep remembering the art competition decades ago at the Colorado Springs Fine Art Center in which I entered a couple woodcuts. I didn’t expect to win any prizes, and of course I wasn’t disappointed to find I was right, but the best of show winner was three blank canvases set at different angles. Wow! Sensitive judges.
The main problem with any “art” competition is that the real value of art is in the message the work conveys to what I call the “seer.” (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TouchingTheSeer.html) It doesn’t really matter from what “era” a work of art comes. It either has the power to touch the seer or it hasn’t. And the problem is that if you have, say, three judges in an art competition, one or more may have a seer incapable of being touched by art. Even if all three are sensitive enough to be touched by the work, chances are they’ll be touched in different ways. So in the end it comes down to judging on peripheral points such as whether or not the horizon is straight, consideration of directly observable technical things such as exposure, etc. Judges don’t like street because many people – both judges and observers – are incapable of grasping what really good street photography conveys.
Yes, if you’re shooting raw, which you should be, you always need postprocessing – sharpening and brightness control, but if you’ve handled your camera properly you need damn little postprocessing.
And, yes: “. . .camera club people are not much different than LuLa members. . .” You can say that again. And, yes: in camera club competitions you’ll see “. . .lots of nature, architecture and portrait style images.” Of course you will. That’s the easy stuff. Shooting people doing their thing naturally, without posing for the camera is harder, and sometimes even scary.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 21, 2019, 11:15:17 am
...it doesn’t make sense to enter stuff in “camera club” exhibits or competitions...
Russ, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Post by: RSL on January 21, 2019, 11:19:30 am
Slobodan, I should have changed that to "juried shows or exhibitions." I'm about to put five prints into an art show in March, but it's not a juried show. We just show stuff. That's a bit different. John was talking about juried shows, and for juried shows I mean every word I wrote.
Post by: rabanito on January 21, 2019, 01:02:41 pm
Hey, John,
I've heard rumors that some photographers even go so far as to deliberately jiggle the camera during an exposure.
Absolutely shocking! :D
Eric
+1
+ :D :D
Post by: John R on January 21, 2019, 01:55:38 pm
Hey, John,Shocking indeed. But in my experience in camera clubs, impressionist and non-representational imagery, like "Street", have to be done very well, before it is well received by judges and members. My guess is the further you stray from the mainstays of camera clubs, ie., people, travel, architecture, landscape, nature, monochromatic (sometimes), etc, the more your images have to be very good to do well. One way to look at this, is, do I want to wade through thousands of so-called street images or impressionist images, or other arty images on the net just to see some good ones! Let's face it, most of the stuff on the net is quite bad. Street is the worst. So many bad images appearing extremely busy and chaotic, as if someone were shooting a machine gun, claiming they are good "street" photography.
I've heard rumors that some photographers even go so far as to deliberately jiggle the camera during an exposure.
Absolutely shocking! :D
Eric
JR
Post by: RSL on January 21, 2019, 02:13:32 pm
Shocking indeed. But in my experience in camera clubs, impressionist and non-representational imagery, like "Street", have to be done very well, before it is well received by judges and members. My guess is the further you stray from the mainstays of camera clubs, ie., people, travel, architecture, landscape, nature, monochromatic (sometimes), etc, the more your images have to be very good to do well. One way to look at this, is, do I want to wade through thousands of so-called street images or impressionist images, or other arty images on the net just to see some good ones! Let's face it, most of the stuff on the net is quite bad. Street is the worst. So many bad images appearing extremely busy and chaotic, as if someone were shooting a machine gun, claiming they are good "street" photography.
JR
Exactly, John. The problem is that few people have a clue what street photography is all about. They think that if there are people in the picture, especially if there’s a street along with the people, they have a street photograph. Some of these people even edit books. Take, for instance, Jackie Higgins’s The World Atlas of Street Photography. As I wrote in my bibliography (http://www.pkinfo.com//Bib/Bib.html):
“Jackie Higgins has a strange idea of what street photography is all about, and though there are some good photographs in this book there are vanishingly few street photographs. Both Ms. Higgins and Max Kozloff, who wrote the foreword, have the idea that street photography is confined to urban areas and streets, an idea that won't hold up under examination. In this book we have pictures of streets, pictures of buildings, informal portraits, advertising pictures, pictures of signs, pictures of cities, pictures of rubble, pictures of junkyards… all misidentified as street photography. Which is not to say there aren't some very fine pictures in this book, even some very fine street photographs, but the book's title misses the mark completely.”
You often can see the same confusion in LuLa’s “Street Showcase.”
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 21, 2019, 08:30:37 pm
Russ would give him competition if he lived near a city, but he now has to settle for local landscapey glimpses. His archives show a lot of excellent stuff, too.
-Eric
Post by: RSL on January 22, 2019, 07:34:28 am
Post by: Rob C on January 22, 2019, 02:05:10 pm
I agree, Eric. Robert is by far the best street shooter on LuLa. Yes, he's in a place where the opportunity exists, but there's a lot more to it than that. He has a great eye, and he obviously understands HCB's maxim: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."
Yes, he's always been good at it since I've been aware of him; as you say, much of it is because he knows what the thing is. That's always a pretty good start!
One of the first images of his I remember was shot in the Necropolis in Glasgow. Or so I remember the location as having been.
Can never beat eye and understanding.
Rob