 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For the purpose of getting some 'grab shots' while driving taxi, I
finally settled on a point-and-shoot Pentax Optio A30. The shake
reduction was the primary consideration. OFten the pictures I want to
take are night scenes with lots of radiant lights, which quickly show up
blur from pressing the shutter. Here are a few test shots, in the wild,
after having read just enough of the manual to know how to load the
battery, and using all automatic settings. I was quite encouraged by
the results.
http://tinyurl.com/5mpjna
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looking forward to seeing these pics - looks like you've exceeded your
daily bandwidth from the hosting provider, though - popular shots, no
doubt. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> - looks like you've exceeded your
> daily bandwidth from the hosting provider,
didn't realize that
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sun, 11 May 2008 21:13:36 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msn com>
did spake, saying:
> For the purpose of getting some 'grab shots' while driving taxi, I
> finally settled on a point-and-shoot Pentax Optio A30. The shake
> reduction was the primary consideration. OFten the pictures I want to
> take are night scenes with lots of radiant lights, which quickly show up
> blur from pressing the shutter. Here are a few test shots, in the wild,
> after having read just enough of the manual to know how to load the
> battery, and using all automatic settings. I was quite encouraged by
> the results.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5mpjna
Well it does seem to keep it stable, I have to use the burst for such
things and hope at least one comes out okay. Is it me though or do they
seem a bit noisy close-up? Only a problem if you decide to do some close
cropping, but have you got any stable shots with the IS system turned off?
Good photos though, you need to create a dashboard swivel mount :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like the urban feeling in the photos.
Maybe you could do an entire urban photo series, using the same kind
of urban ambience as in the second photo.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> I was quite encouraged by the results.
Looks OK to me...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
>
> Well it does seem to keep it stable, I have to use the burst for such
> things and hope at least one comes out okay. Is it me though or do they
> seem a bit noisy close-up?
Yes there are far too many variables for this to be a useful test. It
was more a matter of basic proof of concept, can I snap a shot from a
moving car or in low light and get something even remotely useful?
Previously, this was not possible. And yes, next I will try some shots
'in the field' with side by side comparisons of SR turned on and off.
Understaning the noise and jpeg artifacting will require me to boost my
understanding of how digital imaging and how these digital cameras work
by a factor of 1000 at least! But it seems to me that focus, exposure,
and what is probably some sort of automatic digital filtering applied by
the camera's various exposure 'modes' are all factors in this. Further,
these shots were cropped, resized, and saved from Photoshop at different
jpeg 'quality levels' in order to get a file < 1 Mb each time. In
general the texture in the the foreground pavement seemed to be the most
sensitive to artifacting and is what I kept my eye on when resaving the
images.
Since I used fully automatic settings, how the camera acquires a focus
automatically a factor I think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:54:26 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> - looks like you've exceeded your
>> daily bandwidth from the hosting provider,
>
> didn't realize that
Still getting the message:
The daily bandwidth limit for this customer has been exceeded. Try again
after midnight, EST.
Click here for more information.
When going to that URL. "Here" is a link, and it says nothing
particularly useful (just links to the site's main page)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I like the urban feeling in the photos.
>
> Maybe you could do an entire urban photo series, using the same kind
> of urban ambience as in the second photo.
>
Thanks Warp. Yes, I find a fascination in the second photo with the
density of information and simultaneity of events. That sense, perhaps
the 'ambience' of urban life to which you refer, is what I find so
captivating about the city and is something that I can remember excited
me from the very first time I got off the bus exactly 30 years ago. I
can remember how, in those days, I used to write letters to friends
describing my experiences here, and would dwell on the activity, on a
single street corner, in a single moment.
Interesting to me about that second photo is the car's rearview mirror.
It is both tiresome and unavoidably cliche, but also very difficult to
avoid including when framing shots from inside the window of the car. I
wonder if it could add a 'dimension' to be exploited with this kind of
image.
A further dimension that is not communicated in the shot is how I am
taking it while simultaneously turning to deal with the instructions
from a customer, who is himself barking at me as he is in the process of
climbing into the car.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 12 May 2008 16:11:42 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Well it does seem to keep it stable, I have to use the burst for such
>> things and hope at least one comes out okay. Is it me though or do
>> they seem a bit noisy close-up?
>
> Yes there are far too many variables for this to be a useful test. It
> was more a matter of basic proof of concept, can I snap a shot from a
> moving car or in low light and get something even remotely useful?
So that would be a yes.
> Previously, this was not possible. And yes, next I will try some shots
> 'in the field' with side by side comparisons of SR turned on and off.
Reading from Jim H and below why not get a Flickr or Picasa account and
stick them all up their?
> Understaning the noise and jpeg artifacting will require me to boost my
> understanding of how digital imaging and how these digital cameras work
> by a factor of 1000 at least! But it seems to me that focus, exposure,
> and what is probably some sort of automatic digital filtering applied by
> the camera's various exposure 'modes' are all factors in this.
Heh I would suggest reading the manual, but having read about five or six
for various models I won't say that'll be any help. They barely tell you
what the camera does let alone how it actually works :-)
> Further, these shots were cropped, resized, and saved from Photoshop at
> different jpeg 'quality levels' in order to get a file < 1 Mb each time.
Well yeah that'll do it :-)
> In general the texture in the the foreground pavement seemed to be the
> most sensitive to artifacting and is what I kept my eye on when resaving
> the images.
>
> Since I used fully automatic settings, how the camera acquires a focus
> automatically a factor I think.
Had a quick Google and it seems a standard multi-point focus with face
recognition. So it should spot faces and try to focus on and expose them
all automatically. I'd have thought that might cause a problem with delay
if you're moving, but your test photos look fine
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:54:26 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
>
>
>>Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>>- looks like you've exceeded your
>>>daily bandwidth from the hosting provider,
>>
>>didn't realize that
>
>
> Still getting the message:
>
> The daily bandwidth limit for this customer has been exceeded. Try again
> after midnight, EST.
> Click here for more information.
>
> When going to that URL. "Here" is a link, and it says nothing
> particularly useful (just links to the site's main page)
>
> Jim
I'm sorry Jim, it's a free hostings server. I guess I don't get much
bandwidth for free. :(
Working on an alternative...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:29:05 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
> I'm sorry Jim, it's a free hostings server. I guess I don't get much
> bandwidth for free.
>
> Working on an alternative...
Understood. FWIW, I've been pretty happy with Picasa for hosting
photos. Would be happy to send you a gmail invite if that would help.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:36:52 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Would be happy to send you a gmail invite if that would help.
Or rather, I would if I had some - right now I don't seem to have any. :-(
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:42:24 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:36:52 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Would be happy to send you a gmail invite if that would help.
>
> Or rather, I would if I had some - right now I don't seem to have any.
> :-(
>
> Jim
I've got lots of gmail invites, if anyone wants one. Or I did at last
check, I'll make sure they are still there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:04:47 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:42:24 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 12:36:52 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> Would be happy to send you a gmail invite if that would help.
>>
>> Or rather, I would if I had some - right now I don't seem to have any.
>> :-(
>>
>> Jim
>
> I've got lots of gmail invites, if anyone wants one. Or I did at last
> check, I'll make sure they are still there.
Yeah, the last time I looked I had quite a few as well, but it seems
they're now randomly assigned.
But also anyone should be able to sign up without an invite.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
They look good to me - like Warp, I like the feel of the second photo in
particular. The night photo is interesting, but the light in the windows
is "blooming" a bit too much - I wonder if there's a good way to control
that, though, without making the rest of the photo too dark. Might
almost be best to use exposure bracketing and composite the pictures
together.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> They look good to me - like Warp, I like the feel of the second photo in
> particular. The night photo is interesting, but the light in the windows
> is "blooming" a bit too much - I wonder if there's a good way to control
> that, though, without making the rest of the photo too dark. Might
> almost be best to use exposure bracketing and composite the pictures
> together.
Cool idea, I expect to be doing a fair number of the night shots.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:18:52 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> They look good to me - like Warp, I like the feel of the second photo
>> in particular. The night photo is interesting, but the light in the
>> windows is "blooming" a bit too much - I wonder if there's a good way
>> to control that, though, without making the rest of the photo too dark.
>> Might almost be best to use exposure bracketing and composite the
>> pictures together.
> Cool idea, I expect to be doing a fair number of the night shots.
IIRC, I've read about some newer cameras that will do an exposure bracket
in a single shot; I know there are some that will also write to dual
formats simultaneously, so you can have raw data and jpeg data; if your
camera does raw captures (which usually does require manual settings IME,
though - which may not work well for your situation), that would give you
a lot more flexibility in fine-tuning the exposure settings as part of
post-processing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> composite the pictures together.
Somehow I have never liked that type of post-processing in photography.
It gives me the feeling that the photo has been faked.
It's a bit like you took an image rendered with povray and then added
some lens flare effect with photoshop and then called it a "povray image".
Yes, part of the image was made with povray, but part of the effect has
been "faked", so it's not a pure povray image. It feels kind of cheating.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:18:52 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> They look good to me - like Warp, I like the feel of the second photo
>>> in particular. The night photo is interesting, but the light in the
>>> windows is "blooming" a bit too much - I wonder if there's a good way
>>> to control that, though, without making the rest of the photo too dark.
>>> Might almost be best to use exposure bracketing and composite the
>>> pictures together.
>> Cool idea, I expect to be doing a fair number of the night shots.
>
> IIRC, I've read about some newer cameras that will do an exposure bracket
> in a single shot; I know there are some that will also write to dual
> formats simultaneously, so you can have raw data and jpeg data; if your
> camera does raw captures (which usually does require manual settings IME,
> though - which may not work well for your situation), that would give you
> a lot more flexibility in fine-tuning the exposure settings as part of
> post-processing.
>
> Jim
A quick googling says the A30 doesn't shoot in RAW format. There might
be a firmware hack somewhere, but it seems this is the main Pentax
camera, and if none of them have RAW capabilities then it isn't likely
this one would either.
I would be surprised if it did not have some way to automatically shoot
bracketed exposures. Google again says it can shoot +-0.3 to +-2
exposures automatically, somewhere in the drive menu options. Even if
you don't composite the images, using that will make it easier to get
the right exposure if you are just clicking off pictures.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:44:37 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> A quick googling says the A30 doesn't shoot in RAW format. There might
> be a firmware hack somewhere, but it seems this is the main Pentax
> camera, and if none of them have RAW capabilities then it isn't likely
> this one would either.
>
> I would be surprised if it did not have some way to automatically shoot
> bracketed exposures. Google again says it can shoot +-0.3 to +-2
> exposures automatically, somewhere in the drive menu options. Even if
> you don't composite the images, using that will make it easier to get
> the right exposure if you are just clicking off pictures.
Yeah, it doesn't seem to be supported by CHDK either - My S50 isn't
either, which was somewhat disappointing (not because I want RAW
capabilities - the S50 has that - but there's some other stuff that might
be nice to have as well).
im
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:52:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> composite the pictures together.
>
> Somehow I have never liked that type of post-processing in
> photography.
> It gives me the feeling that the photo has been faked.
>
> It's a bit like you took an image rendered with povray and then added
> some lens flare effect with photoshop and then called it a "povray
> image". Yes, part of the image was made with povray, but part of the
> effect has been "faked", so it's not a pure povray image. It feels kind
> of cheating.
I think it depends on how well the compositing is done - most people
don't do a good job with it, though, so it tends to look faked.
But if not a composite, then what would be the way to get rid of the
bloom in the window without losing the details in the darker parts of the
image?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>composite the pictures together.
>
>
> Somehow I have never liked that type of post-processing in photography.
> It gives me the feeling that the photo has been faked.
>
Hmmm, I suppose, but I also thought that the lines of people ready to
muse upon truth and artifice in photography were wide and deep. Analogue
cameras were bad enough, but now that the capture is digital and
probably filtered digitally from the start, at least that is what I
assume my camera's different shooting 'modes' are,...it seems that
'faked' is an increasingly relative term. I'm surprised there isn't
already a camera that would perform such compositing automatically and
present the result as truth. And can we really say it isn't?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> A quick googling says the A30 doesn't shoot in RAW format. There might
> be a firmware hack somewhere, but it seems this is the main Pentax
> camera, and if none of them have RAW capabilities then it isn't likely
> this one would either.
>
Yes I discovered that limitation almost immediately, in fact, when I
tried using the camera to document some drawings I'd done. Once apon a
time I had a pretty good routine and adequate lighting equipment for
documenting my paintings, but now I don't. Without hot enough lights,
the point and shoot fell well short of adequate for that task, and the
limitations of jpg only worsened the problem. I *thought* I'd seen that
some other format from jpg was supported when I was shopping the camera,
but I was obviously mistaken. Well maybe I can find some adequate
lights for cheap.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Yes I discovered that limitation almost immediately, in fact, when I
> tried using the camera to document some drawings I'd done.
Personally, I find the lens far more important than anything else. A
JPEG shot thru a 68mm lens is going to look better than a RAW shot thru
a 7mm lens no matter how good the postprocessing, methinks.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> present the result as truth. And can we really say it isn't?
Considering your eyeball does about 4 layers of preprocessing before the
image even gets to your optic nerve, it's hard to say that anything you
actually photographed could be considered "faked". :-)
An interesting and almost relevant article:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/our_visual_system_has_future_seeing_powers_study
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Personally, I find the lens far more important than anything else. A
> JPEG shot thru a 68mm lens is going to look better than a RAW shot thru
> a 7mm lens no matter how good the postprocessing, methinks.
And to think 7mm is a lot compared to most cellphone cameras :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Hmmm, I suppose, but I also thought that the lines of people ready to
> muse upon truth and artifice in photography were wide and deep. Analogue
> cameras were bad enough, but now that the capture is digital and
> probably filtered digitally from the start, at least that is what I
> assume my camera's different shooting 'modes' are,...it seems that
> 'faked' is an increasingly relative term.
I still consider there to be a difference between, for example, a white
balance filter and, for example, compositing an image from several source
images. There's a drastic difference between those two. The latter has
something the camera didn't "see" (at least not at one single shot), so
it has a sense of "faking" to it.
A very wide panoramic image which has been composed of several images
taken in quick succession is a rather border case. Personally I consider
it "faked, but it doesn't bother me too much".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 15 May 2008 20:47:11 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:52:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> composite the pictures together.
>>
>> Somehow I have never liked that type of post-processing in
>> photography.
>> It gives me the feeling that the photo has been faked.
>>
>> It's a bit like you took an image rendered with povray and then added
>> some lens flare effect with photoshop and then called it a "povray
>> image". Yes, part of the image was made with povray, but part of the
>> effect has been "faked", so it's not a pure povray image. It feels kind
>> of cheating.
>
> I think it depends on how well the compositing is done - most people
> don't do a good job with it, though, so it tends to look faked.
>
> But if not a composite, then what would be the way to get rid of the
> bloom in the window without losing the details in the darker parts of the
> image?
You can try and fake it to an extent from the one image. Here I created a
gradient mask centred on the lighter building and then tweaked the
histogram levels to match it in tone to the surroundings while keeping the
struts visible. It was only a quickie about two minutes tops, with more
time and more tweaking it would be possible to do more. Does it look
fake/better/worse?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '0119a.jpg' (66 KB)
Preview of image '0119a.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:05:35 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>> Hmmm, I suppose, but I also thought that the lines of people ready to
>> muse upon truth and artifice in photography were wide and deep.
>> Analogue cameras were bad enough, but now that the capture is digital
>> and probably filtered digitally from the start, at least that is what I
>> assume my camera's different shooting 'modes' are,...it seems that
>> 'faked' is an increasingly relative term.
>
> I still consider there to be a difference between, for example, a
> white
> balance filter and, for example, compositing an image from several
> source images. There's a drastic difference between those two. The
> latter has something the camera didn't "see" (at least not at one single
> shot), so it has a sense of "faking" to it.
>
> A very wide panoramic image which has been composed of several images
> taken in quick succession is a rather border case. Personally I consider
> it "faked, but it doesn't bother me too much".
I tend to agree on the first part. You can white balance, or do a lot of
the other 'processing modes' of the camera in analogue, with the right
lighting and color filters on the lens. The fact that a digital camera
makes it faster and requires a lot less investment to do it, shouldn't
matter that much.
However, a camera does see a composite image, and can create one from a
single shot. You could take film that had a higher contrast range then
the paper you put the pictures on, and selectively expose the print to
bring out the parts that you want. Shooting in RAW format acts a bit more
like film, you can tune the RAW image the same way you would selectively
expose a film negative, to get more contrast or the burn a sky out to
white, even if the actual shot contained a few clouds. In analogue, this
isn't even getting into print manipulation, just changing the time you
allow the print to be exposed to light.
And even old film allows for good post processing, dodge and burn to
composite two images, double exposure of the print media, gradient
filters for both the shoot and the film exposure, using the wrong
chemical in processing . . . there are tons of ways to 'fake' an image
while still using the original film, and if you take out double exposures
of the print and dodge and burn techniques, you can do all of them with
just the camera and chemicals.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
>
> You can try and fake it to an extent from the one image.
lol, so we're up to a double fake now?
Here I created
> a gradient mask centred on the lighter building and then tweaked the
> histogram levels to match it in tone to the surroundings while keeping
> the struts visible. It was only a quickie about two minutes tops, with
> more time and more tweaking it would be possible to do more. Does it
> look fake/better/worse?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
That looks noticeably better, at least in terms of diminishingoverall
bloom and getting getter saturation. More skills for me to learn.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:45:41 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> Does it look
> fake/better/worse?
Well, the part that I'm looking at is the huge white bloom from the main
windows on the street corner. The problem is that the details are lost
because of the exposure, and that data isn't recoverable from the
original image AFAIK (ie, the CCD just registered white). The issue is a
faster exposure will make the rest of the image too dark to pick out the
details.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I still consider there to be a difference between, for example, a white
> balance filter and, for example, compositing an image from several source
> images. There's a drastic difference between those two. The latter has
> something the camera didn't "see" (at least not at one single shot), so
> it has a sense of "faking" to it.
Do you consider dark frame subtraction a fake, then? It's compositing
two images (in the camera) to eliminate noise.
What about sharpening? That's applying an algorithm to your picture to
make it look fairly different from what the sensor saw. Same goes for
contrast and saturation. White balance is relatively minor compared to
those.
Finally, maybe your concern for fake comes from looking at HDR photos?
Many of those really do look fake. Compositing two images to get better
dynamic range (different from what people usually refer to when they
talk of HDR), however, is an old, old trick that results in an image
that looks closer to what the eye sees than any camera can ever hope to
achieve with a single frame. Which is faker? Furthermore, people with
more money to burn achieved this with a single frame using a grad
neutral density filter. Done well enough, both photos will look the same
- why would one be cheating and not the other? (And BTW, compositing the
two usually produces more realistic photos than a grad neutral density
filter normally would).
Finally, I abandoned worrying about fakeness long ago. Trying to make
photos look realistic will often involve faking, by your criterion. The
point of my taking an artistic photo is not to show the world how my
camera takes photos, but to use it as a tool for displaying art.
That, and realizing that most of the photos made by professionals that
I had appreciated (even in the film days) had been edited - using
software or in the dark room. It's somewhat unrealistic to get that kind
of quality without editing photos.
Perhaps there is something to be said about setting your camera to
minimum contrast, minimum sharpness, no dark frame subtraction, and try
to get the best photo possible under those circumstances. For me,
though, that's a totally different art, and is more of an academic
exercise.
--
It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:45:41 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>
>>Does it look
>>fake/better/worse?
>
>
> Well, the part that I'm looking at is the huge white bloom from the main
> windows on the street corner. The problem is that the details are lost
> because of the exposure, and that data isn't recoverable from the
> original image AFAIK (ie, the CCD just registered white). The issue is a
> faster exposure will make the rest of the image too dark to pick out the
> details.
>
And there was a lot of interesting detail in that window, multiple
parallel nean lights in different colors I think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
A few grabs from last night
http://map-lecturer.deviantart.com/gallery/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:03:23 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:45:41 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Does it look
>>>fake/better/worse?
>>
>>
>> Well, the part that I'm looking at is the huge white bloom from the
>> main windows on the street corner. The problem is that the details are
>> lost because of the exposure, and that data isn't recoverable from the
>> original image AFAIK (ie, the CCD just registered white). The issue is
>> a faster exposure will make the rest of the image too dark to pick out
>> the details.
>>
> And there was a lot of interesting detail in that window, multiple
> parallel nean lights in different colors I think.
Yeah, I was thinking that might be the case - would be great to be able
to get that detail into the photo.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 17 May 2008 21:26:04 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:03:23 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:45:41 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does it look
>>>> fake/better/worse?
>>>
>>> Well, the part that I'm looking at is the huge white bloom from the
>>> main windows on the street corner. The problem is that the details are
>>> lost because of the exposure, and that data isn't recoverable from the
>>> original image AFAIK (ie, the CCD just registered white). The issue is
>>> a faster exposure will make the rest of the image too dark to pick out
>>> the details.
>>>
>> And there was a lot of interesting detail in that window, multiple
>> parallel nean lights in different colors I think.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking that might be the case - would be great to be able
> to get that detail into the photo.
To get that level of detail I don't think you have any option other then
bracketing and compositing, but that would screw up the shots of the
people (unless they all stood still for you). I don't think even a shorter
shutter speed with a higher ISO would capture the detail around the
windows, but it may be worth a try.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 16 May 2008 19:23:17 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> You can try and fake it to an extent from the one image.
>
> lol, so we're up to a double fake now?
Heh well of course that's what HDR is supposed to be for, match what you
see with what you take. I think I posted these links before, but anyway -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65496354@N00/1113600679
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65496354@N00/1276433203
The first is the unadulterated image, the second is one I adjusted and IMO
matches what I actually saw colour-wise. So is the second one a fake, if
it matches what the eye saw?
>> Does it look fake/better/worse?
>>
>
> That looks noticeably better, at least in terms of diminishingoverall
> bloom and getting getter saturation.
The only part that was changed was the lit building to drop it to the same
level as the surroundings. In theory I could have reversed the mask and
raised the levels to match the lit building, but I didn't even attempt
that I think it would have looked wrong.
> More skills for me to learn.
I think the trickiest bit to learn is how masks work, get that and the
rest is cake.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>
>>Hmmm, I suppose, but I also thought that the lines of people ready to
>>muse upon truth and artifice in photography were wide and deep. Analogue
>>cameras were bad enough, but now that the capture is digital and
>>probably filtered digitally from the start, at least that is what I
>>assume my camera's different shooting 'modes' are,...it seems that
>>'faked' is an increasingly relative term.
>
>
> I still consider there to be a difference between, for example, a white
> balance filter and, for example, compositing an image from several source
> images. There's a drastic difference between those two. The latter has
> something the camera didn't "see" (at least not at one single shot), so
> it has a sense of "faking" to it.
>
> A very wide panoramic image which has been composed of several images
> taken in quick succession is a rather border case. Personally I consider
> it "faked, but it doesn't bother me too much".
>
Yes, I take your point, along with your own admission that the
distinction gets difficult in some cases.
There is no real right or wrong in any of this, I think we all construct
meaning in slightly irrational ways. Perhaps a parallel situation for
me would come from the years I spent painting. My interest there was
entirely with mimesis. Synthesized images were of no interest. Nor was
mimesis from a photograph. For me it was all about the embodied
experience of reproducing the subject from 'life'. While I have no
problem with other people working from photographs, either in some
conceptual mode, or even as a seemless extension of first hand
observation, in some realist's need to enhance observation, doing that
myself is boring. I have done it, and the results are fine, but I tend
to forget the paintings afterward and never really consider them as
something accomplished. Yet, I also spent hours studying, say, human
anatomy, so that my observational powers would be enhanced by
understanding of a subject.
Here is a hobbiest photographer whose work I enjoy:
http://www.ranum.com/gallery/
What I like is how he is totally relaxed with a studio look, controlled
and artificial, using a 'sweep' as a background to show off his subject,
then plays with the lighting. He talks about his works almost
exclusively in terms of the lighting and posing of the model. This is
exactly how I used to paint. But he also talks about his
'post-processing' in photoshop in an equally relaxed way and in a way
that suggests that it is seemless in his mind with the actual camera-work.
There are some interesting examples of this here:
http://www.ranum.com/fun/lens_work/articles.html
Again, none of this is to suggest that any approach or opinion is right
or wrong. It is more about how people construct meaning, sense truth,
focus their emotions. What they pay attention to and what they need to
eliminate when enjoying 'art'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 17 May 2008 18:00:08 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
did spake, saying:
> Jim Charter wrote:
> A few grabs from last night
> http://map-lecturer.deviantart.com/gallery/
Dusk was the one that attracted me to click on it first. Um taken when -
Jan 10, 2007; you been hiding these from us? ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Sat, 17 May 2008 18:00:08 +0100, Jim Charter
> <jrc### [at] msncom> did spake, saying:
>
>> Jim Charter wrote:
>> A few grabs from last night
>> http://map-lecturer.deviantart.com/gallery/
>
>
> Dusk was the one that attracted me to click on it first. Um taken when
> - Jan 10, 2007; you been hiding these from us? ;-)
>
Hee hee, took me awhile to even see to what you refer; guess I should
set the date on that camera.
Actually, during the same time frame that I got the camera I also bought
a wireless router and seem to have set up a more or less usable network
at home here. I am so full of myself over this modest little
accomplishment that the camera has taken a back seat. I did snap a few
shots during the commute home tonight though, the light was just
gorgeous, and I snapped a few shots of the maps I drew for today's
lectures. The camera goes with me everywhere now, just in a timewarp.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 23 May 2008 01:04:39 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Sat, 17 May 2008 18:00:08 +0100, Jim Charter
>> <jrc### [at] msncom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Jim Charter wrote:
>>> A few grabs from last night
>>> http://map-lecturer.deviantart.com/gallery/
>> Dusk was the one that attracted me to click on it first. Um taken
>> when - Jan 10, 2007; you been hiding these from us? ;-)
>>
> Hee hee, took me awhile to even see to what you refer; guess I should
> set the date on that camera.
EXIF data - a boon to snoops everywhere.
> I did snap a few shots during the commute home tonight though, the light
> was just gorgeous,
Dawn and twilight are great, trouble is for the first I'd have to wake up
:-) and the second I'm either stuck in traffic with nothing to see or it's
cloudy :-(
> and I snapped a few shots of the maps I drew for today's lectures. The
> camera goes with me everywhere now, just in a timewarp.
Now wouldn't that be tres cool if true?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
