Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My challenge

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Sekonic-Time-Savings-Calculator-2017-06-14.png
Views:	1
Size:	79.8 KB
ID:	5418


    It was this 'calculator' on the Sekonic web site which prompted this challenge. Looking at the calculations on the right gives a realistic view of how much time we spend in post production just getting exposure, highlight and shadow details correct. The website is here if you want to try it for yourself.

    Cheers
    Bob

    Comment


    • oldgreybeard
      oldgreybeard commented
      Editing a comment
      While I regularly use such a meter, I am not suggesting that you need to buy one - modern cameras have very accurate built in exposure meters. If you are doing a significant number of shots involving studio flash or multiple speed lights you might find one could be justified.

      Disclaimer: I have no involvement with Sekonic nor have I received any renumeration or equipment from them

      Bob

  • #17
    Or maybe you could just get one of these when they come out Bob - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...0605021.xjqy_5
    Cheers, Brad.

    Comment


    • oldgreybeard
      oldgreybeard commented
      Editing a comment
      Interesting and just in time for my birthday

    • Ironwood
      Ironwood commented
      Editing a comment
      Looks like it could be the best thing since full auto came out on cameras

    • oldgreybeard
      oldgreybeard commented
      Editing a comment
      On second thoughts I would miss the challenge of sorting out the process for myself - so you needn't pass the hat around for my birthday present (he he)

  • #18
    My take on it. Very fast edit using the free program FASTSTONE IMAGE VIEWER. A little sharpening, shadows adjustment and cooled it off slightly by raising the blue tones. Removed the noise as well. I did find it a bit tricky with the slight blow out on the curled petal. I removed a few sharp bokeh shapes as well, which I found a bit distracting. All in all about 20 seconds. I think it does the trick for a freebie. Great program for those who need an easy viewer and editor.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1970.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	107.2 KB
ID:	5432

    Comment


    • oldgreybeard
      oldgreybeard commented
      Editing a comment
      I am curious as to why you opted to raise the blue tones - this seems contrary to the objectives of the challenge - " the key is to bring out the rich pinks of the sun shining through the petals and to open up the shadows without blowing out the highlights in the curled petal on the left.". I think that raising the blue tones has infact muted rather than bringing out the rich pink tones and possibly also contributed to the reduced 'sparkle' in the dew drops.
      That said, the result that you have produced is an acceptable representation of the original image. I agree with your comments re the background bokeh, but am interested in your removal of noise - I had not detected a noise problem even when viewed at 200% in Photoshop (but I am waiting for a cataract removal so may have missed it).

      I have not used the Faststone Image Viewer, but from the overview of its editing capabilities which I read on the internet you have limited tools with which to work. Given these limitations, you have done well.

      Bob
      Last edited by oldgreybeard; 15th June 2017, 10:59 PM.

    • Ironwood
      Ironwood commented
      Editing a comment
      For such a quick edit, I think you have done well with it Isac. Though it looks a bit overexposed to me.

    • Isac
      Isac commented
      Editing a comment
      Thanks for the CC Bob. I have attempted another edit and will post it on it's own. I only added a blue tint to experiment a bit. It was only slight and IMO it worked - but not for all and I do apologise for digressing from the original challenge. The noise was only in the background and may have only been my interpretation because of the bokeh and/or the small image size of 347kb and less than 1000px in height and width. I use Faststone daily for quick adjustments (I think it works great for shadows) and adding comments or highlights to screen snaps when I do tutorials. I use CS6 if I want to get serious. I also have an IPS panel so the colour gamut is a lot wider than an LCD. Thanks again and I hope the rework is a pass.

  • #19
    Bob, I know you outlined your goals for our edits up front in your original post, and provided your example. But I think its human nature for each individual to work towards the vision they imagine the flower should look, and I doubt many ( or any ) of us are using calibrated monitors, so what one person sees, is not necessarily what another will see with the same image.
    This has been a fun challenge for me, I tried a few things that I normally wouldnt have tried, so I have learnt a few things out of it.
    Cheers, Brad.

    Comment


    • #20
      I agree with your comments Brad, and perhaps I should have explained upfront how this challenge fits in with the course that I am rewriting.
      The underlying theme of the course is Ansel Adams's quote "A photograph is made, not taken" and incorpoarates his philosophy of the need to not only visualize the photograph but also the techniques to be used to create that image . Adams proceeded from there to determine what components of the image could be achieved in camera and which areas would need further processing (dodging, burning, etc) in the printing processes.

      Looking at the challenge I set, we had a backlit subject. Basically in determining how to make this image, I have decided on the goals which I outlined when starting this challenge. Now looking at the options for taking this image, I had basically 3 options
      1. Fill flash to open the shadows
      2. Use a reflector to reflect light back into the shadows
      3. Expose for the highlights and adjust the tonal values in Photoshop.
      The time factor fits in into the decision making process as an underlying component of this section of the course is the development of time efficient practices.

      Previous sections had already dealt with fill flash and refectors (theory and practice). This part builds on these sections in building a skill set which enables and leads into the next challenge of photographing a backlit subject:
      1. Evaluate scene
      2. Define objectives
      3. Establish camera settings and exposure to achieve these aims and any external components, eg supplemental lighting
      4. Confirm feasibility eg is desired approach practical - does the image fit with the dynamic range of rhe camera, display and / or printer
      5. Proceed to take and process image.
      6. Evaluate result

      I hope this explains why I was pushing you all towards obtaining the specified goals. In the next challenge as outlined above, the students will be expressing and defining thier goals. Thier results will be judged on how well they achieve thier own pre-defined goals.

      We could have such a challenge within this forum if you are interested.

      Bob
      Last edited by oldgreybeard; 16th June 2017, 10:36 AM. Reason: Typos

      Comment


      • #21
        My second attempt at the challenge.
        Click image for larger version

Name:	pink-rosel-edit-ps.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	199.7 KB
ID:	5443

        Comment


        • #22
          Much better - I like it. As I explained to Brad in an earlier post, the key to getting the tonal variation in the soft pastel pinks, it to be able to separate the luminosity channel information from the colour information. I did this in Photoshop using Apply Image and the Luminosity Blend mode. I think you should be able to do it in CS6 if you want to go down that path - its been quite a while since I used CS6. When I looked at the rose in the garden with the strong backlight from the mid-morning sun, i was taken by the almost transparent pink appearance of the new unfurling petals - that was what I was trying to capture.

          I am looking forward to seeing more of your work.

          Bob

          Comment


          • Isac
            Isac commented
            Editing a comment
            Thank you Bob. I think Lumunisity masks is fantastic and a great way to get nice contrasts. I also use it to fade sharpening artifacts PS - glad you like the edit. Cheers

        • #23
          I really like this one too Isac, I find it much better to look at than your 1st one, as I said, I thought it was a bit too overexposed. Which could have been a result of too much shadow reduction overall, I remember when looking at it, I thought I would like to increase the blacks, and decrease the whites.
          I think your second attempt is the best version so far with regards to the highlights on the curled petal, and your background doesn't distract from the flower. I also like the leaf gone from the lower righthand corner, I found it a bit distracting, especially with the blown highlight on it.

          Originally posted by oldgreybeard View Post
          ............ When I looked at the rose in the garden with the strong backlight from the mid-morning sun, i was taken by the almost transparent pink appearance of the new unfurling petals - that was what I was trying to capture.



          Bob
          After reading that bit, I can now understand the photo a bit better.

          I think I might have had the same intention when I saw this one in my garden early one morning, I also had trouble recording it as I saw it.
          2 attempts, about 10 minutes apart.
          Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_4898 - Version 2.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	27.5 KB
ID:	5446


          Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_4905.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	36.2 KB
ID:	5447



          Cheers, Brad.

          Comment


          • #24
            Definitely prefern the second image - the increased depth of field helps a lot. The white stringy things hanging down (pardon my technical jargon!) appear very soft, but I'm not sure whether bringing them into sharper focus would improve the image or not.

            Bob
            Last edited by oldgreybeard; 16th June 2017, 04:15 PM. Reason: deleted word

            Comment


            • Ironwood
              Ironwood commented
              Editing a comment
              4 months since I took these, I had to go back and check the settings, both were taken at f2.8 so the DOF is very shallow. I think the first one had the focus too much at the front of the flower, while the 2nd one the focus is more centralised on the flower giving a sense of greater DOF.

          • #25
            I like them both Ironwood. #1 looks to be taken with a slight fog hanging around and #2 well, the fog has cleared somewhat. DOF in both is OK for me. I sometimes see images differently to others but to me - that's a good thing. As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

            Comment


            • Ironwood
              Ironwood commented
              Editing a comment
              Cheers Isac. When I saw this flower bathed in the very soft early morning light with the dew droplets glistening slightly, I took that first shot, went straight inside and checked it out on the big screen. I was disappointed because I had framed it too close on the rhs, and the stamen (?) was cutting through the edge of the frame. So I went straight back out, this time with tripod, and reshot. I was a bit disappointed because the lighting had changed so much in the meantime and I lost that soft dreamy look that drew me in at the start. But, as they say, "Such is Life"

            • Isac
              Isac commented
              Editing a comment
              Thanks for the info Ironwood - always helps to get a better perspective of what the image portrays. Easy to fix the RHS in #1 by adding some BG to an extra bit of canvas
          Working...
          X