Picking Lice With The 70-200 VR2!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Review sites DESPERATE for SOMETHING to test
Next: Amazon and Apple, two vile companies probed for price fixing
From: tony cooper on 5 Aug 2010 20:09 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:33:28 -0500, Larry Thong <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:37:49 -0400, tony cooper wrote: > >> It depends on the forum and where the image is displayed. I don't >> participate in Flickr, but I might put the image up there without the >> disclosure. This forum, though, is different. >> >> There's an issue of credibility here thanks to our >> participant-of-many-names. On careful examination of the violinist >> photo, you'll see some careless masking around the violin strings. If I >> don't tell you the photo has been significantly altered, you might start >> doubting my credibility on other photos. >> >> This particular image was a project photo anyway. I thought it was a >> good project for practicing using a layer mask to drop the background. >> There are so many little areas (mostly around the violin) where the >> original background showed through that the detail work was extensive. >> >> Here's the original taken straight from RAW to .jpg. >> >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/959387733_BHGFw-XL.jpg > >Tony, my feeling on this is it would have been perfect right out of the >camera had you stopped down a lot more. It would have blown out the >background into the realm of total creamery while adding the depth you >need to give it a more 3D feel by blurring the hand, which should be >blurred since it is only a minute part of the theme you're trying to >convey. > >The first Photoshopped one simply doesn't work. even on a perfect and >seamless integration, the background is just too busy and distracting. I >particularly like tighter DoF on these types of shots. And no, the hand >being out of focus won't distract from your theme. I still can, you know. The background is a layer, and the file is a ..psd, I can blur, blow-out, fade, lighten, or otherwise manipulate that background any way I want. I've lost interest, though. It was a project piece to practice layer masking. The finished product doesn't interest me that much now. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Shiva Das on 6 Aug 2010 00:49 In article <4c5b063e$0$5505$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:5kgl56lh5os8799lvh033pj3umocjhtkmb(a)4ax.com... > > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:20:33 -0400, "Peter" > > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > > <good stuff snipped> > > When I link to photos in the "Street" photography forum I participate > > in, I leave them as-shot as far as intrusive background. In that > > group, background stuff is quite acceptable that would be criticized > > here. We are expected to shoot scenes as we see them and not to go > > for posed shots. We can edit for contrast (most shots are in black > > and white) and other "normal" adjustments. > > > > This shot was well-received in that forum, but would be roundly panned > > here: > > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/2010-03-07-0005/805398187_W7ACa- > > XL.jpg > > Tony, that shot is hilarious. I love the fact that almost everything in the mage has a brand name or logo written on it (Chanel sunglasses, Macanudo cigars, etc.) It reminds me of the documentary on R. Crumb, where he says that San Francisco is still pretty much like it was way back in the "Mr. Natural" days, except that "Everyone is walking around wearing tee shirts with corporate logos on them. And no one besides me thinks that's weird!" The other thing about your image is that although the woman on the right is over exposed, that's one of the reasons I love black & white -- huge density differences can work just fine. Atget's photo of Notre Dame de Paris, 1925, has a very dark foreground and the cathedral in the background almost luminous in its translucence. http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/atget/atget_notre_dame_full.html
From: Shiva Das on 6 Aug 2010 01:03 In article <shiv-C9DDED.00494806082010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote: > Atget's photo of Notre Dame de > Paris, 1925, has a very dark foreground and the cathedral in the > background almost luminous in its translucence. > > http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/atget/atget_notre_dame_full.html As with most of his photos taken while employed by the Commune de Paris, this one exhibits technical issues that didn't bother him. SPecufically, the front standard of his camera was raised higher than it was "supposed" to, yielding the strong vignetting in the two upper corners. Also he wrote the photo serial number directly on the glass plate (lower right in photo). These are the things that would drive many people nuts and try to address with retouching. Different years, different equipment, different expectations. Atget clearly and on more than one occasion said that he believed strongly that photography had nothing to do with art. And yet he produced such a great body of art...
From: tony cooper on 6 Aug 2010 01:47 On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:49:48 -0400, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote: >In article <4c5b063e$0$5505$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, > "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:5kgl56lh5os8799lvh033pj3umocjhtkmb(a)4ax.com... >> > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:20:33 -0400, "Peter" >> > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> > > ><good stuff snipped> > >> > When I link to photos in the "Street" photography forum I participate >> > in, I leave them as-shot as far as intrusive background. In that >> > group, background stuff is quite acceptable that would be criticized >> > here. We are expected to shoot scenes as we see them and not to go >> > for posed shots. We can edit for contrast (most shots are in black >> > and white) and other "normal" adjustments. >> > >> > This shot was well-received in that forum, but would be roundly panned >> > here: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/2010-03-07-0005/805398187_W7ACa-XL.jpg >> > > >Tony, that shot is hilarious. I love the fact that almost everything in >the mage has a brand name or logo written on it (Chanel sunglasses, >Macanudo cigars, etc.) It reminds me of the documentary on R. Crumb, >where he says that San Francisco is still pretty much like it was way >back in the "Mr. Natural" days, except that "Everyone is walking around >wearing tee shirts with corporate logos on them. And no one besides me >thinks that's weird!" Thank you. That's Park Avenue in Winter Park, Florida...where the rich and stylish go in this area to sit at an outside table and be noticed. > >The other thing about your image is that although the woman on the right >is over exposed, that's one of the reasons I love black & white -- huge >density differences can work just fine. Here's another Park Avenue shot of two people all caught up in each other. Not. http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/2010-03-20-001/960179284_FrHte-XL.jpg -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Shiva Das on 6 Aug 2010 10:58
In article <oh7n56h8do074rvi1iumoed9s37j8m3is8(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Here's another Park Avenue shot of two people all caught up in each > other. Not. > > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/2010-03-20-001/960179284_FrHte-XL. > jpg I bet they're texting each other. And Ms. Nosey on the far right is trying to read the guy's phone... |