Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Suggestions/comments

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 4:04:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Aside from DOF, any RAW conversion/post-processing critiques, both
positve and negative are appreciated. Pics are from this morning w/ a
D70S, Nikkon 55M MF lens:

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44929178

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44930641

Regards,

Ben

More about : suggestions comments

Anonymous
June 18, 2005 6:01:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nice pictures, albiet a bit scary looking at that face.. :) 

Other than trying to get more in-focus...gee how tough can that be,
it's not like it's flying around or anything! :)  (kidding, hope you
got that)

Personally I would have adjusted the color histograms a bit, the colors
in the picture are IMO a bit bla...pale green and a medium red. I
would try to get the green to show more saturation, more depth, maybe a
bit darker green, and try (maybe not possible) to recover some detail
in the washed out white part.

Contract looks good around the face (I guess that's a face!), clean
line from color to white.

Nice work, me personally I'd play with the colors some, but some don't
like that and think it's not real photography, if that's your feeling
then that's fine, I got no beef with that..

Good Job!
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:20:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> Aside from DOF, any RAW conversion/post-processing critiques, both
> positve and negative are appreciated.

You are improving. I think they would have been better if the plane of
focus were forward a bit (eyes vs wing.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Related resources
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:39:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dadiOH wrote:

> kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Aside from DOF, any RAW conversion/post-processing critiques, both
>>positve and negative are appreciated.
>
>
> You are improving. I think they would have been better if the plane of
> focus were forward a bit (eyes vs wing.
>


Agreed, or move around to the side & get some of the wing plus the face
and maybe more legs in focus.

I prefer the first one with a more even mix of the white background and
some red behind the left side wing. The black background could just as
well go to pure black & give it more punch, less washed out, otherwise
the colors are spectacular. Maybe also get the curves to tone down the
harsh white. Maybe crop to emphasize that left colorful wing & lose the
other wing and maybe play with curves to bring out the contrast of that
colorful wing. Your email looks valid, I'll send what I came up with.

Cool shot!


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:53:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:
>
> > kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >>Aside from DOF, any RAW conversion/post-processing critiques, both
> >>positve and negative are appreciated.
> >
> >
> > You are improving. I think they would have been better if the plane of
> > focus were forward a bit (eyes vs wing.
> >
>
>
> Agreed, or move around to the side & get some of the wing plus the face
> and maybe more legs in focus.
>
> I prefer the first one with a more even mix of the white background and
> some red behind the left side wing. The black background could just as
> well go to pure black & give it more punch, less washed out, otherwise
> the colors are spectacular. Maybe also get the curves to tone down the
> harsh white. Maybe crop to emphasize that left colorful wing & lose the
> other wing and maybe play with curves to bring out the contrast of that
> colorful wing. Your email looks valid, I'll send what I came up with.
>
> Cool shot!

Well, the deal here is the dragonfly2.jpg is a conglomoration of the
two. The face from dragonfly2 was OOF, but the wings offered far more
detail. I put the face from the first one, which had a lot more
detail, but the wings and legs have less focus, onto the body of the
second one.

I still have the RAW/TIFF files, so maybe I'll play around a little
more - I really appreciate all of your input. And Paul, I did get your
punched up version, but I haven't had time to look it over. I will and
when I do I'll get back with you.

Regards,

Ben

PS - Check out this Junebug from the golf course yesterday:

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44985145
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 11:37:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>>kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Aside from DOF, any RAW conversion/post-processing critiques, both
>>>>positve and negative are appreciated.
>>>
>>Agreed, or move around to the side & get some of the wing plus the face
>>and maybe more legs in focus.
>>
>>I prefer the first one with a more even mix of the white background and
>>some red behind the left side wing.
>>
>>Cool shot!
>
>
> Well, the deal here is the dragonfly2.jpg is a conglomoration of the
> two. The face from dragonfly2 was OOF, but the wings offered far more
> detail. I put the face from the first one, which had a lot more
> detail, but the wings and legs have less focus, onto the body of the
> second one.

Heh, well the face is out of focus so it doesn't really help to have the
wings in focus. I didn't even notice that because the face is the
important part & I just looked at the background for composition.

The Junebug looks good. Is that flash or sun reflecting on it? It's not
severe, just curious.

>
> PS - Check out this Junebug from the golf course yesterday:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44985145
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 1:10:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

EarlCox wrote:
> <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119153205.032178.21960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Paul Furman wrote:
> > > dadiOH wrote:
> > >
> > > > kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Aside from DOF, any RAW conversion/post-processing critiques, both
> > > >>positve and negative are appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are improving. I think they would have been better if the plane of
> > > > focus were forward a bit (eyes vs wing.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed, or move around to the side & get some of the wing plus the face
> > > and maybe more legs in focus.
> > >
> > > I prefer the first one with a more even mix of the white background and
> > > some red behind the left side wing. The black background could just as
> > > well go to pure black & give it more punch, less washed out, otherwise
> > > the colors are spectacular. Maybe also get the curves to tone down the
> > > harsh white. Maybe crop to emphasize that left colorful wing & lose the
> > > other wing and maybe play with curves to bring out the contrast of that
> > > colorful wing. Your email looks valid, I'll send what I came up with.
> > >
> > > Cool shot!
> >
> > Well, the deal here is the dragonfly2.jpg is a conglomoration of the
> > two. The face from dragonfly2 was OOF, but the wings offered far more
> > detail. I put the face from the first one, which had a lot more
> > detail, but the wings and legs have less focus, onto the body of the
> > second one.
> >
> > I still have the RAW/TIFF files, so maybe I'll play around a little
> > more - I really appreciate all of your input. And Paul, I did get your
> > punched up version, but I haven't had time to look it over. I will and
> > when I do I'll get back with you.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > PS - Check out this Junebug from the golf course yesterday:
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44985145
>
>
> I have been news group observer and not a participant for quite some time, but I am beginning to see why some members of the news group are very, very upset with digital "photographers" and want every one to return to film! (UC, as an example). Assembling an image from multiple photographs is not photography, it is an exercise in graphic art. It is a routine part of both film and digital photography to "clean up" a negative -- pushing the film, adjusting color, highlighting or darkening B&W images, etc. But the process of offering an image, such as dragonfly2.jpg, as a real photograph (hence, eliciting "cool shot" complements) when, it fact, it is a composite of multiple images, confuses one type of art with another.
>
> I have a Nikon D70, a Nikon F4, and an Olympus OM-4 and I enjoy the process of photography. Film and digital have their place, knowing what that place is, of course, depends on context, vision, opportunity, and intelligence. But it looks like we are slowly gravitating away from photography to an era when masses of poorly considered, poorly composed, poorly shot, and poorly executed photographs can be disassembled and then reassembled to produce one or two nice "photographs".
>
> Just a thought,
> E a r l

I agree on a certain level vis-a-vis photography vs. graphic art,
however I wasn't trolling for "cool shot" compliments. If you read my
post, I was looking for feedback on the RAW work. Sorry if that struck
you the wrong way.

Ben
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 3:08:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

EarlCox wrote:

>Your thread started
> out with "Pics are from this morning w/ a D70S, Nikon 55M MF lens" and you
> wanted to know, essentially, how you were doing. Then, out of the blue, you
> announce that a final photo was actually not a photograph "from this
> morning" at all, not an image derived from a RAW file, but, instead, a
> composite from several images. This composite image is NOT derived from a
> single RAW image. Thus, you are not "looking for feedback on the RAW work".

They absolutely _were_ from that morning, and I literally only got two
pictures before it flew away - I'm heavy-handed like that, I guess! So
it wasn't quite the Frankenstein image you make it out to be, nor is it
pure photography by any stretch.

I am being completely honest when I say this - I wasn't looking to fool
anyone, including myself. But I do feel like in digital photography if
you can mix images to get a better result, why not do it? Otherwise I
would shoot film exclusively. I'm not looking for a substitute for
good, solid photographic technique - I would FAR rather the two shots
have been in better focus. Unfortunately in this case two things were
working against me:

1 - I just figured out today how to get the D70S's built-in flash to
fire in manual mode with the 55MM MF lens, so I can use higher
apertures for better DOF

2 - The bastard was on the leaf for literally two or three seconds

> So.... Are you looking advice on how to CREATE nice pseudo-nature
> photography images from a collection of partially out of focus snap shots or
> are you asking how to manipulate a RAW file to deliver a final image that
> meets your artistic vision? The two are complete different questions.

I wasn't looking for advice, per se, as I KNOW how to manipulate the
images, I was looking for feedback on my post-processing technique.
As I am literally brand new to the process, I am extremely curious as
to what I'm doing well and what I can use some work on. I value all
input, including yours - and I completely understand what you are
getting at, believe me.

Regards,

Ben
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 3:18:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:
> kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Paul Furman wrote:
> >
> >>>kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Aside from DOF, any RAW conversion/post-processing critiques, both
> >>>>positve and negative are appreciated.
> >>>
> >>Agreed, or move around to the side & get some of the wing plus the face
> >>and maybe more legs in focus.
> >>
> >>I prefer the first one with a more even mix of the white background and
> >>some red behind the left side wing.
> >>
> >>Cool shot!
> >
> >
> > Well, the deal here is the dragonfly2.jpg is a conglomoration of the
> > two. The face from dragonfly2 was OOF, but the wings offered far more
> > detail. I put the face from the first one, which had a lot more
> > detail, but the wings and legs have less focus, onto the body of the
> > second one.
>
> Heh, well the face is out of focus so it doesn't really help to have the
> wings in focus. I didn't even notice that because the face is the
> important part & I just looked at the background for composition.
>
> The Junebug looks good. Is that flash or sun reflecting on it? It's not
> severe, just curious.

I responded to this earlier, but it hasn't shown up - so I'll say it
again. No, that was just sunlight. I was shooting north, and it was
about 5:00 in the afternoon, so the light is coming from the west,
about 8:00 in in relation to the bug.

Ben
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 7:01:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

EarlCox wrote:


> I've been giving this some thought and I suppose you have a point. I
> continue to believe we need to make a clean separation between photography
> and graphics art ---- but I am not dogmatic nor pedantic enough to insist
> that those who blend the two are somehow corrupting the spiritual nature of
> photography <grin>. I do know that when I look at a John Shaw or Ken
> Rockwell photograph (and John has gone completely over to digital) I know
> am seeing the results of a single photograph, not a composite. And as a
> photographer, I value the combination of my skill, my vision, and my (let's
> face it) luck.

Agreed - all things being equal, I would rather have a single
photograph worked in RAW/TIFF/JPEG/Whatever than a composite such as
the 2nd picture. You are absolutely correct. As I said, or at least
alluded to, there is no substitute for photographic skill...and luck -
couldn't have said it better!

> But...... it is pointless to argue the matter. There's not a right and wrong
> here, only a preference from one photographer to another. For the same
> reason it is generally pointless to argue the merits of digital over film,
> Nikon versus Canon, a Nikkor lens versus Sigma, zoom versus fixed focal
> length, Kodak versus Fuji, and the list goes on. Each photographer settles
> into a combination of equipment and recording media that suits his or her
> personality, experience, and their highly subjective analysis of the results
> (not to mention budget!). In the end, it is (generally) not the media, the
> equipment, nor the camera that will make a difference, only the skill of the
> photographer. And the ability to blend digital images using PhotoShop,
> Elements, PhotoImpact, and so forth is, like all art forms, a skill that
> should be appreciated (there! I've completely capitulated!!! <big grin>)
>
> That's all I gotta say.

What else is there? Very well said. Though I wouldn't call it
capitulating, as I think we were a little closer in thought than
initially suspected!

Regards,

Ben
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 9:49:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119197410.679653.286050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> EarlCox wrote:
> > <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119153205.032178.21960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Furman wrote:
> > > > dadiOH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>Aside from DOF, any RAW conversion/post-processing critiques, both
> > > > >>positve and negative are appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You are improving. I think they would have been better if the
plane of
> > > > > focus were forward a bit (eyes vs wing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, or move around to the side & get some of the wing plus the
face
> > > > and maybe more legs in focus.
> > > >
> > > > I prefer the first one with a more even mix of the white background
and
> > > > some red behind the left side wing. The black background could just
as
> > > > well go to pure black & give it more punch, less washed out,
otherwise
> > > > the colors are spectacular. Maybe also get the curves to tone down
the
> > > > harsh white. Maybe crop to emphasize that left colorful wing & lose
the
> > > > other wing and maybe play with curves to bring out the contrast of
that
> > > > colorful wing. Your email looks valid, I'll send what I came up
with.
> > > >
> > > > Cool shot!
> > >
> > > Well, the deal here is the dragonfly2.jpg is a conglomoration of the
> > > two. The face from dragonfly2 was OOF, but the wings offered far more
> > > detail. I put the face from the first one, which had a lot more
> > > detail, but the wings and legs have less focus, onto the body of the
> > > second one.
> > >
> > > I still have the RAW/TIFF files, so maybe I'll play around a little
> > > more - I really appreciate all of your input. And Paul, I did get
your
> > > punched up version, but I haven't had time to look it over. I will
and
> > > when I do I'll get back with you.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Ben
> > >
> > > PS - Check out this Junebug from the golf course yesterday:
> > >
> > > http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44985145
> >
> >
> > I have been news group observer and not a participant for quite some
time, but I am beginning to see why some members of the news group are very,
very upset with digital "photographers" and want every one to return to
film! (UC, as an example). Assembling an image from multiple photographs is
not photography, it is an exercise in graphic art. It is a routine part of
both film and digital photography to "clean up" a negative -- pushing the
film, adjusting color, highlighting or darkening B&W images, etc. But the
process of offering an image, such as dragonfly2.jpg, as a real photograph
(hence, eliciting "cool shot" complements) when, it fact, it is a composite
of multiple images, confuses one type of art with another.
> >
> > I have a Nikon D70, a Nikon F4, and an Olympus OM-4 and I enjoy the
process of photography. Film and digital have their place, knowing what that
place is, of course, depends on context, vision, opportunity, and
intelligence. But it looks like we are slowly gravitating away from
photography to an era when masses of poorly considered, poorly composed,
poorly shot, and poorly executed photographs can be disassembled and then
reassembled to produce one or two nice "photographs".
> >
> > Just a thought,
> > E a r l
>
> I agree on a certain level vis-a-vis photography vs. graphic art,
> however I wasn't trolling for "cool shot" compliments. If you read my
> post, I was looking for feedback on the RAW work. Sorry if that struck
> you the wrong way.
>
> Ben



Ben,

Point well taken.

However, my point was simply that a RAW image is akin to a negative.
Working with a negative to get the best possible image is something we all
do, starting from our first exposure to B&W darkroom techniques (for me that
goes back to the late 1960's). But assembling a photo from multiple
negatives (RAW data files) is a graphics art technique. Your thread started
out with "Pics are from this morning w/ a D70S, Nikon 55M MF lens" and you
wanted to know, essentially, how you were doing. Then, out of the blue, you
announce that a final photo was actually not a photograph "from this
morning" at all, not an image derived from a RAW file, but, instead, a
composite from several images. This composite image is NOT derived from a
single RAW image. Thus, you are not "looking for feedback on the RAW work".

So.... Are you looking advice on how to CREATE nice pseudo-nature
photography images from a collection of partially out of focus snap shots or
are you asking how to manipulate a RAW file to deliver a final image that
meets your artistic vision? The two are complete different questions.

E a r l











>
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 12:38:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119204503.511759.4850@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> EarlCox wrote:
>
> >Your thread started
> > out with "Pics are from this morning w/ a D70S, Nikon 55M MF lens" and
you
> > wanted to know, essentially, how you were doing. Then, out of the blue,
you
> > announce that a final photo was actually not a photograph "from this
> > morning" at all, not an image derived from a RAW file, but, instead, a
> > composite from several images. This composite image is NOT derived from
a
> > single RAW image. Thus, you are not "looking for feedback on the RAW
work".
>
> They absolutely _were_ from that morning, and I literally only got two
> pictures before it flew away - I'm heavy-handed like that, I guess! So
> it wasn't quite the Frankenstein image you make it out to be, nor is it
> pure photography by any stretch.
>
> I am being completely honest when I say this - I wasn't looking to fool
> anyone, including myself. But I do feel like in digital photography if
> you can mix images to get a better result, why not do it? Otherwise I
> would shoot film exclusively. I'm not looking for a substitute for
> good, solid photographic technique - I would FAR rather the two shots
> have been in better focus. Unfortunately in this case two things were
> working against me:
>
> 1 - I just figured out today how to get the D70S's built-in flash to
> fire in manual mode with the 55MM MF lens, so I can use higher
> apertures for better DOF
>
> 2 - The bastard was on the leaf for literally two or three seconds
>
> > So.... Are you looking advice on how to CREATE nice pseudo-nature
> > photography images from a collection of partially out of focus snap
shots or
> > are you asking how to manipulate a RAW file to deliver a final image
that
> > meets your artistic vision? The two are complete different questions.
>
> I wasn't looking for advice, per se, as I KNOW how to manipulate the
> images, I was looking for feedback on my post-processing technique.
> As I am literally brand new to the process, I am extremely curious as
> to what I'm doing well and what I can use some work on. I value all
> input, including yours - and I completely understand what you are
> getting at, believe me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ben

Ben,

I've been giving this some thought and I suppose you have a point. I
continue to believe we need to make a clean separation between photography
and graphics art ---- but I am not dogmatic nor pedantic enough to insist
that those who blend the two are somehow corrupting the spiritual nature of
photography <grin>. I do know that when I look at a John Shaw or Ken
Rockwell photograph (and John has gone completely over to digital) I know
am seeing the results of a single photograph, not a composite. And as a
photographer, I value the combination of my skill, my vision, and my (let's
face it) luck.

But...... it is pointless to argue the matter. There's not a right and wrong
here, only a preference from one photographer to another. For the same
reason it is generally pointless to argue the merits of digital over film,
Nikon versus Canon, a Nikkor lens versus Sigma, zoom versus fixed focal
length, Kodak versus Fuji, and the list goes on. Each photographer settles
into a combination of equipment and recording media that suits his or her
personality, experience, and their highly subjective analysis of the results
(not to mention budget!). In the end, it is (generally) not the media, the
equipment, nor the camera that will make a difference, only the skill of the
photographer. And the ability to blend digital images using PhotoShop,
Elements, PhotoImpact, and so forth is, like all art forms, a skill that
should be appreciated (there! I've completely capitulated!!! <big grin>)

That's all I gotta say.
E a r l






>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 3:30:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

> Aside from DOF, any RAW conversion/post-processing critiques, both
> positve and negative are appreciated. Pics are from this morning w/ a
> D70S, Nikkon 55M MF lens:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44929178
>
> http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44930641

Shots like insect need to be tack sharp in the area of primary interest
(usually the head/eyes). It's hard to do, as the DOF is so shallow.
You could try a tighter aperture and flash to help in this respect.

Dragonflies are oftn best viewed from above as we see a lot of detail as
well as the wing detail.

A review of photos at www.photo.net in the top score categories has a
lot of insect/spider photos that might inspire you.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
!