Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Jan 2, 2008.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Jan 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Very impressive!

    Neil Harrington, Jan 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. What an incredible difference!! Check out the detail in the
    mountains, and the sky just comes alive!! Fantastic!
    Thanks Bret! :)
    helensilverburg, Jan 2, 2008
  4. Annika1980

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Annika1980 is quoted & my replies are inline below :
    The mountains certainly do jump out in that second pic, but it
    looks painted/rendered/processed in some other way. Is it? I
    thought trees/leaves should be more white or something.
    Troy Piggins, Jan 2, 2008
  5. I like the second shot very much, but as Troy points out there is a
    lot of dark foliage so it doesn't look very IR-ish...

    The demo would have been better if it really was the same scene (it's
    a different angle and different lighting). And I'm afraid that first
    shot looks like a John Navas effort with the smudged foliage (yes, at
    'original' size!).

    We have a similar-ish valley scene near here (I'm thinking Mt
    Tamborine, for the locals), so I might give this a go soon.. I
    haven't done much IR, and this is an interesting observation.
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 2, 2008
  6. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    Both photos are way under your normal standards. The first is very
    soft and the seconds is pretty ugly, I am thinking jpeg artifacts.
    And I would expect the second one to be ugly with it only using
    something like 30KB for an image that size.

    Scott W, Jan 2, 2008
  7. I have to disagree, Scott. The first one demonstrate the power of the
    mighty 17-40/4. The sharpness and magnificent detail jumps out at you.
    Even the bokeh is beyond stunning. The composition and execution of this
    shot demonstrates the level of quality one gets when time is given to zoom
    with your feet. And the second one, WOW! I have to agree with Helen. This
    is his best work yet. As difficult as it is, I think Bret pulled it off and
    emulated Uncle Floyd's style perfectly.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  8. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    The second one does look like something Floyd would post, I have come
    to expect much better from Bret.

    Scott W, Jan 2, 2008
  9. Annika1980

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * is quoted & my replies are inline below
    * :
    The weather isn't very good for landscapes at the moment :(
    And it doesn't look like going away in a hurry according to the
    reports :( :(
    Troy Piggins, Jan 2, 2008

  10. When I shot with IR film, the real white foliage only showed up in
    direct and harsh sunlight. It was always the norm to see high
    contrast...going from really white to very black.
    I love that lens!
    helensilverburg, Jan 2, 2008
  11. Yes, isn't it wonderful? (oh, er..sorry to all those people who were
    looking for a nice soak-up-the-sun holiday.. - for some of us it is
    wonderful to see all this rain!)

    Anyway, I suspect IR is not quite so effective at cutting thru clouds,
    fog and rain.. so you're right, there may be a bit of a delay!
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 2, 2008

  12. I disagree. I think his IR pic has a very dramatic feeling to it. It

    Check out some of Ansel Adams b&w work. Other than using IR, I see a
    similarity :

    helensilverburg, Jan 2, 2008
  13. LOL! That it does, like fingernails on a chalkboard.
    It's highly disrespectful to insult the dead. Ansel would roll over in his
    grave and piss on Bret's work. Plus, Ansel never cropped an image so
    severely and threw 90% of it away.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  14. I agree with that. I've come to the conclusion that Bret is doing a parody
    of Floyd's finest or he stole one of his images and Photoshopped out the
    snow covered slum and dumpster art. Either way, this isn't Bret's signature
    work. It lacks the high degree of noise from over-cropping and the telltale
    signs of over-massaging the noise reduction.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  15. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Now let's finish off the category ... I'll take "MISS THE POINT" for
    $1000, Alex.
    Now let's go see if Rita has chimed in with some stupid comment about
    the bokeh or the composition.....
    Annika1980, Jan 2, 2008
  16. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Ah, right on time!
    Annika1980, Jan 2, 2008
  17. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    I could post a test pic of a Gretag-MacBeth Colorchecker chart and
    some of you would bitch about the composition.

    Geez, it was a simple comparison to show how infrared cuts through
    I ain't submitting it to Lenswork or framing it for a Fine Art
    I'll bet if I measured it real close I'd find the horizon line was a
    few fractions of a degree off of level as well.
    Annika1980, Jan 2, 2008
  18. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    I looked again at the IR photo, I thought it has used only 31KB but
    saw at a second look that it was taking up 313KB. And yet I see huge
    artifacts that look just like jpeg artifacts, what happened to that
    image to make it look so bad? The edge between the mountain and the
    sky is total fuzz, look just like jpeg artifacts.

    Scott W, Jan 2, 2008
  19. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    BS, most of Brets photos look very good, even his IR images.
    You find this one over sharpened or too much noise reduction?

    That is what struck me about the second image, it was far from Bret's
    Normal quality.

    Scott W, Jan 2, 2008
  20. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    Scott W, Jan 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.