|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:44:27 PM
I'd love the old wooden architecture, big sky, clouds! Interesting factoid about the cedar trees!
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:42:33 PM
You are right about the corners - I opted to go a bit to the grunge.
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:40:49 PM
Another exceptionally creative rendition, Vebhi! Well done, indeed! The only thing I might suggest is to leave a little more space to the left of the bulb.
Eb
|
| Photo By: vehbi dileksiz
(K:37355)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:38:47 PM
I don't know what semiotic is, Vebhi - but this is creative!
Eb
|
| Photo By: vehbi dileksiz
(K:37355)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:36:19 PM
Great greeting card, Shirley! You are so talented and hopefully commissioned by Hallmark! Money would be good!
|
| Photo By: Shirley D. Cross-Taylor
(K:174049)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:32:58 PM
Thanks for your comments, Kerry! I hope spring strikes soon in Alberta and wish you good luck on many more beautiful wildlife images!
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:31:22 PM
Comical expression on this portrait - well seen, Kerry!
|
| Photo By: Kerry Statham
(K:3678)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:29:06 PM
Surely a composite - very impressive!
Eb
|
| Photo By: Zeca Sousa
(K:-52)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:27:09 PM
Lovely morning scene! I like the moodiness and the lead in from the stream.
Eb
|
| Photo By: Nanda Baba das
(K:78053)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:24:15 PM
Very Creative, effect, Gabriella! Remarkable!
Eb
|
| Photo By: Gabriella M.
(K:33863)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/7/2010 5:21:48 PM
Lovely peaceful interpretation, Stan! Regards.
Eb
|
| Photo By: Stan Ciszek
(K:56854)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/6/2010 5:54:47 PM
We are in full agreement, Graham! Photographers need to know the basics and pre-visualize, otherwise they are working blind. Photographers blind - ha - that's an amusing thought! You still got to know what your doing!
It is amusing to see my fellow photography club members travel far and wide to get "great" landscapes - while only two of us make local landscapes. Is that not strange thing - despite living in a photogenic area, envied by many! It seems that the novelty factor accounts for a lot in aesthetics - makes photo-tourism a big business. Pay a person in a third world country to dress up for you and you have an instant winner. Pay someone to parade a camel on the edge of a dune and there's another winner for back home!
So not much interest in photography in your area? That's a disappointment, indeed! Any sand dunes, camels or quaint costumes for dress up? Perhaps Ansel slept at a local hotel? Man, you gotta dig deep! :)
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/6/2010 4:49:20 PM
Graham, I would agree that digital has its weakness but I also recognize it's great strengths. I would not go back to film! Some do, and proclaim it's virtues over digital. I shake my head because they usually compare apples to oranges (like large format to small sensor.)
Digital is well embraced now, but you would have to agree that, still, there are better or worse practitioners of the black art of photography! Even with image processing software, one can not, convincingly, turn a sows ear into a silk purse. However, we need photoshop the same way Ansel needed his darkroom! Ansel was well practiced and superbly skilled about capturing information on his film, but then, the real image, he admitted to creating afterward.
With photoshop and post processing it is no different. Perhaps the inspiration comes at the moment of releasing the shutter, but the real image is created afterward in post - providing you have been skilled in capturing the information you needed! That's photography! Albeit, one has to bear in mind the difference between image enhancement and image manipulation and what is appropriate, good technique, tasteful and artistic.
The truth of the matter is that people are still as mystified about photography as ever! 'Though everyone can take a picture, in digital, as in the the Kodak Brownie days, there is a difference between that and photography as art - always has been!
It appears to me that there is actually a hot market for photography classes, tutorials, photo excursions and seminars. Maybe many photographers do not actually feel as "self appointed professional" as they may proclaim? I do agree with you that there are people that will output respectable images using automatic camera settings. However, it is their problem if they feel satisfied with that and the occasional "keeper!"
Not likely that we will see a future piece of equipment that can take an image as the mind's eye! Therefore, there will continue to be a lot of fun, skillful practice and creativity for photographers. Of course, that does not mean we will all agree with each others photographic styles, expression and technique.
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/6/2010 4:18:19 AM
Graham, I'm an admirer of the great Ansel Adams and give him full credit. But to say no one can reproduce his work is a stretch. Even Ansel could not reproduce his own work! His developing style and judgment changed considerably when reprinting his own work - despite the fact he had extensive notes to guide him.
Modern equipment, although it takes a computer to translate light into 1s and 0s, is no different (unless you are referring to automated camera functions.) We still have a lens and a box. Agreed!
The art of the zone system is in that it helps realize (technologically) pre-visualized tonal targets. Some values are realized by exposure and some by development plus exposure and some are further adjusted in the darkroom.
Ansel also took full advantage of the large format quality and the latest in technology, as it came along. He also promoted a lot of technological development and would certainly have embraced digital.
The key differences with digital vs. film, when applying the zone system, is that you are not able to achieve tonal targets through development and that you have a restricted dynamic range compared to B&W film. In the digital realm, your closest equivalent to chemical (over time) development is curves adjustment in post processing. Using curves, you can push highlights, but you can not pull highlights which are blown. With film, you can usually pull highlights into the range of photo paper.
For a competent exposure in film, using zone system, you place detailed shadow values at zone 3 and take a reading of your highlights. Assuming you may want these at zone 9 (the maximum your paper can handle) and their reading says zone 12, your task is to pull those highlights into range with development. Of course you would have done extensive testing to know what is entailed. Alternatively, if highlight readings are at zone 8, you may wish to push them to zone 9 by development.
The same thing could be done with digital curves and exposure adjustment, but in post processing providing you have captured all the information you will need. That is why I get all the information first (evaluative metering with exposure compensation works fine) and then place it in 9 zone values later.
However, if you do not care to get all the information and wish to precisely choose what to drop out, then spot metering and applying an understanding of the number of zones you have to work with is essential.
Gobbledygook, - I'm being cut off!
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/6/2010 1:13:38 AM
Graham! Which snow - in sun, in mid shade, in deep shade? All in zone 8? I'm certain some compromises have to be made!
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/6/2010 1:10:26 AM
Read "The Zone System?" Actually I wrote it - ha ha! I have read Minor White's tome and used it extensively when in fine arts school in early 70's and shooting a lot of 4x5. Of course I gave up photography soon after. I do try to apply a zonal approach in B&W and post process. At the camera stage, in digital, it does not make sense. Get all the information (exposing to the right.) Take two or more exposures if the dynamic range is excessive. Process by placing local values wherever you want, on zones.
Eb
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/6/2010 12:54:10 AM
Graham, what part of the snow do you want "white?" The part in the shade, the part in the sun, the part reflecting sky, the part reflecting water. This is a combination of fifty exposures! Figure that one! One more beer for me! Cheers!
Eb
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/6/2010 12:45:43 AM
Hi Graham! Have a look at this:
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1572803
Now relax, have a few beer!
Eb
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/6/2010 12:21:12 AM
I'll not dispute the appearance, Graham! But the picture is straight, despite the angle in the shoreline, IMO. I was well aware of the appearance of the image and I am also aware of what the scene looks like to the eye. It was a conscious choice to leave it alone. That's another one of these things that can be debated. It is interesting, that I have gotten quite used to it, as is, that now I find your revision quite odd!
I will post another one, which is sure to give you conniptions! The fog bank and gravel bar makes you thoroughly confused as to image angle. But, it is straight! Cheers!
Eb
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/6/2010 12:05:19 AM
dr Mimi, the image was taken about 8 AM on January 16th.
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/5/2010 10:45:33 PM
Thanks, dr Mimi! This is the result of five exposures taken hand held (elbows supported.) Not the best technique, but I had no room for a tripod. ISO is 200.
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/5/2010 10:41:20 PM
Graham, thanks for trying, but to me it now looks akilder the other way, with the nearer bank at the right appearing to receede! Tell me how I am not straight if my camera is absolutely level? I agree that sometimes there is optical illusion. This does happen with river banks which are not parallel to the camera axis. Hope you haven't lost sleep over my humble image! :)
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/5/2010 10:30:28 PM
Graham, I usually prefer to use Nik Silver-Efex in CS4 to make my B&W conversions. Alternatively I use Lightroom during raw conversion. In the latter, you can convert using 8 separate colour sliders - same as Adobe Camera Raw.
I have not used ACDSee in many years and am not familiar with more current versions.
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/5/2010 9:57:17 PM
Graham, so sorry to hear about your illness! I guess my joking was not appropriate! I will be happy to drop you an email line in the next few days.
Perhaps your daughter will take up the photography tradition. You will have to teach her!
Eb
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/5/2010 9:52:43 PM
Sorry for the tardy reply, Graham. I have not been able to check all my email notices. To answer your question: It is immaterial, if using RAW (NEF) files whether one shoots B&W or colour. However, if shooting in JPG then the die is cast one way or the other. Since I shoot NEF files, the B&W conversion is made in raw conversion or post processing. I make a good quality colour version and then convert to B&W and follow up with tonal adjustments.
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/5/2010 1:21:20 AM
I'll bite on the question, Graham. What Nikkor is your wide angle?
Eb
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/5/2010 12:15:20 AM
Graham, I am not understanding why you see cyan! The mountains are almost the same tint as the blue bar at the top of the page. I do have a well calibrated wide gamut adobeRGB monitor. But then monitors and eyes do vary!
You are right the interpretation can be debated endlessly - it is fanciful but also "real" to the spirit of this river scene. Thanks for your views, 'though - immensely appreciated!
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/4/2010 8:53:42 PM
Don't worry for me, Graham - I already mortgaged my house, my future, everything! This is the best wide Nikon has to offer 14-24 f/2.8. (I suppose we could argue!) The aberration, I could/should have corrected. It is really very minor but accentuated by my post processing which pops the colours. The fish is in situ (not set up in any way.) Because It was difficult to maneuver a tripod in place, I opted for hand held and a higher ISO. The lens was almost touching the fish head! Scary!
Oh yes - dead fish don't get awards! I have shown a print of this and found that the general reaction was negative because of the subject matter.
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/4/2010 8:38:20 PM
Graham, the shot is absolutely level! Your eyes are dealing with a river bank which is somewhat at angle to the camera, as is the gravel bar. With river shots, one can not always count on the horizon line! I level my shots at camera - always. When I look through the viewfinder, I often lose my sense of equilibrium, especially at wider angles, so I am happy to do this and save myself trouble latter.
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Eb Mueller (K:24960)
3/4/2010 4:51:53 PM
You are observant, Graham! Well the relative brightness of the sky and reflection are easily adjusted in camera with ND gradusted filters. Typically, I prefer to apply graduated filters during the raw conversion. Of course there is a lot of colour and contrast adjustment in photoshop - to get things right!
I have had some criticism that the side edges are too dark. There is not much detail there and I usually darken the edges anyways. I think to have brought detail out would have required blending in another exposure. Sometimes, people ask too much! IMO, shadow detail is not so important in the woods to the left, since this is just part of the framing!
|
| Photo By: Eb Mueller
(K:24960)
|
|
