April 1, 2014 at 5:37 am #6126April 1, 2014 at 4:21 pm #6130
TAKEN TODAY–just a little crop.April 4, 2014 at 6:56 pm #6166
Thanks for kicking this off Ken with great shot. I think we get a bit lazy now knowing that we can tweek photos in a photo editor. We should try to get it right in the camera then very little, if any post processing should be required. Time to get out!April 6, 2014 at 1:57 pm #6170
Very nicely composed, Ken. Lovely, tranquil photo.April 6, 2014 at 2:24 pm #6172
.April 6, 2014 at 7:58 pm #6173
LIKE IT -WELL SPOTTED-THE RED SHOE GIVE A POINT OF INTEREST AND CATCHES THE EYE.April 6, 2014 at 8:03 pm #6176
Ha-ha! The trouble with you photographers is you always know what I’m up to! 😉
Thanks, Ken! 🙂April 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm #6178
We do understand your appreciation of classic techniques Ian –and good lessons for us all. This another from my few hours at Rudyard–nothing special –just like mucking around with boats. BTW Ian- notice Altrincham and Hale PS-have a similar catagory ” straight from the camera”–they just allow –levels and sharpening>.——————-Really nothing about the picture of the couple across the lake- I took this to test my Samsung tele 60–200 plus digital zoom up to x2. Not for the purists–but with all my old creaking bones its so easy for me with its ” intelligent” features–with each press of a button on the lens the various camera settings come on screen and ajust. If you know Rudyard Lake its quite wide-and photographed this hand held at 200mm plus x2 digital zoom. This reduces the file size from 5472x 3648 to 2736x 1824 then of course reduced to 450 the show here. Full size on my PC and very happy with sharpness-the man on the left his specs are dead sharp.April 6, 2014 at 9:15 pm #6182
Boats make such good subjects, don’t they, Ken? You really are encouraging me to get over to Rudyard.
Interesting that Altrincham & Hale have a competition category (I assume it’s a competition category?) for straight-from-the-camera. I just included this topic in the list a while ago, and it happened to come up as the random selection this month. But it is interesting, isn’t it? I’m not against working on a picture, either in the darkroom or in Lightroom; but Peter was quite right when he said (above) that it’s a good exercise now and again just to try to get the picture right in the camera.April 7, 2014 at 2:45 pm #6183
.April 9, 2014 at 10:10 pm #6193
I like your second shot of the boats best Ken. The reflects make the picture for me. The Rudyard loop is a miniture railway that runs along side the lake. Did you have a ride on it?
I like the composition of your Hat stand shot Ian and the hat stand tells a story. However, I think this one shows why we need to employ some modification. It was obviously taken under flat lighting conditions and I think it needs a bit more contrast.April 9, 2014 at 10:40 pm #6195
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Peter. The matter of contrast is interesting. I’ve been looking at the work of a lot of old film photographers, and the films and developing techniques they used were often much less contrasty than digital work tends to be now. James Ravilious put a lot of effort into getting a very wide, soft range of tones, using uncoated lenses and compensating developers to get a tonality he believed was much more natural and closer to how things appear to the naked eye. Cartier-Bresson disliked dramatic contrast effects; and Ansel Adams famously was so concerned for Bill Brandt over his extremely high contrast prints that he solicitously enquired who the hell he was letting do his printing!
With digital, I think we have got used to a very brittle, contrasty style of monochrome tonality. The Fuji mirrorless cameras give you a lot of fine control over the tonality of JPGs, and I’ve been experimenting with lowering the contrast in the highlight tones and the shadow tones to get a longer range of grey tones – i.e. a much longer mid-tone range. (It gives you more detail in the shadows and highlights to play with in post if necessary.)
So you’re right that the lighting was very even in the hat stand shot, but the contrast – or lack of it – is, I fear, my own doing!April 10, 2014 at 9:06 am #6197
Interesting yes we are all printing on a hard grade of paper so to speak.Perhaps Ian a little tweak of more white in the hat. Never ever had a hat stand-how my late dearest missed that-will never know.The railway was closed Peter-look at website-lovely pic of train in snow.April 10, 2014 at 9:51 am #6199
Yes, you’re right, Ken: digital BW is often like printing on hard grade paper, or applying over-enthusiastic split grading!
The hat stand was in a recessed area off the brightly lit main room – you can see how the light falls off from right to left. And I do agree that the pic is a bit underexposed generally. The hat was pale straw colour (similar tonality to the wall, but with more light falling on it); the logos on the base-ball caps were white; and the hat band and picture frames were black. A touch of exposure compensation would have improved the SOOC jpg – but the rule this month is to submit the SOOC shot!
(PS: what really took my attention was the compositional effect of the lovely edge and curve of the shallow alcove the back picture is in, sweeping round to the hat stand, and the way the straw hat relates to the picture, and the pattern of forms the hat and baseball caps make.)April 10, 2014 at 3:02 pm #6200
In a class of your own Ian- just promise me that you have nothing in tonight.Give us a chance.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.