Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: RSL on June 10, 2019, 10:09:41 am
-
.
-
We seem to find you in some seriously odd places, Russ!
Full of ambiguity, therefore great street shot. I mean, it has a bar in it, after all. ;-)
-
Everybody gets into odd places, Oscar, but most don't carry a camera, or if they do, are too chicken to make the shot.
-
A fine one, Russ.
-
Thanks, Eric. I roll on the floor, laughing, every time I run across that one in my catalog.
-
Oscar seems to see it, but am I almost alone in finding it full of menace?
The pretty girl in the poster adds to the unease, a touch of lightness in the grimness, underlining that something's wrong.
Unlike Russ, my reaction sees no humour at all.
A shot that works well, makes one think.
Rob
-
Yes, I see the menace too, Rob. It's in the people. Wouldn't want to mix it up with this group. Which is why I lifted the camera, pressed the button, and walked on briskly. From the sign I'd guess this group actually is more confused than menacing, though.
-
I think the guy sitting on the bench is waiting for the "Do Not" on the sign to change to "Please."
-
And the sign is just the entrance to the picture. The arrows above the guys head? Where does that lead now? And like all shady bars, this bar too serves piss for beer. It kind of reminds me of the pop-cult version of hotel California. And with those people it makes you think: some choices in life are one way tickets too. Make the wrong choice and you end up in the wrong place. A wrong choice is an entrance to a spot in life you should not want to be: an entrance but do not enter. Heck, even life itself is like that; an entrance to something, but heed the sign.
Thus, full of ambiguity AND it teaches something about life. Go figure!
-
Hi Russ,
Nice grab...The question is, How was it that you happened to find find yourself in such an ESTABLISHMENT?
Peter
-
Thus, full of ambiguity AND it teaches something about life. Go figure!
Exactly what street photography is supposed to do, Oscar.
And, Peter, I don't remember. I ran across this in my catalog. Made the shot in 2008. As I recall, I was walking past in a hallway and just stopped and made the shot, then walked on.
-
... made the shot, then walked on.
before the guy behind the bar could come out with his shotgun.
-
Shotgun or no, in street photography it always pays to be non-threatening and invisible, make the shot quietly and move on as if nothing is happening. You can learn street technique from The Shadow: cloud men's minds (and women's too if that's at all possible.)
-
Thumbs up for this one.
-
Actually, this one is very good!
Just a technical side note: tweaking the contrast could solve the noise which is too prominent. It doesn't make the picture less good, the picture is strong enough to ignore some technical flaw, but it is close to a fail, i'm afraid.
If you allow me, I can show a tweaked version that solves the noise issue.
Ivo
-
Actually, this one is very good!
Just a technical side note: tweaking the contrast could solve the noise which is too prominent. It doesn't make the picture less good, the picture is strong enough to ignore some technical flaw, but it is close to a fail, i'm afraid.
If you allow me, I can show a tweaked version that solves the noise issue.
Ivo
Thanks, Ivo. I saw the noise but didn't worry about it. Actually, I can get rid of the noise quickly with DXO Photo Lab's Prime noise reduction, but go ahead with your tweaked version.
-
Thanks, Ivo. I saw the noise but didn't worry about it. Actually, I can get rid of the noise quickly with DXO Photo Lab's Prime noise reduction, but go ahead with your tweaked version.
Thanks Russ. Noise reduction is one thing, I would only apply it in the dark area's and keep the peoples face like it is. I think the black point of your version is a bit to liberal, that creates noise where it should not be visible at all, Pulling the feet of the curve helps to get rid of that noise in the shadows. Some noise reduction and painting back with the history brush on the critical textures should do a fine job. Sure, on the downloaded web file, there is not much possible, but on your raw file it could make a positive difference.
Do you think this serves the result?:
-
Thanks again, Ivo. Yes. The quality of the image has improved noticeably. Were I planning to print it at 17 x 22 inches it would make a real difference. I hadn't planned to do that much tweaking, but I appreciate the improvement.
-
Thanks again, Ivo. Yes. The quality of the image has improved noticeably. Were I planning to print it at 17 x 22 inches it would make a real difference. I hadn't planned to do that much tweaking, but I appreciate the improvement.
+1
The image has regained "plasticity" or 3D. Noise made it look like a newspaper cutout.
-
+1
The image has regained "plasticity" or 3D. Noise made it look like a newspaper cutout.
What nonsense!
It can only be 2D.
At the very least, I'd have hoped that "Street" would have had more to say about emotion than technical games. Had it ben pushed Tri X nobody would have raised an eyebrow, but since the digital infection... Plasticity was the curse that haunted digital from the onset: that cream look of bad, four-colour litho.
Frank and Klein would never have made it in today's anodyne world of spiritual philistinism, and Bailey, Horvat and Sieff remain but footnotes in the history of fashion photography. Sarah would have been put in the stocks prior to being hanged, drawn and quartered...
;-)
-
What nonsense!
It can only be 2D.
At the very least, I'd have hoped that "Street" would have had more to say about emotion than technical games. Had it ben pushed Tri X nobody would have raised an eyebrow, but since the digital infection... Plasticity was the curse that haunted digital from the onset: that cream look of bad, four-colour litho.
Frank and Klein would never have made it in today's anodyne world of spiritual philistinism, and Bailey, Horvat and Sieff remain but footnotes in the history of fashion photography. Sarah would have been put in the stocks prior to being hanged, drawn and quartered...
;-)
Two different things, Rob.
As said, I think this picture is strong enough to survive some technical flaw. Capa’s D day pictures survived a complete film drying disaster.
It is not only about noise here. It is about a sub optimal black point placement and a tweak of clever noise reduction.
If this would have been a trix scan, the slider on the left side of the histo would have been wrong placed, if it was a print, the paper would have been underexposed.
It is not the noise itself, but the unnecessary technical shortcoming of the result.
I only mention this, because the image is worth the comment.
I ‘m sure Russ understood my positive intention.
Cheers
Ivo
-
I really appreciate the improvement Ivo made to the picture. It was a friendly gesture, and he’s obviously a damn good post-processor. And I can understand Slobodan’s position. For the kind of photography Slobodan does, “plasticity” is really important.
But, having said that, I agree with you, Rob, as you, and anyone else who’s read my article on street photography (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/OnStreetPhotography.pdf) would understand. And what you said is exactly why I don’t spend a whole lot of time post-processing my street photographs. Street is about emotion, and about showing a kind of interaction between people and between people and their environment that’s hard to put into words: difficult in poetry, impossible in prose. Neither Ivo nor Slobodan does street photography, so to them it’s important to have a file that’ll make a wall-sized print. I wish I had their skills to apply to my best wabi sabi.
-
I don't know what's worse: Ivo and Russ trying to be nice to each other, or that "attempt" at "improving" a gritty scene, while inappropriately educating us on postprocessing.
The t-shirt turned into a flat piece of vanta black plastic. Plasticity, all right. A quick check of the histo immediately tells us that the blackpoint was placed perfectly. If you really couldn't see through the noise, apply a judicious amount of nr and be done with it. That whole picture, the whole scene and the situation it depicts, breathes grittiness. Leave the noise be.
-
I don't know what's worse: Ivo and Russ trying to be nice to each other, or that "attempt" at "improving" a gritty scene, while inappropriately educating us on postprocessing.
The t-shirt turned into a flat piece of vanta black plastic. Plasticity, all right. A quick check of the histo immediately tells us that the blackpoint was placed perfectly. If you really couldn't see through the noise, apply a judicious amount of nr and be done with it. That whole picture, the whole scene and the situation it depicts, breathes grittiness. Leave the noise be.
The worst thing is somebody who convert a kind and positive comment in something inappropriate.
::) ::) ::)
-
I, too, prefer the original. The noise suits the image, and the blacks are crushed in the revision. That file is never going to look slick, so why bother?
But I appreciate the bonhomie.
-
There is a blunt truth about the amateurishly view on the acceptance of a certain technical issue. I ‘m not going to write it down, because Russ doesn’t deserve the controversy under his fine picture.
Just a side note: a certain photographic style shouldn’t be the reason not to strive to technical excellence. The virtuosity of content and excellent execution makes the difference between a good attempt and a really good picture.
On the other hand, no problem to be happy with less than a masterpiece.
-
There is a blunt truth about the amateurishly view on the acceptance of a certain technical issue. I ‘m not going to write it down, because Russ doesn’t deserve the controversy under his fine picture.
Just a side note: a certain photographic style shouldn’t be the reason not to strive to technical excellence. The virtuosity of content and excellent execution makes the difference between a good attempt and a really good picture.
On the other hand, no problem to be happy with less than a masterpiece.
No, Ivo. Atmosphere does not depend on immaculate technical looks in an image; in some, it sure does, but in others decidedly not. The entire aesthetic depends on the idea of "rough and ready" - à la sauvette - caught on the fly.
If you make everything next to perfect, then the work doesn't fit: it looks like you used 8" x 10" cameras, made a scene à la Crewdson, but without the Hollywood cast. Do you see what I mean? A cheap version of somebody else.
Even Frank and Klein would look pathetic judged by that concept of measure. Instead, within their aesthetic, they are amazingly perceptive, fast and powerful, producing pictures that will last for a long, long time as both history and statement.
Rob
-
There is a blunt truth about the amateurishly view on the acceptance of a certain technical issue. I ‘m not going to write it down, because Russ doesn’t deserve the controversy under his fine picture.
Just a side note: a certain photographic style shouldn’t be the reason not to strive to technical excellence. The virtuosity of content and excellent execution makes the difference between a good attempt and a really good picture.
On the other hand, no problem to be happy with less than a masterpiece.
Why? I'm fairly certain he likes a processing controversy more than the controversial politics over at the coffee corner.
The picture seems overexposed, could be OOC, could be post processing. The picture is shot under the worst possible light. This will result in a flat look with horrible color, and excessive shadownoise. There is certainly merit in reducing some of the shadownoise to equalise the overall look. To reduce the harshness and flatness, one could also introduce some vignetting. Apply a slight gamma correction which will also be enough to regain some contrast. All stuff that will result in a bit more 3D pop, or plasticity, or whatever one may call it.
But one thing it is not: it is not a blackpoint issue.
I do agree with the following quote
That file is never going to look slick, so why bother?
the bar in the picture don't look slick, the people in the picture don't look slick. So, the processing, while perhaps leaving something to be desired, at the very least gives some consistency.
-
Why? I'm fairly certain he likes a processing controversy more than the controversial politics over at the coffee corner.
The picture seems overexposed, could be OOC, could be post processing. The picture is shot under the worst possible light. This will result in a flat look with horrible color, and excessive shadownoise. There is certainly merit in reducing some of the shadownoise to equalise the overall look. To reduce the harshness and flatness, one could also introduce some vignetting. Apply a slight gamma correction which will also be enough to regain some contrast. All stuff that will result in a bit more 3D pop, or plasticity, or whatever one may call it.
But one thing it is not: it is not a blackpoint issue.
I do agree with the following quote
the bar in the picture don't look slick, the people in the picture don't look slick. So, the processing, while perhaps leaving something to be desired, at the very least gives some consistency.
Read my post again and think about a negative scan workflow and where my remark of the black point setting fits in. There is a theoretical ideal black point setting and a practical setting. Search the difference.
-
No, Ivo. Atmosphere does not depend on immaculate technical looks in an image; in some, it sure does, but in others decidedly not. The entire aesthetic depends on the idea of "rough and ready" - à la sauvette - caught on the fly.
If you make everything next to perfect, then the work doesn't fit: it looks like you used 8" x 10" cameras, made a scene à la Crewdson, but without the Hollywood cast. Do you see what I mean? A cheap version of somebody else.
Even Frank and Klein would look pathetic judged by that concept of measure. Instead, within their aesthetic, they are amazingly perceptive, fast and powerful, producing pictures that will last for a long, long time as both history and statement.
Rob
100% agreed.
Now, take a second look to the original picture and be intellectual honest in your judgment if the image quality can not easily be improved to serve the result.
-
100% agreed.
Now, take a second look to the original picture and be intellectual honest in your judgment if the image quality can not easily be improved to serve the result.
Ivo, you are just insisting in turning Vincent van Gogh into Vermeer.
Intellectually, as honestly, am I not correct?
;-)
-
Ivo, you are just insisting in turning Vincent van Gogh into Vermeer.
Intellectually, as honestly, am I not correct?
;-)
No Rob, you try to see a Klein in Russ picture.
The picture suffers an unnecessary technical issue that easily can be corrected.
-
Read my post again and think about a negative scan workflow and where my remark of the black point setting fits in. There is a theoretical ideal black point setting and a practical setting. Search the difference.
Yes, and it has changed since the advent of digital photography. Something Nikon also failed to grasp considering their Raw files.
You need the noise to reconstruct the tonal differentiation.
In this case flattening the tonal differentiation creates a big black look-at-me hole in the picture (and in the poster in the back). That t-shirt is obviously not the center of attention. In fact, it would be useful if it wasn't black to begin with.
-
To me, the "technical flaw" enhances the image.
If you want to make it technically flawless, you should dress the people in tuxedos and remove that ugly sign, and then make the scene as plasticky as you want.
-
Yes, and it has changed since the advent of digital photography. Something Nikon also failed to grasp considering their Raw files.
You need the noise to reconstruct the tonal differentiation.
In this case flattening the tonal differentiation creates a big black look-at-me hole in the picture (and in the poster in the back). That t-shirt is obviously not the center of attention. In fact, it would be useful if it wasn't black to begin with.
As said in previous post, post processing on a web jpeg is crappy, on the RAW file much is possible.
Probably because the shadows are ruined due to wrong exposure and exaggerated exposure pull up in PP. One rescue technique is setting the blackpoint to clip out the ruined shadows and blackest areas. It’s a kind of pp exposure placement, forgotten by digital generation I guess.
On the RAW file, channel noise reduction could be the first thing to do. It would minimize the clipping.
The issue is not in the noise, as said before, I painted back the noise where it serves the image. The issue is the noise in the incorrectly recuperated or processed shadows. This is technically wrong and should not be subject of discussion.
-
To me, the "technical flaw" enhances the image.
If you want to make it technically flawless, you should dress the people in tuxedos and remove that ugly sign, and then make the scene as plasticky as you want.
+1
I often add noise to get rid of the too clean, sterile look of much of digital imaging. Shucks, I often remove colour, too, because I feel it complicates a simple idea and often hides it, in fact.
;-)
-
Probably because the shadows are ruined due to wrong exposure and exaggerated exposure pull up in PP. One rescue technique is setting the blackpoint to clip out the ruined shadows and blackest areas. It’s a kind of pp exposure placement, forgotten by digital generation I guess.
On the RAW file, channel noise reduction could be the first thing to do. It would minimize the clipping.
Yeah, we get it. But you've still created a giant crushed black t shirt.
The issue is not in the noise, as said before, I painted back the noise where it serves the image.
But I'm not sure it does, and honestly, I'm not sure it matters. It's a bad file, rescued somewhat by an interesting group of people if you're into that sort of thing. That's no slight at the shooter - it's just what the situation demanded of the exposure triangle I guess, but it's a bad file. And while it's true that you fixed one issue with it, in doing so you created another, so... ok?
-
One thing: noise/grain works much better with b&w, much less so in color.
-
The issue is not in the noise, as said before, I painted back the noise where it serves the image. The issue is the noise in the incorrectly recuperated or processed shadows. This is technically wrong and should not be subject of discussion.
Yes, I think your original suggestion of using a luminosity mask to selectively apply NR is probably the best solution. Attached is an example. It is simply NR applied thru a luminosity mask. Nothing fancy. Notice that there is a lot of information available in the t-shirt which we don't want to miss. Plus, by keeping some noise present, it remains "in character".
Whether someone wants additional contrast etc applied is a matter of taste. At least it is not unrecoverable a la Nikon Raw.
-
My problem with all this discussion on post-processing is that in street, what matters is what’s in the image, not how technically perfect the image is. I’ll grant you that if you’re doing landscape, or nature, or wabi sabi, or the kind of urban work Slobodan does, having a technically perfect image matters. In street, what matters is whether or not the picture conveys something significant about (to use a cliché) the human condition.
There was a time when I could use Photoshop to do all sorts of things. I’m now 89. My eyes aren’t as good as they once were, and I’ve forgotten a lot that I once knew about post-processing. But I still can tell the difference between a decent street shot and one pretending to be street, even if the pretender has been post-processed to perfection.
I agree with those who’ve pointed out that the condition of the picture ought to be at least somewhat consistent with the scene it presents. If I have a picture of a gritty scene it’s not unreasonable to preserve “features” like noise, which reflect grittiness and that the picture was shot quickly and in passing. Remember that HCB’s wonderful book, which pretty much defines the street photography genre, originally was titled “Images à la Sauvette,” which translates roughly as “images on the run.” Doesn’t hurt to let the picture make clear that it was shot on the run.
-
My problem with all this discussion on post-processing is that in street, what matters is what’s in the image, not how technically perfect the image is. I’ll grant you that if you’re doing landscape, or nature, or wabi sabi, or the kind of urban work Slobodan does, having a technically perfect image matters. In street, what matters is whether or not the picture conveys something significant about (to use a cliché) the human condition.
There was a time when I could use Photoshop to do all sorts of things. I’m now 89. My eyes aren’t as good as they once were, and I’ve forgotten a lot that I once knew about post-processing. But I still can tell the difference between a decent street shot and one pretending to be street, even if the pretender has been post-processed to perfection.
I agree with those who’ve pointed out that the condition of the picture ought to be at least somewhat consistent with the scene it presents. If I have a picture of a gritty scene it’s not unreasonable to preserve “features” like noise, which reflect grittiness and that the picture was shot quickly and in passing. Remember that HCB’s wonderful book, which pretty much defines the street photography genre, originally was titled “Images à la Sauvette,” which translates roughly as “images on the run.” Doesn’t hurt to let the picture make clear that it was shot on the run.
Agree Russ,
Did you had the chance to visit the HCB house in Paris? You will not find one improper printed image. I consider the problem in the shadows in your image as an improper finish of the image. It has nothing to see with grain, or character of film / sensor or whatever. it is noise that become visible due to improper finish. And I agree it is a difficult trade off, making the choice what to sacrifice in finishing a difficult negative or RAW.
As you see, I kept the noise in the not shadows and black parts, because I agree it is the character of your picture. And I'm sure it is possible to do the trick on the RAW and keep some texture in the black shirt.
And please, I respect you choice, at least, it is a choice, but I wanted to flag there is another choice possible, and as you said, it enhanced the image significant.
So, I don't understand why some guys stumble over each other to defend a technical unnecessary flaw and try to sell it as a feature.
There is a difference in taking a picture à la sauvette and finishing one à la sauvette.
-
... There is a difference in taking a picture à la sauvette and finishing one à la sauvette.
Well played, Ivo.
-
Agree Russ,
I respect you choice, at least, it is a choice, but I wanted to flag there is another choice possible, and as you said, it enhanced the image significant.
So, I don't understand why some guys stumble over each other to defend a technical unnecessary flaw and try to sell it as a feature.
I'm not saying that Russ's image was the best possible version...But, I feel that your version was tad over cooked for me. One man's enhancement, is another man's MEH.
Peter
-
Note to self: add noise to your images to generate three pages of debate ;)
-
Did you had the chance to visit the HCB house in Paris? You will not find one improper printed image. I consider the problem in the shadows in your image as an improper finish of the image. It has nothing to see with grain, or character of film / sensor or whatever. it is noise that become visible due to improper finish. And I agree it is a difficult trade off, making the choice what to sacrifice in finishing a difficult negative or RAW.
I also don't see the point in comparing technical perfection in say, Landscape Photography with Candid or Street Photography.
I also don't know HCB for being a "great" printer but a great "decisive-instantler".
A HCB image in a book is still a great image. This is not the case with a - say - Adams landscape, where the print counts much more.
I'm no expert but I could imagine that HCB printed some of his pics, let others print under his supervision and perhaps other printed them without supervision or even posthumously. You more knowledgeable people surely know better.
But I doubt if it matters much.
-
... I also don't know HCB for being a "great" printer...
No he wasn't. But he had a Serb to be his great printer ;)
-
Russ has captured an interesting scene but in doing so has also captured the essence of poor digital processing and highlighted one of the weaknesses and limitations of digital capture. Oscar has made a valiant attempt - I wouldn't expect anything else from someone with his background and experience - to rescue the shot but why bother: best start from a position of strength, not weakness. My wife would call it
simulated stimulated dralon.
As an aside I've never understood this simulation thing, valuing the properties of film and attempting to simulate those properties using digital capture. If film is up there on that pedestal then for God's sake shoot film rather than attempt a simulation using another medium. Play to the strength of the medium, whatever the medium.
-
I also don't see the point in comparing technical perfection in say, Landscape Photography with Candid or Street Photography.
I also don't know HCB for being a "great" printer but a great "decisive-instantler".
A HCB image in a book is still a great image. This is not the case with a - say - Adams landscape, where the print counts much more.
I'm no expert but I could imagine that HCB printed some of his pics, let others print under his supervision and perhaps other printed them without supervision or even posthumously. You more knowledgeable people surely know better.
But I doubt if it matters much.
I garantee you that there is no self respecting photographer of any name who is sloppy in getting his work finished on the wall or in a book.
(Ok there are exceptions)
-
Russ has captured an interesting scene but in doing so has also captured the essence of poor digital processing and highlighted one of the weaknesses and limitations of digital capture. Oscar has made a valiant attempt - I wouldn't expect anything else from someone with his background and experience - to rescue the shot but why bother: best start from a position of strength, not weakness.
As an aside I've never understood this simulation thing, valuing the properties of film and attempting to simulate those properties using digital capture. If film is up there on that pedestal then for God's sake shoot film rather than attempt a simulation using another medium. Play to the strength of the medium, whatever the medium.
My wife would call it simulated stimulated dralon.
:)
Yes Oscar, Who else but you would do this silly attempt.
8)
-
No he wasn't. But he had a Serb to be his great printer ;)
Somewhere, I saw a clip of HCB talking about not printing his work...
Peter
-
I'm not saying that Russ's image was the best possible version...But, I feel that your version was tad over cooked for me. One man's enhancement, is another man's MEH.
Peter
Peter, It is practically impossible to do a decent PP job on a Jpeg from the net. I just wanted to show what was possible.
-
I also don't see the point in comparing technical perfection in say, Landscape Photography with Candid or Street Photography.
I also don't know HCB for being a "great" printer but a great "decisive-instantler".
A HCB image in a book is still a great image. This is not the case with a - say - Adams landscape, where the print counts much more.
I'm no expert but I could imagine that HCB printed some of his pics, let others print under his supervision and perhaps other printed them without supervision or even posthumously. You more knowledgeable people surely know better.
But I doubt if it matters much.
As I understand it, HC-B almost never printed his own work.
Also, you must bear in mind that back then at least, as in my own days, prints were made a little flat because they were copied later on - even resized - in order to make it into the printing presses, and it is all too easy to increase contrast at that stage than to dial it back.
People collect these old prints from wherever they find them, and get strange ideas about what was a standard good print for display, and one for repro purposes.
What gets into a gallery is often a new, reprinted and reworked picture that is not that similar to the ones used back when the images were shot.
Rob
-
+1
I often add noise to get rid of the too clean, sterile look of much of digital imaging. Shucks, I often remove colour, too, because I feel it complicates a simple idea and often hides it, in fact.
;-)
And sometimes just deleting the image is the only cure.
-
Russ has captured an interesting scene but in doing so has also captured the essence of poor digital processing and highlighted one of the weaknesses and limitations of digital capture. Oscar has made a valiant attempt - I wouldn't expect anything else from someone with his background and experience - to rescue the shot but why bother: best start from a position of strength, not weakness. My wife would call it simulated stimulated dralon.
As an aside I've never understood this simulation thing, valuing the properties of film and attempting to simulate those properties using digital capture. If film is up there on that pedestal then for God's sake shoot film rather than attempt a simulation using another medium. Play to the strength of the medium, whatever the medium.
The reason is pretty sImple, Keith: film costs money (a lot, today) and using it for fun, casual stuff, makes little sense. That should not be taken to imply that old ideals and preferences of look need be abandoned, though.
Rob
-
The reason is pretty sImple, Keith: film costs money (a lot, today) and using it for fun, casual stuff, makes little sense. That should not be taken to imply that old ideals and preferences of look need be abandoned, though.
Rob
About old ideals. Why did you botter to print a test strip and got the negative in the 5 stops latitude of the paper and select the correct gradation in the darkroom, when the film base grain in the shadows is only a feature that enhance the image...
-
Yes, I think your original suggestion of using a luminosity mask to selectively apply NR is probably the best solution. Attached is an example. It is simply NR applied thru a luminosity mask. Nothing fancy. Notice that there is a lot of information available in the t-shirt which we don't want to miss. Plus, by keeping some noise present, it remains "in character".
Whether someone wants additional contrast etc applied is a matter of taste. At least it is not unrecoverable a la Nikon Raw.
Good work. Agreed.
-
B&W speaks a little different...
Peter
-
I garantee you that there is no self respecting photographer of any name who is sloppy in getting his work finished on the wall or in a book.
(Ok there are exceptions)
I'm sure you are right.
But you don't get the same results on baryta as in plain paper.
Even if you're not sloppy.
It's the medium
-
I'm sure you are right.
But you don't get the same results on baryta as in plain paper.
Even if you're not sloppy.
It's the medium
What kind of a shift do you try to introduce in this discussion?
Hahahaha.
-
B&W speaks a little different...
Peter
But then you lose the pop-cult look, and that sickening fluorescent tube light that's so befitting of the place.
-
But then you lose the pop-cult look, and that sickening fluorescent tube light that's so befitting of the place.
Like I said a different voice...
Peter
-
About old ideals. Why did you botter to print a test strip and got the negative in the 5 stops latitude of the paper and select the correct gradation in the darkroom, when the film base grain in the shadows is only a feature that enhance the image...
Horses for courses.
Different jobs, different treatments.
Anyway, not to shout about it, I seldom did more than two test strips for any print. In studio shots probably even less. You do your best to get it right in the camera, and mostly it works out okay. Another thing to bear in mind is size of print: the vast majority of them were on 10" x 12" paper, and as you get pretty used to your enlarger and your negatives, that makes you fairly quick.
Standardisation.
I would have hated to have to print for anybody else!
Rob
-
Actually, I prefer the black/white alternative, but wouldn't tone it. Toning adds glamour which may not be what Russ had in mind. Also, I feel that B/W requires a more harsh light than the even one in the picture; creating gloomy, dangerous corners that still look convincingly real would be hard to do.
Hate to lose the chick in the poster...
:-)
-
What kind of a shift do you try to introduce in this discussion?
Hahahaha.
None Ivo
I'm only learning from the Greater.
But you are guaranteeing things that nobody can guarantee.
You are only expressing your opinion, albeit a qualified one 8)
-
As an aside I've never understood this simulation thing, valuing the properties of film and attempting to simulate those properties using digital capture. If film is up there on that pedestal then for God's sake shoot film rather than attempt a simulation using another medium. Play to the strength of the medium, whatever the medium.
This is an easy one.
If you like the look of film and digital can do it, by all means shoot digital and imitate film in PS
Why do it more complicated than is needed?
KISS, they say.
-
Horses for courses.
Different jobs, different treatments.
Anyway, not to shout about it, I seldom did more than two test strips for any print. In studio shots probably even less. You do your best to get it right in the camera, and mostly it works out okay. Another thing to bear in mind is size of print: the vast majority of them were on 10" x 12" paper, and as you get pretty used to your enlarger and your negatives, that makes you fairly quick.
Standardisation.
I would have hated to have to print for anybody else!
Rob
Yep. Fully agree
-
None Ivo
I'm only learning from the Greater.
But you are guaranteeing things that nobody can guarantee.
You are only expressing your opinion, albeit a qualified one 8)
We could fill the internet with how opinions are toddlerized by ignoring the qualifications of the person and equalizing it with the opinion of someone ignorant.
And no, let’s not kill a simple fact by over analysis.
Your last sentence could be rephrased as:
“You are expressing your qualified opinion”
;D
-
Your last sentence could be rephrased as:
“You are expressing your qualified opinion”
;D
No problem with that either.
It doesn't change the fact that not only you but nobody can guarantee something over which one has no control at all. ;)
-
No problem with that either.
It doesn't change the fact that not only you but nobody can guarantee something over which one has no control at all. ;)
Semantics......
Let’s turn it around. Prove the opposite.
;D
-
Semantics......
Let’s turn it around. Prove the opposite.
;D
It's not semantics but logic.
The burden of proof (onus probandi) is on the one who makes the claim
In this case the one who guarantees that NOBODY (a negative) would do (or not) something (I garantee you that there is no self respecting photographer...)
There is no turning around in this case 8)
-
It's not semantics but logic.
The burden of proof (onus probandi) is on the one who makes the claim
In this case the one who guarantees that NOBODY (a negative) would do (or not) something (I garantee you that there is no self respecting photographer...)
There is no turning around in this case 8)
You are absolutely correct, Rab. Correct like the small print of an insurance contract.
Wrap up:
Russ made a fine picture and there is room for improvement in the finish, albeit 😉 it can not be guaranteed.
Let’s call it a day. Next.
-
... Let’s call it a day. Next.
No.
We need a fifth page, with rabanito hairsplitting.
-
You are absolutely correct, Rab. Correct like the small print of an insurance contract.
Wrap up:
Russ made a fine picture and there is room for improvement in the finish, albeit 😉 it can not be guaranteed.
Let’s call it a day. Next.
Of course.
You started the argument, be ready to get answers. ;)
Still friends?
-
No.
We need a fifth page, with rabanito hairsplitting.
Hehe.
You seem obsessed with that rabanito, whoever he may be ;D
He's not a bad guy. He's even of one of those who can pronounce your name correctly.
And I admit that I have fun with you. And no hard feelings, Slobo ;)
Hope this is reciprocal :)
-
Of course.
You started the argument, be ready to get answers. ;)
Still friends?
I don’t have friends.
You can be my first if you want.
😬😬😂
-
I don’t have friends.
You can be my first if you want.
😬😬😂
Done :)
-
Holy shit.
-
Holy shit.
I know, right?
-
Holy shit.
Summarizing á la Bob Ross: “it’s just a happy accident. “