Sparky...

[T. Adams]

Re: Sparky...

Also if it's dark, I like to show that, this picture is probably brighter than it actually was. It almost looks light the headlights are coming right out of the monitor.

[wingman]

Re: Sparky...

Now that is perfect for that situation! I do agree completely about a darker presentation of a dark situation as long as the details still come through! Beautifully done!

The shadow noise I'm aware of -- and it is at least partly because I tend to use the shadow/highlight tool heavily especially for web images. For the web I don't find the noise terribly objectionable and regard it as the price to pay to get the shadow detail I want while still getting relatively quick processing for the web (I do most of my web images from camera JPEGs). I have begun to use RAW much more these days for prints and that seems to make noise control much easier.

Thanks...

Neal

[wingman]

Re: Sparky...

This is my Sparky shot here, I don't like to crop if I don't have to. Thankfully I can still carry the big gun around, and maybe a bigger gun next year.

Aw Tim -- you're such a purist! I woulda cropped the Hell out of that shot, for better or worse!

I do love your work -- I regard you and Gordon (along with Victor, who's in a class by himself) as some of the best shooters to come along in recent years, from a technical perspective...

I'm just too old and lazy and too much of a wuss to carry those big lenses all day...

N

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Sparky...

Neal, some of the perception of your images maybe being a "bit" light for most monitors may be because you calibrate your monitor (yes?) and you are calibrating it mostly for print work (yes?)

There will always be a difference in what the average computer "look" for a given image is, versus what looks best in a print.

To my eye, on admittedly a "cheap" (laptop) monitor, your work is ever so slightly a bit lightish... but then, I'm fond of the "Velvia look" in photos and before I went digital, had been using that film simply because I liked the look of it..

Your work has improved a huge amount in quality of detail since you went digital... !

Wayne Sagar

[wingman]

Re: Sparky...

Hi Wayne -- Yes, and Yes...

I actually never liked Velvia much for general work (and by the way -- I think in this digital age we're dating ourselves a bit with this talk of Velvia!) precisely because I found it too contrasty and saturated for my tastes, especially given my love for open shadows with lots of detail. It had its uses, especially for landscape work, but my preference was always for more neutral films with a wider tonal range.

Neal

[Lance]

Re: Sparky...

Hi Wayne -- Yes, and Yes...

I actually never liked Velvia much for general work (and by the way -- I think in this digital age we're dating ourselves a bit with this talk of Velvia!) precisely because I found it too contrasty and saturated for my tastes, especially given my love for open shadows with lots of detail. It had its uses, especially for landscape work, but my preference was always for more neutral films with a wider tonal range.

Neal

This thread seems to be drifting off topic a bit but I find some of the concepts to be interesting, especially when discussing the use of film vs. digital.
There are a few aviation photographers out there that have found ways to get saturation and maximum tonal range in a way that film never could. I've seen and read about HDR processing and the results can be nothing short of amazing when done right. Some of Tyson Rininger's work comes to mind off the top of my head.

[sierra fox]

Re: Sparky...

I can see color noise on some shots, from what looks like the shadow highlight tool use. I think my photos tend to the dark side (not Nikon!!).
My monitor at home is calibrated, but the luminace is higher than the Eye One calibator likes. Getting it to recommended levels leaves the monitor useless. Nobody has ever commented very often on whether my stuff is light or dark.

All that noise "IS" from shadow/highlight (good eye Tim and thanks), it cant be removed once it's been applied, i applied it. I experimented with Neal's suggested applications (sorry, no curves), including the heavy crop and that made it worse, the photo was blurry to begin with, another impossible fix. As for the lightened issue, i post 95% of my stuff with no adjustment to saturation or highlights or contrast. This also stands true for cropping, other than straightening horizons and the occasional obstruction, i see nothing but harm to the original image when cropped to much. Thought i might try something new here and i find the exploration and experimentaion to be most helpful, both in what "to" do and what "not" to do

[wingman]

Re: Sparky...

Anthony -- I hope you ALWAYS do your image manipulation on copies and not on the original! When I shoot JPEG only, which I do quite a bit to reduce storage problems with stuff that I don't think will have huge historical or artistic significance, the first thing I do is copy the originals to CDs to have an unalterable starting point for anything I do to the image later.

JPEGs especially are quite fragile -- if you change one and then save the changes you lose data -- sometimes a lot of data...

Neal

[ignomini]

Re: Sparky...

Hi Wayne -- Yes, and Yes...

I actually never liked Velvia much for general work (and by the way -- I think in this digital age we're dating ourselves a bit with this talk of Velvia!) precisely because I found it too contrasty and saturated for my tastes, especially given my love for open shadows with lots of detail. It had its uses, especially for landscape work, but my preference was always for more neutral films with a wider tonal range.

Neal

Neal,

I suspect your love of open shadows stems from the fact human eyes see the world a little differently from film, and very differently from digital. In the world of computers, the transition from pure black to pure white is a linear progression. Human vision skews that progression, not unlike how a digital image looks after applying some curves to the mid tones and shadows. A computer sees 50 percent gray as exactly half way between black and white, but the human eye perceives the mid point somewhere more akin to the computer's version of 35 percent gray (my numbers are very approximate). The bottom line is we perceive colors to be much lighter than does a computer. This is why we spend so much time trying to lighten shadows.

When I compare my stereo photos (shot on Provia) to digital, the digital shots are always dark. Two areas in particular which jump out are the sky, which is almost always darker in digital photos than reality, and areas like under the wings and around the landing gear. They are never as dark in reality as they appear in digital photos. I attribute this to the difference in perceived gamma between the straight linear progression of digital, vs. human perception. Film is better, but it still has a limited dynamic range. Computer monitors have an extremely limited dynamic range, which makes the situation even worse. Another item we tend to neglect is the fact our vision is constantly adjusting for a very narrow cone at the center of our vision, both in terms of focus, and light gathering. A photograph takes the entire scene at one fixed level of color and brightness. Our eyes don't work that way.

Hmm, I could drone on for hours about this boring shtuff. Regardless of technology, you and Tim, and Victor and Tyson, and Paintboy, and a slew of other posters on this site all make me jealous. Time to have a and brood for a while.

RG

[wingman]

Re: Sparky...

Robert -- As usual, a great post! I completely agree with all your points. One goal of mine in what I do is to eventually be able to push the data the camera gives me into something that approximates what I see in the original scene, rather than necessarily what the camera gives me. I see what the camera gives me as just one of an arsenal of tools that I hope will end up giving me what I envisioned when I originally pressed the button. One lesson I learned from Ansel is what he called "previsualisation" -- which I interpret as trying to understand when I press that button what I want the end result (i. e. the final print) to be. I try to set up the camera, and especially the exposure, with a final result in mind.

I agree that the out of the camera result often starts out looking too dark. I feel that that's because the camera metering system is set up to try to preserve highlights -- which is fine by me as badly blown highlights are truly lost data -- ain't no way to get that data back. On the other hand digital will hold astonishing amounts of data deep into the shadows. This is generally recoverable and can be used by me to shape the final result I'm looking for.

So, I don't care much how a shot looks out of the camera -- nobody but me is gonna see that stuff. The camera data is just a start in the process of working up a final result, which people will see (and hopefully be blown away by!).

In my opinion one of the most common mistakes newbies make is to mistake the picture for the original scene, in a sense. The final result should be what the photogapher wants it to be -- which may or may not be a totally accurate depiction of what the shooter thought he was seeing at the time. The photograph is a two dimensional creation by the photographer with only the starting point being the three dimensional scene God gave him to play with.

Sorry if this has gotten a bit long-winded, and I hope I'm making at least a little sense here...

Neal

[MRE]

Re: Sparky...

Hey Tim,is that Road America?

[T. Adams]

Re: Sparky...

Hey Tim,is that Road America?

Yes, top of the hill, turn 6.

[ignomini]

Re: Sparky...

Neal,

You make perfect sense to me. I don't know if Tim views his own work in the way you describe, but it's a big part of what I think makes him so good. He isn't just taking snapshots. Me, I'm all about snapshots. I want the scene to look as it did in person. I think it comes from shooting stereo. I do it for the record, not as art. For me, stereo photos gain interest as they age. A plain shot today, may be considered absolutely fascinating in 100 years. I think it's why anoraks like me avidly collect old stereoviews.

RG

[sierra fox]

Re: Sparky...

Anthony -- I hope you ALWAYS do your image manipulation on copies and not on the original! When I shoot JPEG only, which I do quite a bit to reduce storage problems with stuff that I don't think will have huge historical or artistic significance, the first thing I do is copy the originals to CDs to have an unalterable starting point for anything I do to the image later.

JPEGs especially are quite fragile -- if you change one and then save the changes you lose data -- sometimes a lot of data...

Neal

Understood! The image you took liberty's on was highlighted originally. I still think the image i sent you wont net a good result as it was soft to begin with, My experience with trying to sharpen a soft image has'nt been too rewarding. Hope you can prove me wrong!!!

[wingman]

Re: Sparky...

We will see, I guess -- I haven't had a chance to look hard at it yet -- I'm actually looking forward to it. Been a lot on my plate lately...

Neal