SDN Photo-a-Day (Rules updates - read the OP)

[The Grim Squeaker]

It's a new day!

3 more pictures from over the past week - After the rain:

A tiny bit overexposed - I wish I had had more time to play with the reflections of the trees in the water, I was hoping to make the pinecone look as though it were growing out of them.


Clouds .


Night. I leaned against a tree to help myself stabilize.

[aerius]

Gold and purple. Incredible amounts of noise for ISO 80.

That's not noise, that's what happens when you're limited to 24 bit colour. 24 bits isn't enough to do a smooth transition between tones in these types of pictures and you'll get banding, blocking, and all kinds of artifacts which can show up as noise. Jpeg compression and the camera's noise reduction will then make it even weirder. This is what's going on in the orange to black transition in the first picture, it's not noise, it's an inability to separate tones which is screwing with the camera and the picture. You can't really get around it unless you leave all your pictures in the original 12 bit/channel Raw format, as soon as you squeeze it down to 8 bit/channel for web display it all goes to hell unless you're damn good with Photoshop.

Again, colours are unedited. (are were much stronger in real life).

Learn how to use Photoshop so you can make the pictures reflect your interpretation of reality. Put it this way, Ansel Adams used extensive darkroom work to make his photos reflect his vision of the scene that he wanted people to see. Not too many of his pictures, and I don't think any of his famous ones are straight prints.

[Simplicius]

It's quite discouraging when the final result is so much worse than the visualization, and that's been happening to me a lot lately. Feels like I'm heading in the direction of increasingly pointless photos rather than increasingly better photos, and I'm not really sure what to do about it. Anyone with a notion, or who wants to rake the aggregate of what I've posted here over the coals and tell me what they think I should be doing, feel free.



Seagulls over the Stinson pier, Belfast



Knowlton-Swanson-Stephenson Preserve, Belfast



Chicken barn, Monroe

Also, for some reason Fuji 200 has been looking really bad lately, at least in scans. There's a place nearby that sells 100, but if that's no better than I might be stuck without a cheap go-to 35mm film. Vexing.

[phongn]

It's quite discouraging when the final result is so much worse than the visualization, and that's been happening to me a lot lately. Feels like I'm heading in the direction of increasingly pointless photos rather than increasingly better photos, and I'm not really sure what to do about it. Anyone with a notion, or who wants to rake the aggregate of what I've posted here over the coals and tell me what they think I should be doing, feel free.

I've actually been going over things on Something Awful's PAD thread - they're pretty good with feedback.

Seagulls over the Stinson pier, Belfast

What's your subject? The water reflection is kind of dark - nice contrast but I don't know what it brings, and the birds tend to blend into it. The half-way horizon line doesn't really do anything for me, either.

Knowlton-Swanson-Stephenson Preserve, Belfast

That green plant sort of clutters up the image - my eye tries to follow that nice little creek. I like how the trees line up against said creek as well.

Chicken barn, Monroe

Nicely exposed but ... what about it? A barn? Any particular meaning for you? It fills up just enough space so that it's not really lonely-feeling or anything.

Also, for some reason Fuji 200 has been looking really bad lately, at least in scans. There's a place nearby that sells 100, but if that's no better than I might be stuck without a cheap go-to 35mm film. Vexing.

Damn, some people on eBay were just selling bricks of recently-expired Reala 100 that could be frozen and last quite awhile. Maybe keep an eye out?

[Simplicius]

I've actually been going over things on Something Awful's PAD thread - they're pretty good with feedback.

I'll keep that in mind. I like to lurk for a good while before I post anywhere, so I'll cast an eye over the place and see what's what.

What's your subject? The water reflection is kind of dark - nice contrast but I don't know what it brings, and the birds tend to blend into it. The half-way horizon line doesn't really do anything for me, either.

The darkness of the water is the XA2 vignetting like crazy; it was overcast so it must have decided to open wide. As for the rest, I suppose it's just a scene - I was trying to find a composition with a derelict piece of waterfront development and had the frame all wound on, when the gulls passed low over the building. I whipped around and snapped off a shot.

That green plant sort of clutters up the image - my eye tries to follow that nice little creek. I like how the trees line up against said creek as well.

You know, I think this photo can stand in for a lot of my other photos, in that I took it because I reacted to something, but not necessarily in a very strong way, and even that doesn't come through because I'm not especially skilled. Thus the photo looks thoughtless, and when I come back to it a month later I can't necessarily remember the thought anyway, making it actually thoughtless.

The season has changed and will change even more, but I'll go back to this spot and see if I can do anything good with it.

Nicely exposed but ... what about it? A barn? Any particular meaning for you? It fills up just enough space so that it's not really lonely-feeling or anything.

The exposure needed a lot of fiddly work in post, so thanks.

I seem to have it in my head that I can tell some kind of grand story about the course of people interacting with the land by taking pictures of docks, railroad stuff, working buildings, run-down buildings, new development, and the discarded traces of past presence. That kind of things is probably possible though right now I've not got the skill to carry it off, and I need serious work trying to make images that are good enough to stand alone.

Damn, some people on eBay were just selling bricks of recently-expired Reala 100 that could be frozen and last quite awhile. Maybe keep an eye out?

I'll have to, I suppose. If all else fails I can always take a vacation and just do medium format for a while too if need be, because I've got a small stash there. Or 35mm B&W eventually, which I'm not shooting now because development is a huge hassle until I learn to do it myself.

[phongn]

The darkness of the water is the XA2 vignetting like crazy; it was overcast so it must have decided to open wide. As for the rest, I suppose it's just a scene - I was trying to find a composition with a derelict piece of waterfront development and had the frame all wound on, when the gulls passed low over the building. I whipped around and snapped off a shot.

Maybe crop out some of the water, even with the gulls' reflection? It's not a bad shot, per se, but could be improved a bit.

You know, I think this photo can stand in for a lot of my other photos, in that I took it because I reacted to something, but not necessarily in a very strong way, and even that doesn't come through because I'm not especially skilled. Thus the photo looks thoughtless, and when I come back to it a month later I can't necessarily remember the thought anyway, making it actually thoughtless.

Yeah, I get that a lot when I look over my negatives (or slides, or downloaded images). I shoot off plenty of pointless snapshots myself and come back and go "I wasted film on that?!"

I seem to have it in my head that I can tell some kind of grand story about the course of people interacting with the land by taking pictures of docks, railroad stuff, working buildings, run-down buildings, new development, and the discarded traces of past presence. That kind of things is probably possible though right now I've not got the skill to carry it off, and I need serious work trying to make images that are good enough to stand alone.

Well, what's the context? How does the barn show interaction with the land?

[Simplicius]

Well, what's the context? How does the barn show interaction with the land?

Other than being a physical marker of it, a human footprint, it doesn't. The picture is entirely static. I actually don't disagree with you about the photo. I don't consider it successful, myself. But for some reason I like the barn itself, and I mark the photo as a would-have-been - if I had done something differently, the barn would have been made more obviously interesting.

My problem is really getting from point A to point B. I'm inexplicably enthusiastic about things like railroad cuttings, factories, corrugated metal sheds, the crumbling walls of failed building projects, and the like. I don't even know why exactly; I just like to see them there. That's point A. I take photos of them because I like them. The point B I'm not arriving at is where my enthusiasm is transmitted through the photo; that's where I fail.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Tried HDR'ing the shots - It didn't come out well, the noise is too hard, and the shutter speeds too low.

[phongn]

Tried HDR'ing the shots - It didn't come out well, the noise is too hard, and the shutter speeds too low.

What for? Those original images all looked well-exposed and definitely within the dynamic range limits of your camera.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Tried HDR'ing the shots - It didn't come out well, the noise is too hard, and the shutter speeds too low.

What for? Those original images all looked well-exposed and definitely within the dynamic range limits of your camera.

Like I said, I was dissapointed by the results of the images even on the camera - I tried over/under exposing and shit, and hoped a HDR might get better results. No such luck.
Sadly, that didn't help much. I don't think anything would have given better results, including a better photographer than myself. A purely technical limitation I guess .
(Unless someone has an idea? )

[Simplicius]

I assume what you found disappointing was that the colors as you saw them were more vivid than the colors in the image, as you said earlier.

Considering the the colors in all three images look intense and very realistic to me, and considering that all three of them are marginally underexposed but brightening them up makes only a subtle difference, I am going to say that it's all in your head. You looked at the sunset with your eyes and your very subjective brain, and the impression of the colors blew you away. The camera, which is much more objective, simply recorded the scene.

The photos as they stand don't need any work at all to make them look accurate. If you want them to convey your subjective impression, then you will want to brighten them up, bump contrast, and go crazy with saturation until it 'looks right.' But you don't have to do any of that; there's nothing about them that needs actual fixing.

[aerius]

Squeakers, calibrate your monitor so it's decently accurate, then get to work with learning & using Photoshop to make the photo reflect your reality.

A few minutes of work, based on what I use to juice up my own sunset scenes. I can go totally surreal on it if I wanted, but decided to keep it plausibly realistic.

[phongn]

Some random stuff from a day out:

The Pritzker Pavilion at Millennium Park:


Some random guy waiting at the 51st/53rd Street Metra stop:

[The Grim Squeaker]

aerius - i'm working from my home monitor which is calibrated (and good), and trust me, none of the colours are what they were in RL.

Phongn, I like the third picture - it's not special (generic even), but there's something so universal about .

[The Grim Squeaker]

3 photos from Friday's photography session:

Needed more DOF . Her chest and up is out of focus. (even if the background is spectacularily diffused and works really well with the angles I made).


Saw a motorbike, had a guy in judo pants = "Pose there. Now, imagine you're a girl. Exactly!"


"Breathe in!"

[RedImperator]

This is the best of the three, and I think it's a decent photo all around. The building is shown to advantage - at least the facade, and enough of the structure that one understands its size and form - but it is placed into the context of some of the surrounding buildings and the streets around it. I did a little Photoshop edit to bring the exposure down a bit, which I'll post if you want to see, but that's an issue of preference. The image itself is sound.

That'd be cool if you could post that. One of the things I'd like to start doing once I've gotten the knack for good shots is working with Photoshop (or the GIMP, in my case) to improve the pictures. Right now all I'm comfortable doing is cropping, so it'd be helpful to see examples of how to use other tools.

Actually, if you could, could you do what you did with Death's cat picture and post screenshots of the Levels box? That might be helpful for me.

I'm glad to see you got photos worth posting. Keep shooting!

Thanks. I don't know if photography is the hobby for me per se, but I love architecture and photography gives me an outlet for that (and an excuse to take a train to New York and look at buildings all day).

Anyway, here's a couple more from the same roll:



Another shot of the Municipal Building. I know I can improve this in Photoshop, but I don't know how.



Woolworth Building. My absolute all-time favorite skyscraper. I would have cropped out the sign in the foreground, but I love that it says "Brooklyn Bridge".



Potter Building, on Park Row. One of the first high-rises clad in terra cotta (that's the same stuff they make clay flowerpots out of). It's so old that the structural framework is made of cast iron, not steel. Behind it is the Times Building, former headquarters of the New York Times, from back when this area was called Newspaper Row (two more newspaper headquarters used to be here and would be in this shot, but they were demolished for a Brooklyn Bridge approach ramp and a thumb-in-the-eye Brutalist shitpile for Pace University).

[The Grim Squeaker]

Hmm, 5 seconds of mucking about with Picasa - what i'd change is a little cropping to get rid of the flags on the blank right side of the frame and a contrast boost.
Something like this:


EDIT: And Red, pics of the Woolsworth aren't fun if one can't see it's white marble like colour . (I prefered the view of it from the bridge).

[Simplicius]

That'd be cool if you could post that. One of the things I'd like to start doing once I've gotten the knack for good shots is working with Photoshop (or the GIMP, in my case) to improve the pictures. Right now all I'm comfortable doing is cropping, so it'd be helpful to see examples of how to use other tools.

Actually, if you could, could you do what you did with Death's cat picture and post screenshots of the Levels box? That might be helpful for me.

Sure thing. It'll take a while to put together, but if I can't manage it tonight I definitely have time tomorrow.

Thanks. I don't know if photography is the hobby for me per se, but I love architecture and photography gives me an outlet for that (and an excuse to take a train to New York and look at buildings all day).

To be honest, with an attitude like that you're better equipped as a photographer than a lot of new amateurs, myself included. You've got one subject that you're passionate about - that means that you're not going to divide your attention among a lot of disparate styles and attendant techniques, so you'll learn faster. There's also no better spur to learning than loving your subject and wanting to present it in a photo so others feel the same about it as you.

(Think of Ansel Adams - he made his photographs and made them the masterpieces of craft that they are to suit his emotional response to the things he shot, not because he was 'into photography.')

You may not intend to be A Photographer, but if you keep shooting pictures and keep caring about your subject you'll find yourself one eventually anyway.

[J]

Allan Gardens Conservatory again from a different spot. I think this is where the building looks best, unfortunately the background gets cluttered with apartment buildings. I did a bunch of editing to try and make the background fade away and be less distracting.

[RedImperator]

I don't know what it is, but that picture looks like a scale-model diorama.

[Simplicius]

By blurring all of the background, even the trees that are right next to the building, it looks like you are very, very close because depth of field shrinks with proximity. But since you can see the whole scene of a building, trees, and other buildings, your brain says "It must be tiny, if I can see so much yet be so close."

It's a neat effect. Overall I like this better than the previous shot you posted; the formal, composed look works well with architecture. I do think it's reasonable to lighten up on the sky so you don't have to mask around the ladder on the roof, though (or just let it blend in; it's not a critical feature of the dome).

[The Grim Squeaker]

Aaand 3 last shots from the photo session last Friday. More here:

A little more posing


I can't help but feel that I could have done more with this compositional idea.
I also wish I could have gotten rid of the buildings across the lake, but they were stuck there from ever angle and nearby position.

Not the best of it's sort, but people seem to like this one: (perhaps due to the energy the overly young model exhibits )

[J]

I do think it's reasonable to lighten up on the sky so you don't have to mask around the ladder on the roof, though (or just let it blend in; it's not a critical feature of the dome).

Huh, weird. The masked area was nearly invisible on my LCD monitor yet quite obvious now that I'm on the CRT which we use for most of our image editing. I also noticed that I blew out some highlights on the part between the top & bottom portions of the main dome. Note to self - no more critical photo editing on the LCD, even though it is calibrated.

Fixed up version



Shiny glass building at sunset

[phongn]

Huh, weird. The masked area was nearly invisible on my LCD monitor yet quite obvious now that I'm on the CRT which we use for most of our image editing. I also noticed that I blew out some highlights on the part between the top & bottom portions of the main dome. Note to self - no more critical photo editing on the LCD, even though it is calibrated.

Photo editing on an LCD is a bit of a frustrating experience on anything short of an IPS display, alas.

[Simplicius]

I do everything on a Dell out-of-box LCD configured to sRGB, and apart from images being a bit brighter than in the final print everything looks pretty good to me. I wonder why I haven't had much trouble.