SI Comments - Cooper

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tony Cooper, Jan 9, 2013.

  1. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/street_photography

    Good to see "Street" shots elevated to the same importance as the
    letter "M".

    I really wish people would give a title to their images so that when
    we discuss an image we can be clear about which image we're
    discussing. I'll assign titles where there are none.

    Bowser - "Streetsweeper" lacks anything of interest but the processing
    it good for what it is. Even in "Street", we want something that is
    self-identifying as the subject. The "Sunkist Man" has more going for
    it, but I can't really point at the reason "Why". Maybe it's that the
    figure is dominant in the image.

    I'm probably going to take more flak about my cropping preferences,
    but here goes:

    Bowser's "Man on the corner" is the most interesting of his three
    takes, but would work better as a vertical with most of the scene to
    the right cropped out.

    That brings up something that, to me, is interesting. For "Street", I
    prefer the cropped view, but I also see this corner as the setting for
    another photograph with wide view but without an interesting
    character. The perspective, the diagonals, and all those angles and
    textures and shapes are a scene that doesn't need a central character.

    Rob - "Mak'in a Quid" is a good capture. That bare foot is great.
    "On ya bike" is an interesting view of recurring shapes, but not what
    I'd call "Street" even with the bike rider to the top left.

    I'm often criticized in the "Street" forum I participate in for
    too-bright colors when I submit in color. Too much vibrancy in
    processing, I guess. But, when it's a color image then I think you
    let the colors show.

    Rob didn't hold back in color in "SVP", and it's one of my favorites
    in this SI. Good thing Rob didn't pay attention to the "No
    photography" symbol on the easel. If there's one thing I'd like to
    see that isn't there it's a little more of the pipe. It explains the
    smoke.

    SavageDuck - "Cowboy Hat Man" is just kinda flat. The Duck should've
    waited until the "Man on a Bench" turned a bit to the camera. A
    profile could've worked. The "Juggler" is a good catch, but I'd bring
    out the yellow of the object in the air. The image needs one of the
    three objects up in the air, and the one that is kinda gets lost in
    the background.

    DanP - When people hear that I like to do "Street", they think that
    all I shoot are bums and down-and-outers. People think that "Street"
    means black and white, gritty shots of the seamy side. Not so.

    "Street" is what we see on the street. This is what Dan saw, and it
    works well for "Street".

    Bob Coe - Here we go again on cropping. That blown-out white
    tablecloth should be have been cropped out. Well, as much as
    possible. Blown-out is bad, and a dominate light area in an otherwise
    darkish scene distracts. Otherwise, the scene is very good.

    I see what Bob was going for in the "Construction Zone", but it just
    doesn't come off. The "Night Shot" does. Some strong areas, but it
    results in good balance.

    Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
    "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
    grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
    when looking at "The Loser".

    Regarding the comment about my "Atelier", I think the image would work
    with or without the door on the right. Cropping it out wouldn't make
    it a better composition, and leaving it in doesn't make it better.
    "Musical Rest" would look better without that construction fence over
    the umbrella, but it's there. "Tired" is a non-standard ratio crop
    that I like. I wish I would have toned down that white sign on the
    pole with a little burning.




    --
    Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 9, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:16:48 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2013-01-09 08:48:28 -0800, Tony Cooper <> said:
    >
    >> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/street_photography
    >>
    >>
    >> SavageDuck - "Cowboy Hat Man" is just kinda flat. The Duck should've
    >> waited until the "Man on a Bench" turned a bit to the camera. A
    >> profile could've worked. The "Juggler" is a good catch, but I'd bring
    >> out the yellow of the object in the air. The image needs one of the
    >> three objects up in the air, and the one that is kinda gets lost in
    >> the background.

    >
    >Moments in time captured, and timing is everything for many street captures.


    Tell me about it. For every shot taken and kept, there are dozens
    missed because the subject just didn't look up, look around, or not
    move behind someone else.


    >At the farmers' market in Paso Robles, it was quite early and even
    >though I got few shots there, the guy in the hat seemed to be better
    >than the crazy woman riding a mobility scooter, who kept yelling, "Why
    >are you taking pictures?" at me.
    >< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DNC_5407-Ew.jpg >
    >
    >Down in San Luis Obispo, the "Man on the Bench" was seriously catatonic
    >and his only movement in all the time I observed him was to lift his
    >right hand slightly, proffering his begging cup to passers-by. Moving
    >his head never happened when I shot him from the other side of the
    >street, and when I walked past him, and when other folks walked past
    >him.
    >< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DNC_5431-Ew.jpg >
    >

    Better view, but the other had better post-processing. That's that
    "creamsicle" preset, isn't it?

    >As for the juggler, it was timing, timing, timing.
    >< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DNC_5439-Ew.jpg >


    That's the better image as far as I'm concerned.
    --
    Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 9, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
    > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
    > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
    > when looking at "The Loser".
    >


    Thanks for your comment.
    Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
    conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
    was better than no image.

    > Regarding the comment about my "Atelier", I think the image would work
    > with or without the door on the right. Cropping it out wouldn't make
    > it a better composition, and leaving it in doesn't make it better.


    Horses for courses.

    > "Musical Rest" would look better without that construction fence over
    > the umbrella, but it's there. "Tired" is a non-standard ratio crop
    > that I like. I wish I would have toned down that white sign on the
    > pole with a little burning.
    >




    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 10, 2013
    #3
  4. Tony Cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    :
    : <snip>
    : >
    : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
    : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
    : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
    : > when looking at "The Loser".
    : >
    :
    : Thanks for your comment.
    : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
    : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
    : was better than no image.

    Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
    accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
    corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
    high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
    loss of sharpness isn't.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 10, 2013
    #4
  5. Tony Cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:16:48 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    : On 2013-01-09 08:48:28 -0800, Tony Cooper <> said:
    :
    : > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/street_photography
    : >
    : >
    : > SavageDuck - "Cowboy Hat Man" is just kinda flat. The Duck should've
    : > waited until the "Man on a Bench" turned a bit to the camera. A
    : > profile could've worked. The "Juggler" is a good catch, but I'd bring
    : > out the yellow of the object in the air. The image needs one of the
    : > three objects up in the air, and the one that is kinda gets lost in
    : > the background.
    :
    : Moments in time captured, and timing is everything for many street
    : captures.
    :
    : At the farmers' market in Paso Robles, it was quite early and even
    : though I got few shots there, the guy in the hat seemed to be better
    : than the crazy woman riding a mobility scooter, who kept yelling,
    : "Why are you taking pictures?" at me.
    : < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DNC_5407-Ew.jpg >

    I believe the best defense is to listen attentively to her question and then
    reply sympathetically in the imaginary language of your choice.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 10, 2013
    #5
  6. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > :
    > : <snip>
    > : >
    > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
    > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
    > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
    > : > when looking at "The Loser".
    > : >
    > :
    > : Thanks for your comment.
    > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
    > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
    > : was better than no image.
    >
    > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
    > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
    > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
    > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
    > loss of sharpness isn't.
    >


    You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
    Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
    comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
    photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.


    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 10, 2013
    #6
  7. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/9/2013 9:39 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

    >[snip]<
    >
    > I believe the best defense is to listen attentively to her question and then
    > reply sympathetically in the imaginary language of your choice.
    >

    Sometimes saying nothing is best.
    While wearing shorts my wife and I visited her aunt, who is in an
    assisted living facility. Her aunt was showing us the dinning room. As
    we walked in, on of the residents yelled at me: "NO SHORTS ALLOWED IN
    THE DINING ROOM.":

    My first instinct was to say: "OH!" and drop my shorts on the spot.

    Second choice was to deny I was wearing shorts, which would have quickly
    changed the focus of the discussion,

    I Took choice No. 3 and quietly, with phoney regrets, opted out of the
    tour of the dinning room.


    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 10, 2013
    #7
  8. Tony Cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    : > :
    : > : <snip>
    : > : >
    : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
    : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
    : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
    : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
    : > : >
    : > :
    : > : Thanks for your comment.
    : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
    : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
    : > : was better than no image.
    : >
    : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
    : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
    : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
    : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
    : > loss of sharpness isn't.
    : >
    :
    : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
    : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
    : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
    : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.

    You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license.
    But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which
    I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on
    the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 10, 2013
    #8
  9. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > : > :
    > : > : <snip>
    > : > : >
    > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
    > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
    > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
    > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
    > : > : >
    > : > :
    > : > : Thanks for your comment.
    > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
    > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
    > : > : was better than no image.
    > : >
    > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
    > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
    > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
    > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
    > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
    > : >
    > :
    > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
    > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
    > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
    > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.
    >
    > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license.
    > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which
    > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on
    > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate.
    >


    Yes it can.
    However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
    with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
    rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.


    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 10, 2013
    #9
  10. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <>
    wrote:

    >On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    >> : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    >> : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >> : > :
    >> : > : <snip>
    >> : > : >
    >> : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
    >> : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
    >> : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
    >> : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
    >> : > : >
    >> : > :
    >> : > : Thanks for your comment.
    >> : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
    >> : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
    >> : > : was better than no image.
    >> : >
    >> : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
    >> : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
    >> : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
    >> : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
    >> : > loss of sharpness isn't.
    >> : >
    >> :
    >> : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
    >> : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
    >> : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
    >> : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.
    >>
    >> You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license.
    >> But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which
    >> I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on
    >> the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate.
    >>

    >
    >Yes it can.
    >However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
    >with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
    >rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.


    I liked the subject matter and the composition, but would have liked a
    little less grain in the photos. That's not, in my opinion, being too
    critical.

    I don't see that running them through a program like Noiseware is
    excessive post.

    This whole issue of how much post is allowed is a mare's nest. The
    Duck uses LR pre-sets to convert from color to black & white. (A step
    that I feel is perfectly legitimate) Who knows how many steps there
    are in that action-like massage of the image?

    Some people might be using Topaz, OnOne, or other Nik plug-ins. Just
    because the processing is a single click, instead of multiple
    adjustment layers, doesn't mean it's a single step.

    By excessive manipulation, I think only of adding or removing major
    elements from the scene. Now if it turns out that the bra was removed
    from that South Beachette by Photoshop, *that's* excessive.

    Here's a shot I took when we went down to South Beach:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzbgmcluvphp95m/2010-10-16-029.jpg




    --
    Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 10, 2013
    #10
  11. Tony Cooper

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:49:19 AM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-09 18:39:30 -0800, Robert Coe <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:16:48 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>

    >
    > > wrote:

    >
    > > : On 2013-01-09 08:48:28 -0800, Tony Cooper <> said:

    >
    > > :

    >
    > > : > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/street_photography

    >
    > > : >

    >
    > > : >

    >
    > > : > SavageDuck - "Cowboy Hat Man" is just kinda flat. The Duck should've

    >
    > > : > waited until the "Man on a Bench" turned a bit to the camera. A

    >
    > > : > profile could've worked. The "Juggler" is a good catch, but I'd bring

    >
    > > : > out the yellow of the object in the air. The image needs one of the

    >
    > > : > three objects up in the air, and the one that is kinda gets lost in

    >
    > > : > the background.

    >
    > > :

    >
    > > : Moments in time captured, and timing is everything for many street

    >
    > > : captures.

    >
    > > :

    >
    > > : At the farmers' market in Paso Robles, it was quite early and even

    >
    > > : though I got few shots there, the guy in the hat seemed to be better

    >
    > > : than the crazy woman riding a mobility scooter, who kept yelling,

    >
    > > : "Why are you taking pictures?" at me.

    >
    > > : < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DNC_5407-Ew.jpg >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I believe the best defense is to listen attentively to her question and then

    >
    > > reply sympathetically in the imaginary language of your choice.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Bob

    >
    >
    >
    > As I was shooting, I just said, "because, that's what I do" and walked on.


    I would have said I was thinking of nominating you for Americans next top model. ;-)
     
    Whisky-dave, Jan 10, 2013
    #11
  12. Tony Cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    : > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    : > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    : > : > :
    : > : > : <snip>
    : > : > : >
    : > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
    : > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
    : > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
    : > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
    : > : > : >
    : > : > :
    : > : > : Thanks for your comment.
    : > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
    : > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
    : > : > : was better than no image.
    : > : >
    : > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
    : > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
    : > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
    : > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
    : > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
    : > : >
    : > :
    : > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
    : > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
    : > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
    : > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.
    : >
    : > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license.
    : > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which
    : > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on
    : > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate.
    : >
    :
    : Yes it can.
    : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
    : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
    : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.

    I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in
    camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image
    in post.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 11, 2013
    #12
  13. "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in
    > camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW
    > image in post.


    NR is correction for the medium so is just removing what was added by
    electronic noise. That's just a practical issue. I'm puzzled why someone
    would want to over-intellectualise it.

    The limits codified by film journalists are a good benchmark.

    Dodging and burning like Ansel Adams to the point where you get a different
    look and feel to the negative is art. Editing out an object you were too
    lazy to walk over to and move may be legitimate if the scene is
    representative of default reality. But this is getting into a grey zone.

    A lot of time would be saved if a common system could be developed but that
    would interfere with all the arguing wouldn't it?

    --
    Charles E. Hardwidge
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Jan 11, 2013
    #13
  14. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    > : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    > : > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > : > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    > : > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > : > : > :
    > : > : > : <snip>
    > : > : > : >
    > : > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
    > : > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
    > : > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
    > : > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
    > : > : > : >
    > : > : > :
    > : > : > : Thanks for your comment.
    > : > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
    > : > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
    > : > : > : was better than no image.
    > : > : >
    > : > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
    > : > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
    > : > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
    > : > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
    > : > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
    > : > : >
    > : > :
    > : > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
    > : > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
    > : > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
    > : > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.
    > : >
    > : > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license.
    > : > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which
    > : > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on
    > : > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate.
    > : >
    > :
    > : Yes it can.
    > : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
    > : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
    > : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.
    >
    > I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in
    > camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image
    > in post.
    >

    True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.


    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 11, 2013
    #14
  15. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    >>> : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>> : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>> : > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>> : > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>> : > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>> : > : > :
    >>> : > : > : <snip>
    >>> : > : > : >
    >>> : > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but
    >>> not much
    >>> : > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
    >>> that much
    >>> : > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
    >>> all comments
    >>> : > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
    >>> : > : > : >
    >>> : > : > :
    >>> : > : > : Thanks for your comment.
    >>> : > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
    >>> but shooting
    >>> : > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
    >>> shutter speed. It
    >>> : > : > : was better than no image.
    >>> : > : >
    >>> : > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
    >>> question is whether
    >>> : > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
    >>> at the cost of a
    >>> : > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
    >>> tradeoff in low light,
    >>> : > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
    >>> to the human eye;
    >>> : > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
    >>> : > : >
    >>> : > :
    >>> : > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
    >>> make.
    >>> : > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation
    >>> of their
    >>> : > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
    >>> : > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
    >>> mandate.
    >>> : >
    >>> : > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
    >>> artistic license.
    >>> : > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
    >>> RAW, which
    >>> : > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
    >>> homing in on
    >>> : > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
    >>> mandate.
    >>> : >
    >>> :
    >>> : Yes it can.
    >>> : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
    >>> : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
    >>> : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.
    >>>
    >>> I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
    >>> NR in
    >>> camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
    >>> RAW image
    >>> in post.
    >>>

    >> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.

    >
    > So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
    > photographs.
    >


    Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)


    --
    PeterN

    Old habits are hard to break
     
    Peter, Jan 11, 2013
    #15
  16. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>> : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>> : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>> : > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>> : > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>> : > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>>>> : > : > :
    >>>>> : > : > : <snip>
    >>>>> : > : > : >
    >>>>> : > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but
    >>>>> not much
    >>>>> : > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
    >>>>> that much
    >>>>> : > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
    >>>>> all comments
    >>>>> : > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
    >>>>> : > : > : >
    >>>>> : > : > :
    >>>>> : > : > : Thanks for your comment.
    >>>>> : > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
    >>>>> but shooting
    >>>>> : > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
    >>>>> shutter speed. It
    >>>>> : > : > : was better than no image.
    >>>>> : > : >
    >>>>> : > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
    >>>>> question is whether
    >>>>> : > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
    >>>>> at the cost of a
    >>>>> : > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
    >>>>> tradeoff in low light,
    >>>>> : > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
    >>>>> to the human eye;
    >>>>> : > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
    >>>>> : > : >
    >>>>> : > :
    >>>>> : > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
    >>>>> make.
    >>>>> : > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation
    >>>>> of their
    >>>>> : > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
    >>>>> : > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
    >>>>> mandate.
    >>>>> : >
    >>>>> : > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
    >>>>> artistic license.
    >>>>> : > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
    >>>>> RAW, which
    >>>>> : > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
    >>>>> homing in on
    >>>>> : > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
    >>>>> mandate.
    >>>>> : >
    >>>>> :
    >>>>> : Yes it can.
    >>>>> : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of
    >>>>> shooting
    >>>>> : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my
    >>>>> frame
    >>>>> : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
    >>>>> NR in
    >>>>> camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
    >>>>> RAW image
    >>>>> in post.
    >>>>>
    >>>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
    >>>
    >>> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
    >>> photographs.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)

    >
    > Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.
    >


    Has email made the facts obsolete?

    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 11, 2013
    #16
  17. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>> : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>>>> : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter
    >>>>>>> <>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>> : > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>>>> : > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> : > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>>>>>> : > : > :
    >>>>>>> : > : > : <snip>
    >>>>>>> : > : > : >
    >>>>>>> : > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach,
    >>>>>>> but
    >>>>>>> not much
    >>>>>>> : > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
    >>>>>>> that much
    >>>>>>> : > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
    >>>>>>> all comments
    >>>>>>> : > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
    >>>>>>> : > : > : >
    >>>>>>> : > : > :
    >>>>>>> : > : > : Thanks for your comment.
    >>>>>>> : > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
    >>>>>>> but shooting
    >>>>>>> : > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
    >>>>>>> shutter speed. It
    >>>>>>> : > : > : was better than no image.
    >>>>>>> : > : >
    >>>>>>> : > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
    >>>>>>> question is whether
    >>>>>>> : > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
    >>>>>>> at the cost of a
    >>>>>>> : > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
    >>>>>>> tradeoff in low light,
    >>>>>>> : > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
    >>>>>>> to the human eye;
    >>>>>>> : > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
    >>>>>>> : > : >
    >>>>>>> : > :
    >>>>>>> : > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
    >>>>>>> make.
    >>>>>>> : > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for
    >>>>>>> evaluation
    >>>>>>> of their
    >>>>>>> : > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
    >>>>>>> : > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
    >>>>>>> mandate.
    >>>>>>> : >
    >>>>>>> : > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
    >>>>>>> artistic license.
    >>>>>>> : > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
    >>>>>>> RAW, which
    >>>>>>> : > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
    >>>>>>> homing in on
    >>>>>>> : > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
    >>>>>>> mandate.
    >>>>>>> : >
    >>>>>>> :
    >>>>>>> : Yes it can.
    >>>>>>> : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of
    >>>>>>> shooting
    >>>>>>> : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my
    >>>>>>> frame
    >>>>>>> : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
    >>>>>>> NR in
    >>>>>>> camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
    >>>>>>> RAW image
    >>>>>>> in post.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
    >>>>> photographs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)
    >>>
    >>> Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Has email made the facts obsolete?

    >
    > No! The Mayan calendar has.
    >


    Then we no longer exist and nothing matters


    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 12, 2013
    #17
  18. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/12/2013 2:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-12 10:44:59 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <> said:

    >
    > << Le Snip >>
    >
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to
    >>>>>>> noisy
    >>>>>>> photographs.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Has email made the facts obsolete?
    >>>
    >>> No! The Mayan calendar has.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Then we no longer exist and nothing matters

    >
    > So you too can see into the future?
    > I have a similar take on that sort of thing when the clock finally winds
    > down.
    >


    No! Into the past. It already happened. This group is but a figment of
    my imagination, since nothing exists anymore. (if it ever did.)

    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 13, 2013
    #18
  19. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/13/2013 6:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-13 15:01:44 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/12/2013 2:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-01-12 10:44:59 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>
    >>> << Le Snip >>
    >>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to
    >>>>>>>>> noisy
    >>>>>>>>> photographs.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Has email made the facts obsolete?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No! The Mayan calendar has.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Then we no longer exist and nothing matters
    >>>
    >>> So you too can see into the future?
    >>> I have a similar take on that sort of thing when the clock finally winds
    >>> down.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No! Into the past. It already happened. This group is but a figment of
    >> my imagination, since nothing exists anymore. (if it ever did.)

    >
    > ...however, since the existence of this group is dependent on your
    > imagination, we are able to ascertain that your imagination and its
    > related figments exist.
    > In the future neither of us, and your imagination will exist. As a
    > result the Usenet photogroups will be gone never to reappear in that
    > figment of your imagination.
    >


    Unless I continue it after my reincarnation.

    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 14, 2013
    #19
  20. Tony Cooper

    Peter Guest

    On 1/13/2013 8:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-13 17:32:10 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/13/2013 6:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-01-13 15:01:44 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/12/2013 2:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> On 2013-01-12 10:44:59 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <>
    >>>>>>>>>>> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> << Le Snip >>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to
    >>>>>>>>>>> noisy
    >>>>>>>>>>> photographs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect! ;-)
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Has email made the facts obsolete?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No! The Mayan calendar has.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Then we no longer exist and nothing matters
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So you too can see into the future?
    >>>>> I have a similar take on that sort of thing when the clock finally
    >>>>> winds
    >>>>> down.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No! Into the past. It already happened. This group is but a figment of
    >>>> my imagination, since nothing exists anymore. (if it ever did.)
    >>>
    >>> ...however, since the existence of this group is dependent on your
    >>> imagination, we are able to ascertain that your imagination and its
    >>> related figments exist.
    >>> In the future neither of us, and your imagination will exist. As a
    >>> result the Usenet photogroups will be gone never to reappear in that
    >>> figment of your imagination.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Unless I continue it after my reincarnation.

    >
    > So, you are a Buddhist-Christian then?
    >


    No! A Descatian: (Cogito ergo sum )

    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 14, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tony Cooper

    Steeples - Cooper's Comments

    Tony Cooper, Feb 13, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    239
    John Turco
    Feb 15, 2013
  2. Tony Cooper

    Shoot-In Comments by Cooper

    Tony Cooper, Mar 20, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    194
    Tony Cooper
    Mar 20, 2013
  3. Tony Cooper

    Cooper's Comments - NTX

    Tony Cooper, Apr 28, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    228
    PeterN
    Apr 30, 2013
  4. Tony Cooper

    Furniture - Cooper's comments

    Tony Cooper, Jun 10, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    225
  5. Tony Cooper

    [SI] Tem - Cooper comments

    Tony Cooper, Aug 27, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    166
    PeterN
    Aug 29, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page