Entrance Only

[Ivo_B]

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

[RSL]

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 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.

[32BT]

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.

[Ivo_B]

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.

 

[James Clark]

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.

[Ivo_B]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[32BT]

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.

[Ivo_B]

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.

[Ivo_B]

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.

[Rob C]

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_B]

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.

[32BT]

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.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

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.

[Ivo_B]

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.

[Rob C]

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.

;-)

[James Clark]

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?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

One thing: noise/grain works much better with b&w, much less so in color.

[32BT]

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.

[RSL]

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.