Short stroll across Amsterdam

[d67]

Patrick I have read your response and find that I now am understanding more of what you are trying to do. I am not in any way implying that you are not a very good photographer, I have taken the time to visit your space in 'PBase' and I just love some of your images that I found there - perfectly exposed and composed. I now understand what you were attempting to show us in Amsterdam, i.e. the dark versus the light.

I must admit that the way I tried to express my feelings is seemingly not self explaning !

I do not profess to be a professional photographer, just a keen ameteur so I hope that you will understand that I offer my comments in an open and friendly way.

Dont bother, I am stricly in the same situation as you.

Thank you for your kind words

Patrick

[xahu34]

Hello Patrick,

being the first member within this thread who made a remark on "your shadows", let me finally say that I do not see any problem in accepting your images just as they are. As mentioned before, I like your slide show, the first version much more than the second one (which could have been avoided). The only thing which I do not accept is the remark on flat images. You may see here for an example showing that hard work on the shadows must not naturally lead to flat images.

Best regards

Xaver

Munich

[d67]

The only thing which I do not accept is the remark on flat images. You may see here for an example showing that hard work on the shadows must not naturally lead to flat images.

Hi Xaver

Considering the treatment of the shadows in my slideshow, as I said, it was a deliberate choice not to compensate up to to the maximum limit.

Sorry Xaver, but the example you give is typically what I wanted to avoid : the sensation this is a HDRI (High dynamic range imaging) outcome with clear and detailed shadows and something curious... false and irreal.

Your non treated image is much more pleasant.

**Das Beispiel das Sie geben, ist genau was ich vermeiden wollte : Man kann denken das es ein HDRI ist (High dynamic range imaging) mit klare und detaillierte Schatten ... klingt falsche und irreal.

Ihr Original Bild ist viel besser

That said... macabre your example !!!!

[Barry Beckham]

Xaver/Patrick

I take back all I said, because it must be me that is out of step here.

Having looked at Xaver's modified image I feel the modified one is the best of the two and would accept that over the original every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I felt the shadows had been lifted just right, not overdone and with the verticals dealt too. Great improvement.

[Ken Cox]

MODIFIED = has lost the original feeling and appears flat

and i cleaned my glasses before i made my observation

ken

[dadou]

MODIFIED = has lost the original feeling and appears flat

The wanted effect to show the hard ligth effect has disapeared ...

We are speaking about slideshow and the transmission of an impression , not about an isolated photo ...

It is a good thing that the sensations are different , as men are !

[xahu34]

We are speaking about slideshow and the transmission of an impression , not about an isolated photo ...

Do you like slideshows whose images do not have the reputation of being good isolated photos?

Chacun à son goût!

Best regards

Xaver

Munich

[xahu34]

... macabre your example !!!!

What do you expect from a photo showing a crematorium?!

Best regards

Xaver

Munich

[xahu34]

I take back all I said, because it must be me that is out of step here.

I got similar feelings!

... every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

There is actually no need for looking at the Weimar crematorium that often;-)

I felt the shadows had been lifted just right, not overdone and with the verticals dealt too. Great improvement.

Thank you for your remark.

Best regards

Xaver

Munich

[d67]

What do you expect from a photo showing a crematorium?!

Sorry Xaver, but krematorium in conjonction with your hometown reminds me immediatly to KZ Dachau.

Not very clever I must admit.

That said, more pleasant sites as examples are not difficult to find.

[xahu34]

... krematorium in conjonction with your hometown reminds me immediatly to KZ Dachau.

Patrick,

please be so kind and give me (a simpleminded inhabitant of Munich) a more detailed interpretation!

Kind regards

Xaver H.

Munich

[d67]

please be so kind and give me (a simpleminded inhabitant of Munich) a more detailed interpretation!

OK, than I will dot one's I's.

May I bring to mind that the subject is "Short stroll across Amsterdam".

If a day you go to Amsterdam, then perhaps you will "interprete" your krematorium example in an other way, as you are paying a visit to this house (for the non german, at the right top, you will find the button Suchen, there is the word "taal" where you can change language).

Sorry, I hope you are just very distracted !

Please, no more comment about your choice !

Peter (fh1805).. I just found now with what image I could have ended my slideshow instead of the windmill !

[xahu34]

Patrick,

just to keep you informed: What you see on my picture is nothing but the rear view of the consecration hall of the municipal graveyard at Weimar, the town of Wieland, Herder, Schiller, and Goethe. It just happened that I was working on this particular image when reading through this thread, an image with extreme lighting conditions. As I announced, I presented the image for nothing else but for demonstrating contrast masking.

I do not mind if you like this technique or not, but please keep your KZ-fantasies private!!!

With kind regards,

Xaver H.

Munich

[Tomuk]

Hi! All

Thank you Patrick for an interesting show.

I’ve been following this thread with great interest and one thing immediately struck me……

What’s all this about “A little photoshop would work wonders”, what ever happened to getting it right in the camera.

In my younger days I worked mainly with transparencies and doing my own E6 processing, with this film stock you only get two chances. In camera and contrast in the processing, after that forget it. Exposure and composition had to be right at the taking stage.

Photoshop is a great TOOL for us photographers but that’s all it is; a tool, it won’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

It allows us to see some great digital A.V. productions from people like Peter Coles, Ron Davies and Barry Beckham to name just a few, not forgetting Pte. (Another tool)

I myself use Photoshop a great deal in the production of my sequences, making masks, making png files and image sizing ect: but I’m most upset with myself if I get my exposures wrong at the taking stage.

On reflection there is one instance when I use Photoshop to obtain a balanced exposure and that’s done in camera raw, I take two images of the same subject, one exposed for a bright sky and another for the foreground then combine them for a balance image, but both exposures were calculated by me (along with my trusty Wesson hand held exposure meter). I find that built in camera meters, multi segment and average can be very easily fooled.

Well enough of a rant for one evening, I’m sure one or two will be replying.

Tom.

[d67]

What you see on my picture is nothing but the rear view of the consecration hall of the municipal graveyard at Weimar, the town of Wieland, Herder, Schiller, and Goethe.... blabla, blabla and blabla....

Ah ?

You named your photos "krematorium".

That is also a fact ... a provocation I suppose then.

[d67]

What’s all this about “A little photoshop would work wonders”, what ever happened to getting it right in the camera.

Sorry Tom

It is now the fourth time I explain my choices !!!!!

"I am clearly aware of the darkness of the shadows of the first part of the sequence and, if you take time, you will see that

- I explained two times in this thread why I did not correct this situation more (unreal aspect or flat contrasts) and

- I publicised this show in pinpointing my choices ("The first day was brightly sunny ... with violent light contrasts and the next day was misty and grey ... and very dark.")."

[dadou]

Do you like slideshows whose images do not have the reputation of being good isolated photos?

As in a cocktail : one elements may be indiferent or bad , but the result is good ! It very subtil to use ...and everybody does not like , but , please , admit that the perfection is not the same for all the planet ! And the word "krematorium" is not a good sound here ...

Other time , sorry for my english ....

[xahu34]

... And the word "krematorium" is not a good sound here ...

What is your problem? Cremation (German: Feuerbestattung, French: incinération??) is quite common today, it’s about 40% in Germany, but about 90% in Thüringen (federal state where Weimar is located).

From Wikipedia: … Cremation occurs in a 'crematorium' (German: Krematorium) … A crematorium may be part of chapel or a funeral home ...

Kind regards

Xaver

Munich

[xahu34]

... As in a cocktail : one elements may be indiferent or bad , but the result is good ! ...

You are right. Good images alone do not make up a good show (here I will have to learn a lot). On the other hand, the bad images should not constitute a significant part of a show.

Best regards

Xaver

Munich

[Barry Beckham]

Good images alone do not make up a good show

No, but what a great place to start ?

On the other hand, the bad images should not constitute a significant part of a show

Bad images should not constitute ANY part of a show, if you know they are bad, dump them and find something more suitable.

The whole point of AV is a visual presentation medium, please tell me what is more important than the images we present ? On very, very, very rare occasions, the mood of a show can be so strong that the images and the quality is not the vital point. However, in my experience that is very rare and in 99% of cases the images are vital.

Anyone who thinks you can slip some uninteresting and maybe poorly exposed images into a slide show and get a good show is barking up the wrong tree.

[xahu34]

... Anyone who thinks you can slip some uninteresting and maybe poorly exposed images into a slide show and get a good show is barking up the wrong tree.

This is not the way I were able to express it - but: I agree!

Best regards

Xaver

Munich

[d67]

What is your problem? Cremation (German: Feuerbestattung, French: incinération??) is quite common today, it’s about 40% in Germany, but about 90% in Thüringen (federal state where Weimar is located).

From Wikipedia: … Cremation occurs in a 'crematorium' (German: Krematorium) … A crematorium may be part of chapel or a funeral home ...

And what is your problem ?

Are you negationist ?

How old are you to play around in a so pueril way with history and menkind ?

You are truly indecent.

You perfectly know that krematorium is not an innocent word and that used out of his specific context (the definitions you so kindly give), it has a far darker signification.

You perhaps forget these Krematorium ?

I suppose you were just distracted by your work when you posted your 2 files named krematorium.

No problem if so. ... and if so, is it so difficult to say that it was a stupid example ?

Patrick

[Peter S]

May I suggest that anyone wishing to make unpleasant comments to another forum member does it through personal messages and NOT in public on the message board. Or better still not at all.

It does not matter who started it. Let's just stop it now.

Bye the way I don't consider criticism on any aspect of a show posted for comment as "unpleasant" as I am sure those making the observations intend them to be constructive.

Peter

[Barry Beckham]

Tom

Appologies, but I have only just seen your post, must have missed it earlier and was draw to it by something someone else said in response.

What's all this about "A little photoshop would work wonders", what ever happened to getting it right in the camera. In my younger days I worked mainly with transparencies and doing my own E6 processing, with this film stock you only get two chances. In camera and contrast in the processing, after that forget it. Exposure and composition had to be right at the taking stage.

But they were not right at the taking stage Tom, every exposure was a compromise unless you were extremely lucky with the conditions. Slide film never recorded what our eyes saw, it exposed for the highlights and shadows blocked up, we just got used to seeing that on a projected image.

Those who worked on negative stock always made changes back then, which we now call image manipulation. It was needed then to balance the tones and colour from a negative and it's needed now from our digital negative. The only reason it wasn't done with slide film was because it couldn't be done.

Photoshop is a great TOOL for us photographers but that's all it is; a tool, it won't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Well, at one time I would have agreed with the above statement, but not any more. Quite often we can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

I saw a portfolio of images recently from a photographer who obviously had great vision and technical ability and there was a header statement from this photographer that I felt was bang on. It said something like this. If I didn't have the skills necessary to realise my images in Photoshop, I would consider myself an incomplete photographer.

Whether an individual wishes to carry out some of the more indepth manipulations is perhaps a debateable point, but anyone who owns a digital camera will need some image editing software and the skills to use it. This is simply because your camera doesn't record what was there. It can't cope with the contrast of many scenes that we shoot. I say this of course to a forum of amateur photographers, who are not likely to be satified with what their camera produces for them.

Of course you still need to get all the technicalities right at the taking stage, regardless of what manipulation you decide on. No sense in having to move a mountain in Photoshop to reach a point we should have reached as we pressed the shutter.

I don't know whether the attached link to an article will be of interest

http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/articles/C...ng/cheating.htm

[dadou]

Bye the way I don't consider criticism on any aspect of a show posted for comment as "unpleasant" as I am sure those making the observations intend them to be constructive.

I am ok with you , Peter ...if the critic read the announce done by the author !

If I didn't have the skills necessary to realise my images in Photoshop, I would consider myself an incomplete photographer.

OK with you , Barry !!!!!!! It is evident and I am happy to read it ...

I am vey interested to see your opinion and Xaver's one about this slideshow done three years ago by our friend Eric Legallet ; the pictures were done with a little compact , with imposibility to choose the weather and choose the hour ... My opinion is that a slideshow can be great and of an other class that an artistic one ...

Thank you for your opinion .