Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > STREET dropout

Reply
Thread Tools

STREET dropout

 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2012
On 12/30/2012 3:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-12-29 21:25:40 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2012-12-29 19:00:35 -0800, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>>
>>> OK!
>>> Here's the background layer for you guys to play with. I am in FL and
>>> do not have access to the original RAW file. It would be nice to see
>>> different interpretations.
>>>
>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/f9jske5y9nzhxw3/dancing%20heron%20basic.jpg>

>>
>> I made my attempt, and I can see why you were trying for some sort of
>> sharpening. The Heron is a little on the soft side particularly at the
>> feather tips.
>>
>> So I think rather than trying to sharpen it, it might be better to
>> embrace the fuzziness and go with something along the lines of a
>> textured print.
>>
>> Here is a comparison with your Dancing Heron basic, your altered
>> version and two of my textured print versions.
>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DH-Comp.jpg >
>> ...and a bigger version of #4;
>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DH-03.jpg >
>>
>> BTW: I got rid of the leaves on the right using content aware fill.

>
> Then there is this version:
> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DH-04w.jpg >
>


that's why we have horse races.

I may have oversharpened a bit, but I prefer that to blurring. Unless,
you are doing a deliberate blur.

<https://www.dropbox.com/s/at74yg4zva4utn8/blurry%20snowey.jpg>


--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2012
On 12/30/2012 4:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-12-30 12:48:12 -0800, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 12/30/2012 3:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2012-12-29 21:25:40 -0800, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-12-29 19:00:35 -0800, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> OK!
>>>>> Here's the background layer for you guys to play with. I am in FL and
>>>>> do not have access to the original RAW file. It would be nice to see
>>>>> different interpretations.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/f9jske5y9nzhxw3/dancing%20heron%20basic.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I made my attempt, and I can see why you were trying for some sort of
>>>> sharpening. The Heron is a little on the soft side particularly at the
>>>> feather tips.
>>>>
>>>> So I think rather than trying to sharpen it, it might be better to
>>>> embrace the fuzziness and go with something along the lines of a
>>>> textured print.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a comparison with your Dancing Heron basic, your altered
>>>> version and two of my textured print versions.
>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DH-Comp.jpg >
>>>> ...and a bigger version of #4;
>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DH-03.jpg >
>>>>
>>>> BTW: I got rid of the leaves on the right using content aware fill.
>>>
>>> Then there is this version:
>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DH-04w.jpg >
>>>

>>
>> that's why we have horse races.
>>
>> I may have oversharpened a bit, but I prefer that to blurring. Unless,
>> you are doing a deliberate blur.
>>
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/at74yg4zva4utn8/blurry%20snowey.jpg>

>
> That doesn't quite work does it?
>


No. i'm really not happy with it.

I still have to play, or i may just do a different image. I only added a
little over 400 images in the last three days. Most of which will never
be seen again.
--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2012
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:46:53 +1300, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>That's a nice photograph but, in terms of the rulz of [SI], has that
>image been excessively photoshopped? .... has reality been
>excessively interfered with?
>
>Enquiring minds need to know.


This little exercise going on has nothing to do with SI. Even if
Peter shot the bird from the street, it's not a "Street" photo.

It's not out-of-the-question, though, for a SI mandate to be announced
that would allow this. We've done it. The mandate was "Abstract".


--
Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2012
On 12/30/2012 4:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:28:09 -0500, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2012 11:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 22:06:59 -0500, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/29/2012 9:37 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-12-29 18:33:27 -0800, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/29/2012 10:32 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2012-12-29 04:46:36 -0800, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2012 12:17 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I envy you for your nearness to Aqueduct. That kind of place offers a
>>>>>>>>> cornucopia of subjects for the candid photographer. We don't have a
>>>>>>>>> flat or harness racing venue here in this area. We have a dog track,
>>>>>>>>> and I sometimes visit it for some candid opportunities like these:
>>>>>>>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...1-30-01-X2.jpg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...dog-012-X2.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aquaduct
>>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a racino. i.e. They have a casino near the track. My wife really
>>>>>>>> enjoys playing the slots. There are several racinos in FL. However,
>>>>>>>> they are sticky a bout cameras in the casino part. (Especially with a
>>>>>>>> large lens.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, I find the actual racing to be uninteresting. I've never placed
>>>>>>>>> a bet when at the dog track photographing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I feel so strongly about the way greyhounds are mistreated, that I
>>>>>>>> wouldn't even go near a dog track.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Horse racing, though, is something that I do enjoy watching and I do
>>>>>>>>> bet. I find it exciting enough that I might forget to even raise my
>>>>>>>>> camera.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My favorite sport in racing is the steeplechase, but that's hard to
>>>>>>>>> find anywhere in the US. The last time we were in England our
>>>>>>>>> itinerary was partially based on race days at Market Rasen. I would
>>>>>>>>> have preferred to go to Aintree, but there were no fixtures there
>>>>>>>>> during our stay. Next time, if there is a next time, it will be in
>>>>>>>>> April so the Grand National can be on our itinerary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is fun to watch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do like the subject matter and composition of your shot, but
>>>>>>>>> selective coloring is not my thing. I've done it, but it's like
>>>>>>>>> anchovies...something to be tried once.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, that was not selective color. It was selective desaturation.
>>>>>>>> In keeping with the mandate, I simply desaturated most of the colors
>>>>>>>> one by one, in ACR.
>>>>>>>> I do not use selective color because I can. I do it when I feel the
>>>>>>>> effect enhances the image. Like HDR, it is simply a tool to be used
>>>>>>>> with care.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is one selectively colored image, that won print of the month, in
>>>>>>>> November. I desaturated the backgrond because it was distracting. The
>>>>>>>> result needed a tad more, so I did some mile selective coloring.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/oax4997ey0zv9dy/dancing%20heron.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That might have won print of the month in November, but I find the noise
>>>>>>> introduced by what I believe to be over sharpening or indiscriminate
>>>>>>> high pass filter sharpening, far more distracting than any background
>>>>>>> could have been.
>>>>>>> Just my taste I guess, but to me it looks like a potentially great shot
>>>>>>> ruined by over processing. That is a bird which doesn't deserve the
>>>>>>> abstract treatment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I admit to my tendency to sometimes oversharpen. Here's what happens
>>>>>> when you carry it to an extreme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one did well in the creative category.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4g3en1ju6l7yepm/screaming%20cattle%20egret>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that I like!
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: There is no jpeg extension on that file. It was simple enough to
>>>>> add it but it initially appears to be a file of no "type".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> I just changed the name on the site. It that better?
>>>
>>> Still 'nothing here'.
>>>

>>
>> How about now?
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ckhnsowd3rm4wkr/screaming%20cattle%20egret.jpg>

>
> A great image!


thank you. It was heavily photoshopped.

>
> I wouldn't like to meet it round the swamps after dusk.
>


Me neither.


--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2012
On 12/31/2012 4:33 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:09:56 -0500, Tony Cooper
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:46:53 +1300, Eric Stevens
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> That's a nice photograph but, in terms of the rulz of [SI], has that
>>> image been excessively photoshopped? .... has reality been
>>> excessively interfered with?
>>>
>>> Enquiring minds need to know.

>>
>> This little exercise going on has nothing to do with SI. Even if
>> Peter shot the bird from the street, it's not a "Street" photo.
>>
>> It's not out-of-the-question, though, for a SI mandate to be announced
>> that would allow this. We've done it. The mandate was "Abstract".

>
> But otherwise it would not be acceptable?
>


I generally do a lot of work in Photoshop. I do not think there is
anything worng in showing an image to my concept f its potential is
wrong. Other people differ. Find a ground that works for you. Some will
agree, others will not. The important thing is to develop a sense of
what you like.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2012
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:33:35 +1300, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:09:56 -0500, Tony Cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:46:53 +1300, Eric Stevens
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>That's a nice photograph but, in terms of the rulz of [SI], has that
>>>image been excessively photoshopped? .... has reality been
>>>excessively interfered with?
>>>
>>>Enquiring minds need to know.

>>
>>This little exercise going on has nothing to do with SI. Even if
>>Peter shot the bird from the street, it's not a "Street" photo.
>>
>>It's not out-of-the-question, though, for a SI mandate to be announced
>>that would allow this. We've done it. The mandate was "Abstract".

>
>But otherwise it would not be acceptable?


Manipulated images with something added are not acceptable. Like
this:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64147677/2011-12-29-01.jpg
--
Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2012
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:08:12 +1300, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:01:36 -0500, Tony Cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:33:35 +1300, Eric Stevens
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:09:56 -0500, Tony Cooper
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:46:53 +1300, Eric Stevens
>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>That's a nice photograph but, in terms of the rulz of [SI], has that
>>>>>image been excessively photoshopped? .... has reality been
>>>>>excessively interfered with?
>>>>>
>>>>>Enquiring minds need to know.
>>>>
>>>>This little exercise going on has nothing to do with SI. Even if
>>>>Peter shot the bird from the street, it's not a "Street" photo.
>>>>
>>>>It's not out-of-the-question, though, for a SI mandate to be announced
>>>>that would allow this. We've done it. The mandate was "Abstract".
>>>
>>>But otherwise it would not be acceptable?

>>
>>Manipulated images with something added are not acceptable. Like
>>this:
>>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64147677/2011-12-29-01.jpg

>
>I take it from your wording that manipulated images with something
>(e.g. leaves) removed are acceptable.


Hey, Eric, I'm not a judge in the SI thing. I'm just telling you what
I feel should and should not be acceptable.

Personally, I have no problem with cloning out debris or other things
in the image that distract. How much removal can be done without the
manipulation being excessive is pretty much up to the contributor in
the SI. Also, if I can see that you've done something major, it's
wrong.

In this image,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j8d6guov23...12-11-18-2.jpg
if I were to submit it to SI (which I'm not), and wanted to take out
that Visa sign, I would.



--
Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2013
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:21:15 +1300, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:10:34 -0500, Tony Cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:08:12 +1300, Eric Stevens
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:01:36 -0500, Tony Cooper
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:33:35 +1300, Eric Stevens
>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:09:56 -0500, Tony Cooper
>>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:46:53 +1300, Eric Stevens
>>>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's a nice photograph but, in terms of the rulz of [SI], has that
>>>>>>>image been excessively photoshopped? .... has reality been
>>>>>>>excessively interfered with?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Enquiring minds need to know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This little exercise going on has nothing to do with SI. Even if
>>>>>>Peter shot the bird from the street, it's not a "Street" photo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not out-of-the-question, though, for a SI mandate to be announced
>>>>>>that would allow this. We've done it. The mandate was "Abstract".
>>>>>
>>>>>But otherwise it would not be acceptable?
>>>>
>>>>Manipulated images with something added are not acceptable. Like
>>>>this:
>>>>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64147677/2011-12-29-01.jpg
>>>
>>>I take it from your wording that manipulated images with something
>>>(e.g. leaves) removed are acceptable.

>>
>>Hey, Eric, I'm not a judge in the SI thing. I'm just telling you what
>>I feel should and should not be acceptable.
>>
>>Personally, I have no problem with cloning out debris or other things
>>in the image that distract. How much removal can be done without the
>>manipulation being excessive is pretty much up to the contributor in
>>the SI. Also, if I can see that you've done something major, it's
>>wrong.
>>
>>In this image,
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/j8d6guov23...12-11-18-2.jpg
>>if I were to submit it to SI (which I'm not), and wanted to take out
>>that Visa sign, I would.

>
>It wouldn't worry me at all if you did. My concern is that we seem to
>have a rule which we don't seem to be able to define exactly and I
>wonder if we really need it. The intention should be to use
>photography to produce an image which we like and we shouldn't get too
>hung up on how we do it. The accumulated weight of viewer's comments
>should be enough to control excesses.


I agree. I think it should be more a matter of self-policing.


--
Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DNS dropout connection still ok Steve Walton Computer Support 3 07-21-2005 03:58 PM
AdHoc Wireless Network Dropout Issues =?Utf-8?B?c3BlZWR5?= Wireless Networking 2 09-02-2004 05:26 AM
adhoc network 11g wireless dropout woes dkh Wireless Networking 1 08-02-2004 01:27 PM
Street Date? We don't have to honor no stinkin' street date! One-Shot Scot DVD Video 3 05-23-2004 11:56 AM
Network Dropout? Cyrus Bharda Computer Support 2 09-17-2003 12:56 PM



Advertisments