|
|
Maja Gligoric
{K:13528} 2/26/2005
|
Good landscape shot!
|
|
|
|
Don Loseke
{K:32503} 2/3/2005
|
A beautiful scene. Such great PS work. You have a very impressive PF. Again beautiful work. Thanks for your comments on my work. Don.
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Ranke
{K:14476} 1/27/2005
|
Michael, many thanks for your insightful comment. Congrats to your first sold print - the Union Station shot http://www.usefilm.com/image/598352.html is really outstanding, and many other excellent photos in your portfolio (will have to look in depth, for sure !). It seems as if we have some things in common - after a "film era" we appreciate the extra possibilities and creative potential of PS work and stitching.
On the EF-S 10-22 zoom: I think it is reasonably priced, not as sharp as an L lens wide open, but very decent stopped down to 5.6 or 8. Almost no distortion (perspective distortion, of course) and very flare resistant. Solid build quality, not bulky. It is my preferred lens at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
{K:22115} 1/27/2005
|
Lovely thread about photostiching and the kitch factor in PS.
I guess I am WAY over guilty of the PS tweak, especially performing gradations in quick mask mode. I personally can't afford the filters nor the set up time out there, so this is as close to professional as I can get.
I just sold my first print last week, (Union Station at sunset, here on Usefilm) - a stitched composition - and it was PS'ed with a gradation and a defninite kick to the saturation. I think a light touch is appropriate.
This shot is a good example of a light PS touch done well - impossible to tell if it was physical filters and darkroom techniques or PS. I think that is appropriate.
Anthing that can be done by physical cheats and manipulations (Ansel Adams was a big fan of the dodge and burn) is fair game. PS is just faster and a newer tool to me.
Don't see the harm in increasing productivity in a free market.
TO THE PHOTO:
Like the dark skies.
The ground exposure is right on - pure whites, good contrast, and a definite weight to pure blacks.
Heightened saturation, but not too much, just enough to bring a bit of warmth into the image.
Would like to know how that 10 mm lens is working for you - I'm eyeballing it closely now that I have seen some Usefilm posts. (Patrick Di Fruscia, Fadel J, Tim Schumm, John Lamb, now you)
|
|
|
|
Carlos
{K:12969} 1/26/2005
|
enough photoshoped or not photoshoped enough is how much you decide it is. In the end the principle obligation of the photographer is to please and amuse the photographer first - if others like it, it?s extra candy.
Very good work.
C
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Ranke
{K:14476} 1/19/2005
|
David, thanks again for detailed comment. This is quite an important issue for me, how much PS is enough ? I have a lot of "natural" shots I keep for myself because they strike a chord and reactivate the feelings I had in the photo making situation, but I know that the context of that photo is not so clear for everyone. YOu reach more people (and could earn your living better, as a professional...) when you underline your points with a little PS help. But how much is enough ? That is exactly the question I would learn more about, and I am glad to get so much response, pro and con. This image is not as much "overkitsched" as the other, more heavily photoshopped http://www.usefilm.com/image/670376.html - in "Thaw" i tried to apply PS sparingly for a reasonably natural, but somehow enhanced impression. Thanks again for stopping by !
|
|
|
|
|
Bea Friedli
{K:10189} 1/19/2005
|
beautiful !!
|
|
|
|
|
Todd Miller
{K:16464} 1/19/2005
|
amazing work. really captures the feeling of being out in the open....i can almost feel the clouds drifting by. great job.
todd
|
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
{K:22223} 1/19/2005
|
One thing is for sure, making the sky so dark and high contrast looks very different from how we see things (also on photos). So changing that, even reversing it, will definitely create an interesting, maybe even eyecandy effect.
I'm very much into natural lighting and look so it doesn't work to well for me. But you know what, if it comes to making a good image that sells well with agencies, I have no problem doing it. I did a lot of things that I knew would sell better even though it was not the way I would like it for myself.
I remember I completely "over-kitsched" a swan flying in the sky. I almost didn't send it to the agency and of course they picked it as a keeper. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Spracklen
{K:32552} 1/18/2005
|
Incredibly technical 'about', Carsten, and a superb image to go with it!
Kind regards, Chris
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Ranke
{K:14476} 1/18/2005
|
David, I respect your opinion. Of course thats a matter of taste, but even film photographers do often darken their skies with a ND filter. And: in reality, sky was quite dark, for sure !
|
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
{K:22223} 1/18/2005
|
As always, the master of dealing with contrast :) I like the composition and how the sky and ground almost seem to be a reverse image of the other side. I like the soft contrast. I know you do it on purpose, but the sky being darker than the ground doesn't really work for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Sion Dalais
{K:511} 1/18/2005
|
nice effect. switching the usual bright sky and dark ground to dark sky and bright ground
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel S. Garcia
{K:13946} 1/18/2005
|
This is an awesome image Carsten. Real nice work. I love it.
Saludos,
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Bertone
{K:13239} 1/18/2005
|
Bellissima immagine, composizione e atmosfera!!
Un saluto.
|
|
0 
