The Pinhole II gallery is up!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 20 Jul 2010 15:20 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:16:06 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >Available for viewing, and located here: > >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pinhole_ii > >For more information and future mandates, please look here: > >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage > A word of explanation about mine...I used a city map and my pin would have put me in the middle of a lake. Odds are about 50/50 it would in this area. I picked the nearest shore and took the photographs outside the Maitland Art Gallery. Two of the photos were manipulated with Photoshop. The "Lady in the Garden" is a small statuette, and - in Curves - I set a Black Point in an area that was bluish-white. That resulted in a rather strange change in the green leaves, but one I like. And, a little painting to make the background solid black. The "Water Fireworks" are some kind of water lily floating in a pond of brown water. Ugly water. I used "Replace Color" to turn the brown water black for contrast. I did a little editing on some blown-out parts where the midday sun reflected off the wet plant. I would have like to modified the Stone Cat to make the shadows more intensely black, but didn't get around to it. No one's said anything about Photoshop manipulation being outside of the rules, but I like to make full disclosure. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on 20 Jul 2010 15:23 "Bowser" <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in message news:r7mb46tvnuql5bdqd2v4smicqktco0qk54(a)4ax.com... > Available for viewing, and located here: > > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pinhole_ii > > For more information and future mandates, please look here: > > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage > > Reminder: > > We still have two "live" mandates, Rogues Gallery and Sounds of the > Season. Please visit the rulz page for additional info and submittal > dates for each of those mandates. Just some background comments on my own shots. the infrared shot was taken with my old P&S that I converted to infrared. The EXIF file information is wacked up RE: time of shot and exposure program. (It was shot around 9:AM in aperture preferred mode. It must have a very small sensor because the shot as made at widest aperture (8.9mm) which appears to be the equivalent of a 24mm full frame. As you can tell there was a heavy fog. I could not see the lighthouse itself. Rather than do more infrared shots and because the first pin wound up perilously close to a nude beach, where shooting is frowned upon, I restuck the pin which wound up in the middle of Long Island Sound. I went on a boat tour of the Sound and the images I posted were closest to the pin location. Most of the scenes were boring routine types so I decided to try some multiple exposures of the boats. Then I saw the cormorants and just watched until something happened. My shots are up for your comments, good or bad. -- Peter
From: Peter on 20 Jul 2010 16:04 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1qsb46dcdoiank1ka7b1efeo1b3sikeo8j(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:16:06 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: > >>Available for viewing, and located here: >> >>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pinhole_ii >> >>For more information and future mandates, please look here: >> >>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage >> > > A word of explanation about mine...I used a city map and my pin would > have put me in the middle of a lake. Odds are about 50/50 it would in > this area. I picked the nearest shore and took the photographs > outside the Maitland Art Gallery. > > Two of the photos were manipulated with Photoshop. The "Lady in the > Garden" is a small statuette, and - in Curves - I set a Black Point in > an area that was bluish-white. That resulted in a rather strange > change in the green leaves, but one I like. And, a little painting to > make the background solid black. > The lady is a good contrast between the natural leaves and the man made statue. I would like to see a little less negative space on the right. > The "Water Fireworks" are some kind of water lily floating in a pond > of brown water. Ugly water. I used "Replace Color" to turn the brown > water black for contrast. I did a little editing on some blown-out > parts where the midday sun reflected off the wet plant. Overall, good seeing. It would have benefitted from further toning down the specular highlights and a tad higher saturation and contrast. > > I would have like to modified the Stone Cat to make the shadows more > intensely black, but didn't get around to it. The cat is an interesting interplay of shadows. I would have cropped it closer to the bottom of the window. Too many wasted pixels below that level. > > No one's said anything about Photoshop manipulation being outside of > the rules, but I like to make full disclosure. I think it is well within the rules. Unless I am doing representational photography, I think any manipulation that improves the image (in the eye of the maker,) is OK. But, we've had a similar conversation before. My comments on some other shots: I like the back lighting in Grapes. The shot reminds me that summer is coming to an end. Can't wait to taste some new wine. Robert Coe 1 Well exposed. The shadows just don't do it for me. Coe 3 Nice pictorial of the hospital. For me, the shot is the boat. Too bad you couldn't get in a little closer. Your shot would benefit if the corners and edges were darker. (Yes I know I sometimes overdo it.) Martha Coe 2 Good clean shot. Would benefit from being on a slightly stronger angle and a tad more color saturation. Duck 01 You should title it: "The Invitation." Would have benefited from some kid ignoring the signs PH01 Nice shot of the pigeons. Would be stronger by cropping out the sky and toning down the hot spots on the water. PH02 Well exposed and tells a story. PH03 Nice interplay of lines. I would like the bridge going off at an angle to the right. TimConway Good landscape shot. You show nice perspective by keeping both the foreground and background sharp. To add a little punch if you have PhotoShop you might want to try the technique here, to remove the haze: http://www.jakeludington.com/photography/20060921_fixing_haze_in_digital_photos.html -- Peter
From: tony cooper on 20 Jul 2010 16:24 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:04:11 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:1qsb46dcdoiank1ka7b1efeo1b3sikeo8j(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:16:06 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >> >>>Available for viewing, and located here: >>> >>>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pinhole_ii >>> >>>For more information and future mandates, please look here: >>> >>>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage >>> >> >> A word of explanation about mine...I used a city map and my pin would >> have put me in the middle of a lake. Odds are about 50/50 it would in >> this area. I picked the nearest shore and took the photographs >> outside the Maitland Art Gallery. >> >> Two of the photos were manipulated with Photoshop. The "Lady in the >> Garden" is a small statuette, and - in Curves - I set a Black Point in >> an area that was bluish-white. That resulted in a rather strange >> change in the green leaves, but one I like. And, a little painting to >> make the background solid black. >> > >The lady is a good contrast between the natural leaves and the man made >statue. I would like to see a little less negative space on the right. > > >> The "Water Fireworks" are some kind of water lily floating in a pond >> of brown water. Ugly water. I used "Replace Color" to turn the brown >> water black for contrast. I did a little editing on some blown-out >> parts where the midday sun reflected off the wet plant. > >Overall, good seeing. It would have benefitted from further toning down the >specular highlights and a tad higher saturation and contrast. > > >> >> I would have like to modified the Stone Cat to make the shadows more >> intensely black, but didn't get around to it. > >The cat is an interesting interplay of shadows. I would have cropped it >closer to the bottom of the window. Too many wasted pixels below that level. > In both cases, the crop was set to include something. In the "Lady", to include the full leaf at the bottom right, and in the "Cat" the full palmetto frond. When I framed the shot, the shadows of the fronds were distinct and I thought they offset the fronds themselves. The shadows kind of wimped out on me in the photo. I debated on the white spots in the water plant. I could have cloned them out, but it was a matter of clone out all or not clone. A few look like an error. > >> >> No one's said anything about Photoshop manipulation being outside of >> the rules, but I like to make full disclosure. > >I think it is well within the rules. Unless I am doing representational >photography, I think any manipulation that improves the image (in the eye of >the maker,) is OK. But, we've had a similar conversation before. > -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on 20 Jul 2010 16:47
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:561c46lipdqlkm2dka4r7as6oa127lmel8(a)4ax.com... > In both cases, the crop was set to include something. In the "Lady", > to include the full leaf at the bottom right, and in the "Cat" the > full palmetto frond. When I framed the shot, the shadows of the > fronds were distinct and I thought they offset the fronds themselves. > The shadows kind of wimped out on me in the photo. I debated on the > white spots in the water plant. I could have cloned them out, but it > was a matter of clone out all or not clone. A few look like an error. > To clone or not to clone. That is the question. Whether it is nobler in the minds of artists to correct nature's work or suffer the slings and arrows of carping critics. -- Peter Sorry Willie. |