Recent Works

[Ray]

It was 12 shots stitched together.

Wow! I didn't realise it was a stitched image. You've done a good job. I'm really just nit-picking. It occurred to me on first impressions that the WB wasn't quite right. But maybe it is. I don't think I can improve it, but I had a go. In fact, I've probably made it slightly less dramatic   .

[attachment=12691:WB_modified.jpg]

[joedevico]

I didn't get that from "a book." You're talking about some of the world's top past and present photographers and other heavy weights of photography. Having a single "key" shadow is very basic information for shooting studio or location strobe photography.  Like I said, it's general knowledge. But please don't argue with me. Take it up with the canons of photography. Maybe they are all wrong?

I mean I really don't care what anyone does. I was just offering what is accepted as a canonical rule, probably about as set as the rule of thirds is.

Not gonna argue, but you failed to point out that there is a clearly proper balance between the key and fill light in the shot, the dual shadows are only on the ground and not on the subject, particularly her face where it would be most distracting. Two shadows are not bad and no canon nor book that I know of claims so...they DO profess that equal key light and fill light that project equal shadows should be avoided. But this example does not show that at all. The shadow on the ground to the subjects right is darker and mor pronounced than the one on the left. In my opinion it looks well balanced and the dual shadows add a nice symmetry to an already excellent shot.

I'm done...I hate preconceptions. Rule of thirds included. It works but I try to compose without it whenever possible, most often the shot doesn't work and I fallback to the composition following the rule, but when it works without it - boy does it work.

Best to All - and DW should get the award for most improved photographer on this site. His work has gotten dramatically better over the past few years.

[dwdallam]

Shot with windows light front, silver reflector camera right, and a medium softbox on the ground for rim light.

[Ray]

Shot with windows light front, silver reflector camera right, and a medium softbox on the ground for rim light.

Nice! But what is it saying DWDallam? What's the message here? What's my imagination supposed to be doing?

[neal1740]

the lemaire passage antarctica

[dwdallam]

Nice! But what is it saying DWDallam? What's the message here? What's my imagination supposed to be doing?

I don't know what your imagination is suppose to be doing. I didn't set out to make an image that has only one meaning to all people. If it talks to you, good, if not, even better.  If anything, it's simply suppose to evoke some mystery, exactly as you have stated it--why, what, who?

[dwdallam]

the lemaire passage antarctica

Neal I think you meant to attach a photo?

[wolfnowl]

Neal I think you meant to attach a photo?

Nope.  Just evoking some mystery!  Sorry, couldn't resist...  

Mike.

[thewanderer]

I do proccess the sky and ground separately.
Hmmm... Well here's the original without any post proccessing. It was 12 shots stitched together. The next is a real conservitive edit (i.e. a little contrast, levels, and saturation). Then the last is adds a little more contrast. I'm sorry for the re-edits as this is to show recent works.

Edit: The last picture is the unedited, the conservitive is in the middle, and the first is the edited the most.

it can be hard to determine these skies from a realistic POV,, having lived and worked in the midwest during tornado/hail season, these clouds can take on a greenish color in real light, i suspect you just have to try to rememer in your processing what tint these nasty storms take as they move across the plains

[dwdallam]

Best to All - and DW should get the award for most improved photographer on this site. His work has gotten dramatically better over the past few years.

You really think so? I was just thinking today, depressingly, that I've actually gotten worse. Thanks.

[Ray]

I don't know what your imagination is suppose to be doing. I didn't set out to make an image that has only one meaning to all people. If it talks to you, good, if not, even better.  If anything, it's simply suppose to evoke some mystery, exactly as you have stated it--why, what, who?

I guess you are on the defensive, with this response   .

I was just trying to get some background information. Was your shot of an actress about to go onstage to perform in some Gothic play? Or were you advertising a line of clothes? Or, perhaps, did you just get your model to dress up in whatever was available at the time, and look mysterious?

If one takes this rather unfashionable shot of mine, which I posted a few posts ago and which attracted no comments, I can tell you the background to the shot.

The old lady has had a life-long habit of betel nut chewing which has blackened her teeth. She's experienced a life before the tourist mania of P&S cameras invaded her territiry, but she's succumbed to the inevitable monetary benefits of the tourist dollar, and agreed to put herself on display wearing a pseudo-traditional garb for the sake of the economic benefits flowing from the tourist visits.

However, I believe her black teeth are genuine, but I could be wrong   .

The shot was taken north-west of Chiang Mai in Thailand. It's not as sharp as it should be. I bungled.

[attachment=12860:9917_modified_1.jpg]

[dwdallam]

I guess you are on the defensive, with this response   .

I was just trying to get some background information. Was your shot of an actress about to go onstage to perform in some Gothic play? Or were you advertising a line of clothes? Or, perhaps, did you just get your model to dress up in whatever was available at the time, and look mysterious?

I wasn't trying to be defensive at all. I was just saying that the image was made to evoke interest in the form you have acknowledged. What? Why? Where? etc. It has no background, and the planning, clothing, facial expression, processing, was meant to be interpreted. The image you created is a different type of image, more documentary than fine art or mysterious, so some explanation is a good thing, or even necessary. The only thing I tried to work with were the themes of displacement, solitary-ness, mystery, perhaps some fear, stillness, isolation, and maybe a little danger. I don't know what else to say.

[Fine_Art]

[Jeremy Roussak]

Number 3 is gorgeous! Number 2 looks very dull, dark and flat: I suspect it's my monitor, because I can't imagine you'd have posted it if it really looked as bad as it does to me.

Jeremy

[Fine_Art]

Number 3 is gorgeous! Number 2 looks very dull, dark and flat: I suspect it's my monitor, because I can't imagine you'd have posted it if it really looked as bad as it does to me.

Jeremy

Probably partly your monitor/ color calibration and partly you are not familiar with that light you are seeing. The sun has set behind mountains leaving the clouds with pink and yellow. The red stone gets a bluish purple from the sky. Its quite impressive if you are there.

[Ray]

Probably partly your monitor/ color calibration and partly you are not familiar with that light you are seeing. The sun has set behind mountains leaving the clouds with pink and yellow. The red stone gets a bluish purple from the sky. Its quite impressive if you are there.

One of the great challenges of photography is in recreating on print or display that impressive and emotional experience that motivated one to take the shot in the first instance. At least, I find it a challenge and often I don't succeed.

[dwdallam]

Probably partly your monitor/ color calibration and partly you are not familiar with that light you are seeing. The sun has set behind mountains leaving the clouds with pink and yellow. The red stone gets a bluish purple from the sky. Its quite impressive if you are there.

You're not presenting what it was like when you were there, however. Lots of beautiful sunsets, for example, are not photo quality or photo reproducible because of lighting. #2 looks dull and flat on my monitor too, which is a Phillips 23" graphics LCD hard ware calibrated. But please don't confuse a flat image with a bad image. It's just not popping with contrast is all.

[Fine_Art]

Thanks for the feedback on that.
The contrast on that shot is very difficult. If you look at the histogram you will see a large spike at each end. The shot was actually quite difficult to get both ends in. The highlights were a razor line off being blown. The trees at the bottom were at the far end. In the raw conversion I used the DRO function maxed out , plus adv. lighting, plus reducing the contrast to get the dark parts of the mountains to show up while not blowing the sky. That is what makes it look a bit flatter. I think it is required to keep the detail. Having dark areas of the mountains close to black looks worse. I think keeping good light in the mountain side while taking the sky away from white is important to the shot.

Please give me some more ideas on a better way to handle that kind of shot.

[dwdallam]

Thanks for the feedback on that.
The contrast on that shot is very difficult. If you look at the histogram you will see a large spike at each end. The shot was actually quite difficult to get both ends in. The highlights were a razor line off being blown. The trees at the bottom were at the far end. In the raw conversion I used the DRO function maxed out , plus adv. lighting, plus reducing the contrast to get the dark parts of the mountains to show up while not blowing the sky. That is what makes it look a bit flatter. I think it is required to keep the detail. Having dark areas of the mountains close to black looks worse. I think keeping good light in the mountain side while taking the sky away from white is important to the shot.

Please give me some more ideas on a better way to handle that kind of shot.

Bracket your shots for the highlights, mids, and darks, and then HDR (HIgh Dynamic Range) in some form, composting, blending, etc.

[Alexandre Buisse]

The Aiguilles de Chamonix, just after sunset, a few days ago.