Wilson's Asian night market article

[Paulo Bizarro]

Thanks for a very interesting article, with practical exemples and very good photos. One is really transported into the action, as the result of being close to it, and shooting with wide angles.

I also found interesting that this article goes against the dogma, so to speak, that says you can only shoot street with a small camera, preferably a Leica... Here we have great photos, shot with a DSLR and slow zooms, for Heaven´s sake! So, thanks for that.

One nit I have with some of the images is the perspective distortion on peoples heads, due to the wide angle lenses. I know it is unavoidable, and in no way detracts from the flow of the story being told, but stretched heads look strange.

Again, thanks for sharing.

[dmpbyrdwatcher]

I also enjoyed the article and the photos.  

However, I was most interested to read at the end that the author now uses his XZ-1 extensively.  All the photos in the article were made with a Canon DSLR, but I would love to see some work with the XZ-1.  Is there a website available with XZ-1 photos?

[Jim Pascoe]

I concur with the above points about it being an interesting article and I do like the close-in style of shooting.

But.  As soon as I saw the first pictures and long before I reached the final section on post-production I just thought "Silver Efex Pro".  It is a great piece of software and I do use it sparingly - but in general it's over-use masks any personal style a photographer has in my opinion.  Maybe it's because as well as being a working photographer I'm also very involved with a local photography club and also do a lot of club-level judging.  The amateur world is filled with Silver Efex pictures - and they are mostly fairly indistinguishable.  Sometimes I quite like the effect but usually the treatment overpowers the original picture.

If the pictures in this article were the first I had seen to use the software I would possibly think wow!  But I think that to successfully use software of this kind (likewise HDR) its use has to be so subtle as to be almost invisible.

So - good pictures - I just think they are overpowered by the post production.  Or am I just being boring?

Jim

[brianrybolt]

You're right wether you're boring or not.  The use of the software takes over the image.

Brian

[stamper]

You're right wether you're boring or not.  The use of the software takes over the image.

Brian

But it can also MAKE an image.

[Jim Pascoe]

But it can also MAKE an image.

It can - but my point really is that it then looks like everybody else's image.  It's difficult enough as it is in photography to be original, or even just distinctive.

Jim

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The use of the software takes over the image.

+1

Although the meaning of the above should be taken in the context of the previous posts, for those who take things literally, here is an amended version (or two):

The (over)use of the software takes over the image

The use of special-effects software takes over the image

[stamper]

It can - but my point really is that it then looks like everybody else's image.  It's difficult enough as it is in photography to be original, or even just distinctive.

Jim

Your Reply#2 was a salient point but it was also subjective. Few people will see as many images as yourself so for most photographers there isn't an overload of images that look the same. I know that there is at least a dozen ways to convert. I use Silver eFex to convert an image but always dodge and burn in PS afterwards which should mean a difference?

[Jim Pascoe]

Your Reply#2 was a salient point but it was also subjective. Few people will see as many images as yourself so for most photographers there isn't an overload of images that look the same. I know that there is at least a dozen ways to convert. I use Silver eFex to convert an image but always dodge and burn in PS afterwards which should mean a difference?

Yes, in a way the appreciation of photography is all subjective.  But I think my point was quite objective in that the overuse of plug-ins does reduce the individuality of photographers.  It may be harder to get an image right in camera, and slow to adjust in Lightroom and Photoshop, but all that means the picture has a chance of conveying something of the photographer in it - rather than conveying the vision of the software.  It's odd that even though their are dozens of presets in Silver Efex, it's use is almost always visible unless done very judiciously.  When I try it myself I almost always prefer the look to what I can do myself - but like a drug I try not to over-indulge.  None of my most successful mono pictures have been edited in Silver Efex - and I dare not try them in case I prefer the look!

Jim

[stamper]

Silver eFex is extremely flexible imo. About 2 dozen presets on the left and the individual controls on the right means that it is possible to get something "individual". If someone processes an image to suit their vision, posts it on Flickr then they have no way of knowing if someone else has processed an image in a similar way? I think the problem is that photographers are encouraged to have heroes, such as Ansel Adams and then they consciously or unconsciously mimic them. In this weeks Amateur Photographer B&W photographer Billy Currie - a fine photographer - is featured despite him being featured a few months ago. Some will endeavour to copy him. Personally I have no heroes, hence I don't consciously copy anyone. To sum up, don't blame Silver eFex but the individual who copies others.

[Seth Honeyman]

Back when we all shot film, we used different emulsions for the same reasons people now use software. Kodachrome, Velvia, Pan-X, Tri-X, and Agfapan all had distinct looks and uses.  The difference today is that we can incorporate all those looks in a single shooting session or, indeed, in variations on the same image. Back in 1970, I had to have several preloaded Hassie backs to get even a smidge of that shooting flexibility.

[Jim Pascoe]

Hey Stamper - back in the 1980's when I first became familiar with Ansel Adams he was the one I tried to emulate - in a pale imitation sort of way I have to admit.  The best I could afford was a Mamiya 645J but I had my own darkroom and loved shooting landscape.  But because of no access to an Ansel Adams plug-in I had no chance of my pictures looking like his - they were distinctly mine.......
I sort of agree with your comments about Silver efex - but the problem is many photographers do not understand the concept of restraint when it comes to software!  The more basic the tool the more scope for creating something personal.

Jim

[stamper]

I think we are both in agreement about Silver eFex. When I use it I pick a preset on the left but always try out the filters on the right as well as the white and black adjustment and sometimes the film types. As stated dodging and burning in PS follows so I don't as a member suggests elsewhere choose a "canned" version.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I usually add parsley, salt, and a few extra spices to a soup I created with a can opener. I swear it then tastes just like a home-made soup

[Jim Pascoe]

I usually add parsley, salt, and a few extra spices to a soup I created with a can opener. I swear it then tastes just like a home-made soup

Unlikely to fool my wife.......  she has an uncanny knack of spotting short-cuts in cooking!  It would probably work on me though.

Jim

[speedyk]

An image might defy my usual workflow, it teaches me something new. Then subsequent images are different, my eye is changed.

Those canned soups start with too much salt, makes it easy for wives to tell about cheating. Something needs to be less instead of more.

I prefer constructive crits because we all like good soup. I liked what he did, not because I would do it, but because it gave me a new way to see.

[Petrus]

Bit later here, hello!? Had problems with login…

I find the B&W conversions almost ugly. Too much Silver Effex "wet rock". Or similar. They are not on par with LL standards. Or maybe they are, remembering some over processed and unnaturally saturated landscape samples and tutorials in the past.

It is possible to adjust the strength of effect within the plugin, but also to first make a natural B&W layer as background, then another with stronger manipulation like "wet rock", and adjust to taste in PS with opacity slider.

[stamper]

It is possible to adjust the strength of effect within the plugin, but also to first make a natural B&W layer as background, then another with stronger manipulation like "wet rock", and adjust to taste in PS with opacity slider.

What you are proposing can be done in eFFex without a"natural B&W layer" Simply choose another preset on the left and use the sliders on the right to fine tune. Your remark about being "ugly" is subjective and was obviously the poster's preferred rendering to make the image different from everyone else, if that is possible? I think at the end of the day you either like what you see, or don't. "Telling" the poster how to manipulate the image in a way that doesn't suit him won't fly?

[Petrus]

Your remark about being "ugly" is subjective and was obviously the poster's preferred rendering to make the image different from everyone else, if that is possible? I think at the end of the day you either like what you see, or don't. "Telling" the poster how to manipulate the image in a way that doesn't suit him won't fly?

This thread is about a critique of the article, including the pictures. Opinions are subjective, in this case I find the post processing downright ugly, strong opinion and wording, maybe, but I said it.

What is wrong in a critique to suggest ways to "improve" the image? The author might consider it, or not.

Also, at least for me there are also other ways of reacting to a picture besides the binary "like" and "not like". There are also "quite good", "fine", "ok", "ok, but", "well…" etc. Besides total ignorance also if the image is not worth any reaction to either direction.

[stamper]

In Reply#16 you stated .... natural B&W layer..... What is that? I think there is a difference between critiquing and imposing a vision that the critic has but not what the author of the image had in mind. It is obvious the author of the image had a certain style or vision in mind when he shot and processed the image. What you are stating is that he was "wrong" in doing so which imo goes beyond critiquing?