Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Ray on January 13, 2015, 06:40:26 am
-
The doors are fine, Kevin, but you've blown the windows. Did you deliberately present a blown sky for some particular effect you had in mind?
Considering the expense and sophistication of the equipment used, a Phase One IQ180, the blown sky surely couldn't have been due to the limitations of the camera. ;)
Did you think that the color blue, and a bit of solid green in the hills, would have spoilt the color balance, perhaps? ;)
-
Really?
I was there. The sky was a textureless light grey due to clouds. It is not blown.
I find the rest of the comment incomprehensible, verging on fatuous.
Michael
-
For Phase One's $30,000 mark-up, I expect their backs to resolve detail and tone whether it's there or not. Hardly an unreasonable demand. Otherwise what's the point?
- N.
-
Really?
I was there. The sky was a textureless light grey due to clouds. It is not blown.
It's 255, 255, 255 on my monitor in Photoshop. That's not grey.
I find the rest of the comment incomprehensible, verging on fatuous.
I was referring indirectly to some of your featured articles from Alain Briot on groups of matching colors. Let's be rational now, Michael. ;)
-
Fine. But if they are not there to begin with, what then? Paint them in?
Michael
-
Kevin seems to have become a target for some of the members? Considering the time and work he contributes to the site, I think the offenders should take a step back and think again. :(
-
"It's 255, 255, 255 on my monitor in Photoshop. That's not grey."
And since when did how things appear on "your" monitor have anything to do with reality?
You are looking at a highly compressed 8 bit JPG, optimized for web display. At that size the alien mothership could be hovering over the distant mountain and you'd never see it.
The point is that on that day nature served up a featureless sky. 0-0-0 or 250-250-250 makes little difference. In my view raising this discussion is nothing more than a quibble.
Michael
-
Kevin seems to have become a target for some of the members? Considering the time and work he contributes to the site, I think the offenders should take a step back and think again. :(
I think part of the problem is that Kevin is very reasonable and polite. People like that are sometimes seen as targets.
I on the other hand will piss on anyone that gets out of line; always have and always will. >:(
-
"It's 255, 255, 255 on my monitor in Photoshop. That's not grey."
And since when did how things appear on "your" monitor have anything to do with reality?
You are looking at a highly compressed 8 bit JPG, optimized for web display. At that size the alien mothership could be hovering over the distant mountain and you'd never see it.
The point is that on that day nature served up a featureless sky. 0-0-0 or 250-250-250 makes little difference. In my view raising this discussion is nothing more than a quibble.
Michael
Well, I must say that I'm rather amazed at the response to my initial comment. Let me first assert that I have no agenda to attack Kevin. I'm merely expressing a genuine and honest impression of his recent photo. Anyone who's familiar with my many posts on this site would realize that I'm not into ad hominem attacks.
The point is that on that day nature served up a featureless sky. 0-0-0 or 250-250-250 makes little difference. In my view raising this discussion is nothing more than a quibble.
Michael, I would say that from the point of view of the average person, most of the discussions on LL are of the nature of quibbles. Is one lens slightly sharper than another? Does one camera produce slightly less noise than another, at the same ISO? etc. etc.
Surely, all of us on LL are concerned with achieving the best results possible, both technically and artistically.
If Kevin's full image, in its original size and color profile, shows a truly grey sky with nicely contrasting greenery on the hill (I find grey skies and green foliage a very attractive match), then I apologize.
Perhaps it's time for a feature article on your site explaining how to process images for display on the internet that retain the essential features of tonality, contrast and color that are apparent on the full scale image.
-
The doors are fine, Kevin, but you've blown the windows. Did you deliberately present a blown sky for some particular effect you had in mind?
Considering the expense and sophistication of the equipment used, a Phase One IQ180, the blown sky surely couldn't have been due to the limitations of the camera. ;)
Did you think that the color blue, and a bit of solid green in the hills, would have spoilt the color balance, perhaps? ;)
I think the image works well exactly by not having a blue sky or much color seen through the window. In the jpg the sky is pure white, however this says nothing about what the RAW file was like. The RAW could contain detail that is clipped in pp by choice. Any camera could expose the sky through the window so it would not be clipped. Personally I prefer the picture as is and it is not overprocessed.
-
In the jpg the sky is pure white, however this says nothing about what the RAW file was like.
Hans, how do you know it's not overexposed if what you see in the jpeg is pure white? I can only comment on what I see. Whenever I send email jpeg attachment to friends, I do my best to ensure there are no 'visually' blown highlights in the down-sampled, sRGB image, if the original full image doesn't have any blown highlights.
-
Hans, how do you know it's not overexposed if what you see in the jpeg is pure white? I can only comment on what I see. Whenever I send email jpeg attachment to friends, I do my best to ensure there are no 'visually' blown highlights in the down-sampled, sRGB image, if the original full image doesn't have any blown highlights.
As I said, you don't know of the RAW file is blown or not. The JPG says nothing about that. Btw. I usually also make sure to avoid blown out areas, if they matter, in capture. Also in pp I will do the same. But in this case I felt that no detail was better than if there had been detail.
-
As I said, you don't know of the RAW file is blown or not. The JPG says nothing about that. Btw. I usually also make sure to avoid blown out areas, if they matter, in capture. Also in pp I will do the same. But in this case I felt that no detail was better than if there had been detail.
IMHO, it does not matter if the window highlights are clipped or not. This is a case where exposing for the mid-tones makes sense. Let the featureless highlights blow out if necessary. In post, one can tone map them where ever one wants. I would map them to white so as to have a full range image. If one looks at the JPEG and excludes the window, the histogram appears quite reasonable.
Regards,
Bill
-
Kevin can't win. If he had done something in post to put detail in the window, he'd have been taken to task for Raberizing. He has taken the high road by not responding.
-
White or gray sky is not important.
What this picture needs is a pair of kangaroos hopping up the hill. Ideally with red scarfs around their necks (something like 255, 183, 213).
-
... I on the other hand will piss on anyone that gets out of line; always have and always will. >:(
Luckily, you are not alone ;-)
-
Boy, some folks got up on the wrong side of the bed today. Kevin presents a lot of his work. Criticizing, if you can call it that, a blank sky is perfectly reasonable. If that constitutes a personal attack there must a back story I'm unaware of. Besides, Kevin can "defend" himself,but isn't doing so I would note.
-
IMHO, it does not matter if the window highlights are clipped or not. This is a case where exposing for the mid-tones makes sense. Let the featureless highlights blow out if necessary. In post, one can tone map them where ever one wants. I would map them to white so as to have a full range image. If one looks at the JPEG and excludes the window, the histogram appears quite reasonable.
Regards,
Bill
You express more or less what I intended to say :)
-
I personally like the sky…it gives an otherwise midrange-heavy scene some highlight content. It also draws my eye nicely through the door and then the window. Thumbs up.
-Dave-
-
Kevin can "defend" himself,but isn't doing so I would note.
That's not a safe assumption. Kevin has been out of town on family business. Never presume.
Michael
-
IMHO, it does not matter if the window highlights are clipped or not. This is a case where exposing for the mid-tones makes sense. Let the featureless highlights blow out if necessary. In post, one can tone map them where ever one wants. I would map them to white so as to have a full range image. If one looks at the JPEG and excludes the window, the histogram appears quite reasonable.
Regards,
Bill
Fair enough, Bill. If that's your opinion I wouldn't attack you for expressing it. I would agree that there are many situations in photography where small patches of blown highlights are not significant.
However, this image is called 'Doors and Windows'. implying that the window is not insignificant. Patches of white in an image tend to attract the eye, and this patch of white sky is right in the centre of the image, distracting the attention from the detailed and crumbling surroundings.
In my opinion, this represents a flaw in the composition. I'm also reminded of a wise statement from one of Alain Briot's articles, to the effect that every part of the image is important.
-
Boy, some folks got up on the wrong side of the bed today. Kevin presents a lot of his work. Criticizing, if you can call it that, a blank sky is perfectly reasonable. If that constitutes a personal attack there must a back story I'm unaware of. Besides, Kevin can "defend" himself,but isn't doing so I would note.
There is a back story. Ray "likes" to criticise Kevin's photographic output. He will no doubt defend himself under the guise of free speech etc etc but when it becomes repetitive then you have to wonder. Remember criticising somebody's output isn't mandatory. There is a choice to look and ignore. :(
-
Couldn't agree more. But the fact is the view is the focal point and as such is uninteresting.
Another day another shot.
To me, this is the key point about the image. Even if it is just a small portion of the image, the eye is led to the hill, where the interest (featureless sky and hill) is nill.
-
There is a back story. Ray "likes" to criticise Kevin's photographic output. He will no doubt defend himself under the guise of free speech etc etc but when it becomes repetitive then you have to wonder. Remember criticising somebody's output isn't mandatory. There is a choice to look and ignore. :(
Yeah, and this image was shot with an IQ180, so it presented an opportunity Ray just couldn't pass up: He could ridicule Kevin and the IQ180 all in one post. Note the use of ;) in his original post when referring to the "expense an sophistication" of the equipment. Doubled his pleasure.
:(
Dave
-
I admit that I am puzzled by Michael's defensiveness. Who cares if it was overcast? Who cares if all the rings of Saturn can be made out in the sky in the RAW file?
The picture as shown to us had a white sky. The only question is whether that is a flaw, and if so, a serious one.
Personally, I don't care. The sky seems a minor point. But I mostly don't like the pictures on the front page to start with, and this one is no exception.
-
There is a back story. Ray "likes" to criticise Kevin's photographic output. He will no doubt defend himself under the guise of free speech etc etc but when it becomes repetitive then you have to wonder. Remember criticising somebody's output isn't mandatory. There is a choice to look and ignore. :(
Dear me! What confusion! As I recall, I've passed comment on just 3 or 4 of Kevin's photos in total, over the past couple of years. Is that excessive or repetitive?
One of them, an iceberg in the shape of a mushroom, I liked, and said so. I liked the iceberg shot because it really did look like a giant mushroom and was therefore captivating.
In this current shot I said the doors are fine, and they are. It's the view through the window which lets the image down, in my opinion.
Since this is a photographic forum, I'm under the impression that sensible and honest criticism of images is welcome. It is through criticism that people learn.
Merely stating that one likes or dislikes an image provides very little useful information. In fact, it's very easy to dishonestly state one likes an image, in order to curry favour or cement a friendship, which is not helpful to anyone who wants to learn about the ingredients of good composition.
In my view, when criticising an image, one should try to be clear as to what aspects and characteristics of the image one likes or dislikes, and the reasons why. For example, Telecaster writes that he likes the white sky in the image because it gives balance to the heavy midrange tones. That's fair enough. But when he writes: "It also draws my eye nicely through the door and then the window", I get a sense that perhaps his eye does not want to dwell on the texture and detail of the crumbling plaster and brickwork, and prefers to dwell instead on the blank sky. ;)
-
Ray you forgot the industrial shots which you heavily criticised. possibly too much? An image posted here should be visually critiqued and commented on, which you did. However you then downloaded it and put the eyedropper on the white area in PS to to reinforce your point about the blown area. That goes beyond a visual appraisal of an image and into nitpicking imo.
-
I admit that I am puzzled by Michael's defensiveness. Who cares if it was overcast? Who cares if all the rings of Saturn can be made out in the sky in the RAW file?
The picture as shown to us had a white sky. The only question is whether that is a flaw, and if so, a serious one.
Personally, I don't care. The sky seems a minor point. But I mostly don't like the pictures on the front page to start with, and this one is no exception.
Indeed, the white sky is a minor point, and I don't care about it because that's the way it was and it's largely irrelevant.
But Ray made it an issue, and I responded. Is that "defensive"? I call it discussion.
At issue here is that we all face the problem of white skies...very bright yet textureless and without colour. What to do? Well, if one wants to manipulate the image then doing a selection and pulling it down a stop or so will make it a featureless light grey sky. Any better?
Add a blue tint? Nahhhh. Paste in some clouds? Now you're taking. But what you'll have then is no longer a photograph but a photo illustration.
In truth there is little to be done about this type of sky, whether you shoot it with a IQ180 or a iPhone. The fallacy in Ray's point is that someone else (him?) might have done a better job, and the answer to that likely is...no.
Michael
-
At issue here is that we all face the problem of white skies...very bright yet textureless and without colour. What to do? Well, if one wants to manipulate the image then doing a selection and pulling it down a stop or so will make it a featureless light grey sky. Any better?
Michael,
A pronounced grey adjoining a pronounced green, of hills and foliage, for example, is a very effective combination in my opinion. I like it.
If the RAW file doesn't contain any blown primaries in the sky, pulling it down a stop or so sometimes reveals subtle shades of tonality, especially, I imagine, when the camera is high res and high DR like the IQ180.
Even if there is literally no detail in the sky, a darker grey would be better than pure white in this image, simply because it would distract the attention less, from the more interesting, dilapidated, surrounding brickwork.
-
Ray you forgot the industrial shots which you heavily criticised. possibly too much?
But what an honest criticism that was! ;)
An image posted here should be visually critiqued and commented on, which you did. However you then downloaded it and put the eyedropper on the white area in PS to to reinforce your point about the blown area. That goes beyond a visual appraisal of an image and into nitpicking imo.
I downloaded the image merely to confirm that the sky really was blown, before making my criticism, and that it wasn't my monitor deluding me. My criticism is based on my initial impression. Got it?
-
I think what I have got - and what Michael was alluding to - is that you have a large ego? :(
-
I think what I have got - and what Michael was alluding to - is that you have a large ego? :(
No, Stamper. I would characterise it as a strong ego rather than a large one. A large ego implies an inflated ego, which is a vulnerable ego, easily offended by criticism, for example. Got it? ;)
-
Okay then, how about tactless and stubborn? :)
-
Me! Rude and inept? Don't be silly.
As for 'stubborn', I always give way to the superior argument, when it's presented. If it's rarely presented, that's hardly my fault. ;)
-
OK kids, time for name calling is over.
Michael