|
|
Shirley D. Cross-Taylor
{K:174199} 4/17/2010
|
Nice diagonals in this composition. I really like this kind of misty layers.:)
|
|
|
|
Jim Budrakey
{K:24393} 6/29/2009
|
Oh, this is gorgeous. You've done well.
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/29/2009
|
I am assuming you mean my new crop as opposed to the original image below that?
The original to me, has too much dark space above.......... but that's what was there that morning. Might have worked OK on something less contrasty than KR64.
I may take another stab at re toning the original. I want to get the color a nearly black green rather than B&W. I'm not sure how you guys see the actual color here...
I only see it from my monitor. I tried to do the proper color corrections to my monitor, but the result was way to bright when not viewing photos.
Funny how you used that heron image as it's one I saw too. From my viewpoint the image is true artwork. A magical kind of photo. It is quite obviously photo shopped, but in a good way. I don't think it could be considered deceptive so that's why I don't think it would really need a label. To me it is true photo art. I can see that image in a large poster size making a striking statement.
The photo shopped stuff I am not a fan, are ones adding lots of color just for the sake of trying to make a bad photo into a good one......... and especially the ones pasting on a moon 5 time larger than life. There are times when photo shop can be really neat even tho obvious.
............... bu then again, my viewpoint isn't hard and fast, as I may decide to do a wild one some late night after beer #12. :)
Thanks so much for your comments, I hold your advice with great respect.
Randy
Now that I discovered that I was able to offer my original and a newly cropped image, I may decide on a different one tonight if decide to add one.
|
|
|
|
Anthony Lound
{K:6661} 6/29/2009
|
...agreed Randy. I like this crop better, and I'm ambivalent about colour versus B&W in this case. Agreed, too about PS. I'm usually conservative when it comes to post-processing, in particular when an image is posted where PS has radically changed what the photographer saw, a miraculaous ray of sunlight, for example. The result might be the more communicative for that, of course (and often is) but I feel strongly that such treatment should be declared as "Alternative Treatment; Photoart; etc.
This is an example of what I mean: http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1529097. It's not an image that appeals to me personally, but to many it clearly does, and you can see my take on it in the comments on that.
It's good to see someone like you with a potentially fantastic film archive in wait!
Regards,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/29/2009
|
As for the F1, I like loooong exposures and those just eat up the batterie like candy holding the shutter open electronically. What a better excuse to drop $650 in the mail... haa haa. I've never been good at being cost effective.
While I'm at it, here is the bare untouched original......... other than resizing.
If visible, most any graininess/noise would probably be from the conversion to CD. I believe the CD is fairly good for a 1 hour local store that also sells shoes, notebook paper and motor oil. ;) Original CD size is 1228 by 1818.
I'd love to have them closer to 2700 by 4000 and from a true professional lab to see how much different they would be quality wise.
I'd love critique of my original in comparison to my modified images. ... colors, crop choices or otherwise.
Thank you all again for assisting me with comments and advice.
|
|
|
|
|
Avi
{K:70138} 6/29/2009
|
I completely understand your point about holding on to your gear. I would, too, if I had such an inventory ! :):)
I saw your original (color) version, and must say I like it more. Wish to see more stuff from you !
cheers,
Avi
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/29/2009
|
Ha, I just discovered that I can add the photo again. I keep learning things here. :)
About those trees Anthony, here was my next crop... to get rid of more of the upper darkness and still preserve those trees. I also changed it to 850 in the widest dimension. Thank you.
Yes, probably the focal length caused that disproportionate look. Kinda like golf shots on TV.
It looks good to me leaving that small corner of trees in the image as it lets your eyes stroll further into the photo.......... cutting that all the way out looks OK too.
Let me know. I love the suggestions.
I'm learning this photo manipulation stuff by trial and error and I don't know what procedures, nor what procedure to do first if that matters.
I assume resizing is the last procedure.
I'm not a real photoshop fan most of the time so I still want my images to look "real"
|
Same but with resise and slightly lower crop |
|
|
|
|
Anthony Lound
{K:6661} 6/28/2009
|
...and I can't wait to see your boxes of slides brought to us here Randy. Just think: they will be re-born! And what a wonderful prospect that is. Alas, not in terms of money, but I get the feeling your artistic gifts will force you to conclude that it will be well-worth the trouble, and indeed the investment you made in your wonderful film gear.
BTW, the Canon F1 is a camera I coveted so much, but could not hope to afford as an amateur. It's one of those classic, iconic, professional workhorses of quality and sheer beauty!
Regards,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Lound
{K:6661} 6/28/2009
|
Randy, another small masterpiece from you here! You were there, saw the image, opened your shutter, so I wouldn't myself worry about using post-processing to tease out what I saw in a picture (as long as you didn't add a flying saucer or something haha).
It's images like this (and the ensuing comments) which, for me, make it a huge pleasure to belong to UF. (BTW, like you, I always thought the sharpening option was a question about whether the photograph had been sharpened by the user and NOT an invitation from Usefilm to sharpen - thank you Brigitte! Clearly, some of my images have been damaged by my misconception - bah :(. In addition, isn't it the case that if one dimension of an image exceeds 850 pixels it is resized by UF causing further loss of quality - unless it's a panoramic (still within the 400k maximum file size?) and even then that option is only available to Donors).
As to this particular photo, I always find the kind of layering caused by distance or haze to be instantly appealing and beautiful. The folds of the marching landscape in X's add so much. So congratulations on that achievement here!
My sole reservation relates to the tree-line at top left: the trees seem disproportionate in scale, relative to distance. Maybe the focal length you used is responsible for this exceptional foreshortening?
Best regards,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
I like grain too, but this photo was already soft and I'd like this one with less grain.
It certainly isn't cost effective, but work is slow to non existent for me right now.
Back when I was taking all these photos, it consumed my life. I got all silly and spent $1250 on my big lens and $175 for the matching 1.4 converter. $950 on my 20 to 30 wide angle, plus the purchase of my F1. OH dear, did I really do that? :0 ;)
So you can see my reluctance to invest in anything different than what I have now.
Digital imaging and cameras are a nightmare to me anyway. Too many functions too many decisions for my small mind to learn.
My photos look much sharper in print than they do from the CD that I am using to show my work here. Some day I may be forced to change, but not for now. I have 450 to 500 boxes of slides with fond memories of those weekend excursions. I will show more of them as I have money to convert them.
|
|
|
|
|
Avi
{K:70138} 6/28/2009
|
Randy,
As I said in the first place, I am not entirely against grains. I feel grains can add a lot of mood in some compositions, especially b/w ones. In fact I use it a lot in many of my street/people photographs.. so do a lot others in UF and elsewhere. I guess like many others, I still like the effect that a film can produce, and yearn to shoot in film again (glad to see that you still do!).. but it's just so cost ineffective these days..
Avi
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
I am also using the wrong reply button also......... I am a slow learner, hee hee!
I will try two more versions of this photo and the first one will be the original untouched, except for removing the grain and noise.
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
Thank you Anne, your comment is very much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Avi
{K:70138} 6/28/2009
|
oops ! my mistake.. yes, I did take it to be from the same location. now that you know about UF's sharpening issues, I'll wait to see the original.
cheers, Avi
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
Thank you very much Atish.
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
Thank you Saad
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
Thank you very much Vijay.
|
|
|
|
RC. Dany
{K:64104} 6/28/2009
|
Excellent .
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
Thank you very much Vijay.
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
Avi, if you are referring to my other fog image, these photos were each taken at different locations.
I wish this one had the same dark greens as my other one did.
Thanks again for your suggestion and comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
Joe, I have looked at your photos and I am willing to make a deal with you. I'll do the mountain fog and you do nature and wildlife photography. haa haa! ;) I don't have a clue how you get close to those birds, so I don't even try to get images like yours. Nice work I see there.
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
Joe and Avi, I did not understand that any photo sharpening was done by this website as I was filling in the data before posting it. The button was set at medium and it was totally my mistake. You see, I had already sharpened and filtered out the grain. Thanks to Brigitte again for making me aware of my mistake.
Maybe I should re post tonight and show the original version without any enhancing. This image was filtered and balanced quite a bit to try to separate the hill layers. I also wasn't happy with the original photo's light green color.
I will just clean up the noise and crop it the same size as this one so you can see what the original image looked like.
Thank you Joe and Avi for the nice words.
|
|
|
|
|
Avi
{K:70138} 6/28/2009
|
It is difficult to comment on what it needs, without seeing the original one. As I see this one, it seems a little too grainy.. which can be fine with me, if you intended it to be grainy. I would say I still take the color version.
best, Avi
|
|
|
|
|
Atish Sen
{K:6346} 6/28/2009
|
excellent shot
|
|
|
|
Joe Brown
{K:23213} 6/28/2009
|
I am attracted to these types of scenes and this is one of the nices I've seen. Not sure where the grain came from but it can be easily removed.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Saad Salem
{K:89003} 6/28/2009
|
excellent and so fine ,
Saad.
|
|
|
|
|
Vijay Kurhade
{K:10118} 6/28/2009
|
such an beautiful image of such lovely place
take care
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
I though those check boxes were asking if sharpening had been done by the photographer............ ooops.
It was set at medium I think. sheesh, ...... I feel like a dope now. :)
Thank you very much for that info. It will help all the new photos I post here.
Thank you for the nice comment too. I'm still wondering if I cropped enough off the top.
I could have gone lower and just barely eliminated the dark area in the upper left.
|
|
|
|
Brigitte R.
{K:25989} 6/28/2009
|
Did you make sure to check the "none" box under the sharpening option when you uploaded this image? The default is set to "medium" which may case the graininess issue. Otherwise, I don't know how it would appear different after you uploaded your copy of the image. I love the this shot other than the graininess you mentioned... the lines and different shades are absolutely magnificent!
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Libner
{K:4084} 6/28/2009
|
I posted this image sized at 843 by 1000 and I notice it has a lot more graininess than when viewed on my own copy of it. Is there something I should be doing different as far as my resizing or image quality settings that might improve the way photos appear on the website?
|
|
0 
