Reading mode: Light Dark

Three from Washington DC

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron Reznick
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
me getting in here.

There is no such thing as a 255-all subject that will carry any detail.

That would be a pure white with nothing on it e.g. a reflection of strong light, a poor, overexposed, subject, etc.

Color-by-the-numbers (in PS) is a very good guide but it has to start from a well exposed subject, otherwise you will have a lot of 255-all or 0-all (which translates no detail).

If you want to look into this subject I suggest
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/

or his book

Professional PhotoShop 6:
The Classic Guide to Color Correction Dan Margulis.

The book really is not the typical PS guide but a guide to understanding color directed to print; highly tech but lots of good info on the subject you are interested (the tech part will probably be a joke to you but the contents will be of use).

I have seen many that consider highly saturated photos (printed or not) the "only" good photo: greens for grass that have never been seen, blue skies that are only found in the imagination of some, etc.

The other thing is contrast; saturation + contrast may the joy of most tourists that only use the camera when they travel plus X'mas and family ocassions. Very poor combination, for my taste. Fuji and Delvia make many happy, not me. The famous S curve in Curves in PS is normally a disaster.
Vtie said:
But I don't seem to be the only one making that mistake.
Click to expand...
In many cases it is not a mistake, it is a preference.
Vtie said:
I have seen several people call a picture "underexposed" just because the
histogram does not extend to the right edge.
Click to expand...
The histogram should reach the right edge to get the full range of the camera but is may also seem underexposed to some. I am certain that Ron's pics all cover the total range of the camera.

The "pastel" tone of Ron's photos are his personal artistic style (which I really admire and prefer).

Kindest regards

Raul
 
Ron,

I really like the feel of the wall photo. I also liked the startkness of the composition of the second photo.

I am just beginning to learn how to do post processing and I found the discussion between you and vtie fascinating. Here is my view of lincoln.



I may well have 'tweaked it' too much to punch up the contrast in Photoshop. Any comments are welcome.

--
Dave
[email protected]
Photos at http://www.dchung.com
 
They're the brightest part of the image, and totally out of focus. I find that really distracting. I think it would worked better with off-camera flash (from the right), dialed down, and (most importantly) the entire image in focus.

Just my $0.02.
 
Hi Dave,

You did pop that one up a little hard -- note the blown areas on the knee, collar and chest. The statue is softly lit by the ambient light in the memorial during the day, and on the day I was there the brightest regions on the statue were about 160 luminosity. Obviously this depends on the angle of the sun, the amount of overcast, etc., but I doubt if you would ever find that statue hitting over 200 luminosity.

Ron
David Chung said:
Ron,

I really like the feel of the wall photo. I also liked the
startkness of the composition of the second photo.

I am just beginning to learn how to do post processing and I found
the discussion between you and vtie fascinating. Here is my view of
lincoln.



I may well have 'tweaked it' too much to punch up the contrast in
Photoshop. Any comments are welcome.

--
Dave
[email protected]
Photos at http://www.dchung.com
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Lee, Ron's shot does a better job of satisfying the "need to know" for people who have not been to the memorial, or are not familiar with it. But for those who are familiar with it (I live near DC), I think your shot is much, much more powerful.
 
I did it both ways (names in and out of focus), did a number of flash experiments including reducing the flash intensity below the level of the image shown at the top of the thread and below, and this image was done with diffusion of the flash at a fairly-steep angle away from the wall (close to 60 degrees). I preferred the look of the image with the names out of focus, but I do agree that the flash was a little too strong on the portrait version. I'm attaching a landscape version done the other way... I didn't do a portrait version this way (we had to leave to meet the others and had no more time there).





Ron
snowwrestler said:
They're the brightest part of the image, and totally out of focus.
I find that really distracting. I think it would worked better
with off-camera flash (from the right), dialed down, and (most
importantly) the entire image in focus.

Just my $0.02.
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Ron,

Thanks for the comments. I have sooo much to learn.

--Dave
Ron Reznick said:
You did pop that one up a little hard -- note the blown areas on
the knee, collar and chest. The statue is softly lit by the ambient
light in the memorial during the day, and on the day I was there
the brightest regions on the statue were about 160 luminosity.
Obviously this depends on the angle of the sun, the amount of
overcast, etc., but I doubt if you would ever find that statue
hitting over 200 luminosity.

Ron
David Chung said:
Ron,

I really like the feel of the wall photo. I also liked the
startkness of the composition of the second photo.

I am just beginning to learn how to do post processing and I found
the discussion between you and vtie fascinating. Here is my view of
lincoln.



I may well have 'tweaked it' too much to punch up the contrast in
Photoshop. Any comments are welcome.

--
Dave
[email protected]
Photos at http://www.dchung.com
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Dave
[email protected]
Photos at http://www.dchung.com
 
Thanks for the prompt reply. Either way they're both fantastic shots although I'll agree with your view that the names out of focus looks better.

I've looked at your website and can't seem to find much info (other then to E-mail you) on your training classes.

Cost, locations and things of that nature. Also, I'm VERY new to SLR photography and only been really taking pictures for a little under a year (just bought my D100 July 5th). I only have one lens (Tamron 28-75 XR Di) and am going to purchase a Sigma 70-200 lens here in the next week or so. I don't have any external flashes, etc.

I have no doubt that I could benefit from time spent with you as I've yet to see one person say anything negative after having attended one of your sessions. I'm just wondering what the "minimum" requirements are for your sessions?

Just a month ago, I thought F-stop was a red octagonal sign with a big letter F on it.

Thanks for your time. If you'd prefer to answer back channel, please feel free to E-mail me at [email protected]

Best Regards,

David Anderson
Ron Reznick said:
Let me know when you want to get together...

Ron
shudderbug2 said:
Think I'm going to sign up for one of your classes sometime.

Best Regards,

David Anderson
Ron Reznick said:
85mm @ f/1.4



85mm @ f/5.6



28mm @ f/4 with flash



Ron
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
 
Hi David,

I have just sent you information regarding sessions to your email account. Let me know what you have in mind when you see that...

We can also talk about hardware, etc. via email once you are ready to prepare yourself for a session. I look forward to hearing from you,

Ron
shudderbug2 said:
I've looked at your website and can't seem to find much info (other
then to E-mail you) on your training classes.

Cost, locations and things of that nature. Also, I'm VERY new to
SLR photography and only been really taking pictures for a little
under a year (just bought my D100 July 5th). I only have one lens
(Tamron 28-75 XR Di) and am going to purchase a Sigma 70-200 lens
here in the next week or so. I don't have any external flashes,
etc.

I have no doubt that I could benefit from time spent with you as
I've yet to see one person say anything negative after having
attended one of your sessions. I'm just wondering what the
"minimum" requirements are for your sessions?

Just a month ago, I thought F-stop was a red octagonal sign with a
big letter F on it.

Thanks for your time. If you'd prefer to answer back channel,
please feel free to E-mail me at [email protected]

Best Regards,

David Anderson
Ron Reznick said:
Let me know when you want to get together...

Ron
shudderbug2 said:
Think I'm going to sign up for one of your classes sometime.

Best Regards,

David Anderson
Ron Reznick said:
85mm @ f/1.4



85mm @ f/5.6



28mm @ f/4 with flash



Ron
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Don't we all? We're always learning... it's one of the things that makes life so interesting :^)

Ron
David Chung said:
Thanks for the comments. I have sooo much to learn.

--Dave
Ron Reznick said:
You did pop that one up a little hard -- note the blown areas on
the knee, collar and chest. The statue is softly lit by the ambient
light in the memorial during the day, and on the day I was there
the brightest regions on the statue were about 160 luminosity.
Obviously this depends on the angle of the sun, the amount of
overcast, etc., but I doubt if you would ever find that statue
hitting over 200 luminosity.

Ron
David Chung said:
Ron,

I really like the feel of the wall photo. I also liked the
startkness of the composition of the second photo.

I am just beginning to learn how to do post processing and I found
the discussion between you and vtie fascinating. Here is my view of
lincoln.



I may well have 'tweaked it' too much to punch up the contrast in
Photoshop. Any comments are welcome.

--
Dave
[email protected]
Photos at http://www.dchung.com
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Dave
[email protected]
Photos at http://www.dchung.com
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
David Chung said:
Thanks for the comments. I have sooo much to learn.

--Dave
Ron Reznick said:
You did pop that one up a little hard -- note the blown areas on
the knee, collar and chest. The statue is softly lit by the ambient
light in the memorial during the day, and on the day I was there
the brightest regions on the statue were about 160 luminosity.
Obviously this depends on the angle of the sun, the amount of
overcast, etc., but I doubt if you would ever find that statue
hitting over 200 luminosity.

Ron
David Chung said:
Ron,

I really like the feel of the wall photo. I also liked the
startkness of the composition of the second photo.

I am just beginning to learn how to do post processing and I found
the discussion between you and vtie fascinating. Here is my view of
lincoln.



I may well have 'tweaked it' too much to punch up the contrast in
Photoshop. Any comments are welcome.

--
Dave
[email protected]
Photos at http://www.dchung.com
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Dave
[email protected]
Photos at http://www.dchung.com
Click to expand...


davidbogdan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top