I’m trying to figure out why I like/dislike this photo. My original had too much non-exciting sky. Cropped like this, it “feels” like something is missing. If the city skyline was 1/3 of the way down, I think I would feel better about it. The buildings being so dark, right and left, is good. It “frames” the photo. I know you have issues with the water, but it is much better than when we started. I feel like there needs to be more reflection of the sky, but that didn’t exist when I took the photo. The building at the right “feels” like it should be thinner, more like what captured at the left.
I will combine your ideas, and your ‘.dop’, with the above thoughts later tonight, and try to make it look like something I enjoy. I think it is a very frustrating image.
I will create a new folder, with only this one page in it. Then add the ‘.dop’, an import that .dop into the image like I described earlier. Then make the changes I just described…
I finally got your .dop file to load correctly. I worked on a virtual file. I cropped from the top so the skyline was 1/3 down in the photo (rule of thirds), but didn’t like it, so I cropped a little from the bottom and then re-did the crop from the top to put the skyline at the 1/3 point. I cropped a little off the right side of the building at the right, so it appears similar to what’s on the left. I added a gradient filter for the sky, increasing the vibrancy by “8”. I left off the copyright so it’s easier for you guys to work with.
Tonight is the first time I’ve looked at this image and smiled. I can see “just enough” of the road at the left, and the building at the right. The water now looks great to me. I gave up on the reflection in the water, as I didn’t see it when I took the photo, and I figured doing it would look fake. I left just enough of the dock at the bottom to add some depth. The buildings at the top right have orange fringes around them, maybe that’s because of the lens I used? I think that’s what you were explaining to me.
Between all of us, I’m very pleased. On my calibrated ASUS it looks great. On my iMac it looks too dark, made even worse by being surrounded by white.
Staring at this photo, I know I put the divider at 1/3 the height of the image, but it must be an optical delusion - the sky needs to be a tad more, so it appears to be 1/3 of the image.
Tried that too and yes your right. better. (this kind of “shadowed shots” are allways difficult to let be what’s darker. when my memory fades of the scene and i look at them again sometimes the shadowlifting looks artificial wile it before was “as it was when i looked at it”
that’s one of the blessings of rawfiles you can change your mind many times
great that’s the main goal.
good practise this shot.
You may already be aware of this but, in case you’re not…
To get the best rendering for evaluation, what I do is to export to a full-size jpeg, tiff or DNG and then use the macOS Quicklook feature to get a full screen view (with a black background).
Chose the exported file in Finder and press the spacebar - this gives you the basic Quicklook panel
Click on the maximise button…
… to give you the fullscreen view
Yup. Then, when you come back to it, you start to realise it’s starting to look a bit too HDRish
Indeed. Where I have had problems with some “students” is when they insist on leaving the image SOOC because they think editing == cheating, whereas, of course, the RAW contains so much more detail, especially in the shadows, that was there at the time of shooting but that cannot be seen without processing.
I still think it’s about time you learnt to live with both screens calibrated
Hmm, typically I have three thoughts competing with each other. One is my recollection of what I saw in the viewfinder when I captured the photo. Next is the SOOC image that shows. up on my screen. Then there is all the detail captured by my camera that suddenly shows up in the processed image, that I don’t remember seeing, and I now need to deal with it one way or another. My thoughts - the final image should express my thoughts about the scene as I took the image, but all this new detail probably shouldn’t overpower the image, as if that was what I was taking the photo of, deliberately. I like the feedback here, as everyone in this forum seems to want the strongest possible image, something people will think about, and maybe remember.
I expect within a week, you will have your wish - it’s a long story, but my iMac needs more memory, but because of the design, that would cost me a lot of $$$. At the same time, my nephew wants to replace his new Intel Mac Mini with a new Apple chip Mac Mini with Apple’s new M1 processor. I figured I could solve both our “problems” by purchasing his Intel based Mac Mini which has 32 GB ram and 1 TB disk. The cost is reasonable, he is happier, and the only thing I may still want to buy for it is an improved graphics card which is a reasonably inexpensive drop-in part. There are many options, but the most logical scenario would be to make the ASUS the main display for my new Mini, and use it for photo and video editing. If you’ve never heard of a “Mac Mini” (I hadn’t), check here:
I have one remaining question for all of you. I believe everyone but me in this discussion uses a calibrated display so you know what the printed image will look like. Meanwhile, my goal is to both satisfy all of your suggestions, and ALSO to satisfy all the people “out there” who view my image on their own non-calibrated screens. So, how much attention, do I (we) need to pay to how our images are viewed by ordinary people on the internet? This is about anyone reading this discussion who hasn’t yet calibrated their screens, and doesn’t “see” what we expect them to “see”… …like me, not all that long ago. Should we use a non-calibrated screen as a test of what all these people are likely to see?
No, I wasn’t aware of this. I will try it today. Fortunately, people viewing my images on my Smugmug gallery (m.smugmug.com) get to see the images in front of a dark background. If true, my images should look to them closer to what I want - but I suspect maybe half of one percent of them have a calibrated screen, and maybe that’s the same percentage of them who even know what a calibrated screen is all about.
…Added Later…
WOW, and double-WOW. How did I completely miss this for so long. Thank You!!! I will pass this on!
My digital stuff has been just sitting. Yesterday I left mid-day and spent a few hours trying to capture some nice photographs with my Leica M3. First time I’ve used it in half a century. I made every mistake in the book, it took forever until I was confident in my exposure readings from my Sekonic. The first photo I took was a beautiful view of the inside of my lens cap, and for the following photo the camera didn’t go CLICK… lesson learned, advance the film immediately after taking a shot, and keep lens cap in pocket. Things got better, and I was actually having fun, just like in the 1960’s. Do I “know” I got it? Not really, I think so, but won’t know for sure until I get the processed film back. Eventually I’ll just develop the film that same night.
Does PL4 have a setting that “emulates” Ilford Delta 100 b&w film? That’s probably the wrong thing to do anyway, as if I don’t emulate anything, I WILL be getting results from that film. I wanted to buy Kodak Plus-X, but I found this stuff to try out on Amazon. Next week I hope to post some results here.
I can’t use the PL4 right now - it’s on my iMac, but the ASUS display is moved to my Mac Mini. Tomorrow I hope to move everything from my iMac to the Mini, then re-calibrate my ASUS display for use with the Mini.
There is absolutely no way anyone can reliably compare any film “emulation” with the look and feel of “the real thing”.
Think about what happens from the point where a shot is taken with a film camera to when it finally gets printed.
Shooting
Was the film exposed for its rated ISO or modified?
Was the exposure “straight” or was it modified with a view to how it would be processed (Zone system, N+ or N-)?
Was the film pushed or pulled?
Film development
Which developer was used?
At what dilution?
Was it used as one shot or replenished?
At what temperature?
For how long?
Was a stop bath used?
What fixer was used?
For how long?
At what temperature?
Printing
What make of paper?
What surface finish?
Single grade or multigrade?
Single exposure or multiple?
How much dodging and burning was done?
Which developer was used?
At what dilution?
Was it used as one shot or replenished?
At what temperature?
For how long?
Was a stop bath used?
What fixer was used?
For how long?
At what temperature?
And then, if the image is to be digitised, a whole new raft of possibilities opens up there.
All these things affect how we perceive the look and feel of a film. To say that this or that film emulation doesn’t match the original film is to ignore all this.
The best we can say about a film emulation is that it matches a certain film, developed in a certain way and printed in a certain way.
Film photographers (of which I am one) cannot never say that their workflow is the one true way and it is exactly the same in the digital “emulation” world.
Anyway, the DxO presets are but a starting point, from which we can alter the look and feel to suit our preferences, just like we could with the entire analogue process.
The question remains - what do I gain from shooting film instead of digital, apart from a personal sense of satisfaction from having participated in an artisanal craft? Or I can accept that digitally processing a digital image can be just as much of a craft that needs mastering.
In the thread with @oxidant (#234, 235, 240) it was about perfection and to recognize if it’s worth to work on a picture (GIGO), to decide what to keep and delete, to shoot (consciously) like in analogue days (so I knew I got the shot = no spray and pray) and to edit in digital darkroom.
In case you missed it, this has nothing to do with your old viewfinder camera,
light meter or B&W film.
And I don’t even set my DSLR like an analogue film camera.
Instead of playing around, you better concentrate on ONE thing and improve your skills.
Lots of things to think about, but consider this. I’m now 77 years old. I don’t know how many more years I’ll have to enjoy all the things I’m doing, photography, computers, bullseye shooting, cooking, video, and a few more. I prefer “multi-tasking”, where I do reasonably well at most of the things I’m trying to do, rather than select one to spend all my time at. I’ve already given up motorcycling, radio control car racing, and model railroading.
As to “improving my skills”, which skill? Before the virus, I spent four days a week at the range, improving my bullseye shooting in the day, and reloading my target ammo at night. Not too many years ago I was participating in model car races all around my local area, and traveling all over the world to photograph and document the races for several magazines, in the USA and GB. The past two days have been spent on setting up my new (to me) Mac mini - that should be finished by the end of the day.
What was that saying, “involved with many things but master of none”? I guess that sort of fits me, but I’m getting better at everything I’ve listed. I’d like to accomplish as much as I can with all the things I noted, for as long as I can.
I’m using the Leica and shooting film because I’ve wanted to for years, but never got to it until now. It’s sort of a challenge for me. It used to “define” me, and to me it’s enjoyable.
I’ll soon learn about the other thing you noted, digitally processing a film negative.
About your list, here’s what I expect:
My current plans are to process it in PL4, using the same techniques as I have learned here, but I. will ignore the “noise removal” as there won’t be any “noise”.
On the other hand, my roll of film is still with me, and I won’t know much about any of this until I actually start doing it, probably in several days. For the first roll, I’ll let the lab make the scans. I haven’t even asked it here yet, but other than grain, is there any real difference between:
starting with a digital image captured with a sensor, and
a digital image captured by scanning a film negative?
