And yet, the numbers say differently.
Mike’s…
Mine…
Indeed. I just don’t like excessive brightening of shadows.
You’re right! I just compared Mike’s JPG and yours and the pipes looked a bit softer in yours.
Interesting details. Make for me the whole picture rather intersting as some of them could also tell a bit of a story of the construction workers, like some little graffitis or marks.
Seeing the EXIF I really wonder what’s the reason for 1/1600 shutter speed, raising the ISO a bit unnecessarily?
Personally, I couldn’t care less about ISO these days. With DeepPRIME I confidently shoot up to 25k if the need arises.
Although, I gather that Canon camera tend to be more noisy at lower ISOs
When I used the smart lighting, it didn’t do much to the image, and maybe I should have just turned it back off.
When I used the Clearview Plus (just a little) it brought out all the details on the under-side of the floors, which is what I was after.
At that moment in time, I thought they were two separate corrections, and wasn’t aware that they were fighting against each other. From the two photos you posted, the lower one is certainly better, and what I wanted.
The Smart Lighting seemed like a very subtle edit, but you’ve proved it was detrimental to the overall image. Interesting.
To me, it definitely does not remind me of HDR, but the lower version is what I wanted to achieve.
In retrospect, the smart lighting wasn’t necessary, and I should have turned it back off. By looking at the full-size image, it is so, so obvious - now.
I’m rarely sure which one to use, and I often use both. In terms of the end result, what is the difference?
I did use the color wheel to make the blue more intense, and I expected to be told I over-did it. I thought about that, and then decided that with the way I was distorting the whole image anyway, why not emphasize the blue sky a lot. I thought about changing the white balance to warm up the image, but didn’t. I should have tried, rather than just thought about it.
These pipes were all over the building, and in some places much more so than the area I photographed. I thought they were fascinating, and maybe I should capture an areal where they were used much more. I didn’t expect to see them at all - but I don’t know much about construction. I did have a long discussion with the “trainee” crane operator, who told me so much more about that crane, and how it worked, and what the different parts did. I wanted to try to get a good photo of the crane, butI wanted to show it doing some serious work, not just sitting there.
I wanted a reasonable aperture, and a high enough shutter speed that would minimize movement blur if I wan’t so steady. As Joanna explained, I’ve learned that with PhotoLab I don’t need to worry that much about ISO. I picked what I thought was a reasonable compromise.
With (only) my D780 and M10, I’ve mostly stopped worrying much about high ISO settings, but by force of habit, I try to keep the ISO more reasonable. I was going to head down Lincoln Road for some night shots, no flash, just natural light, but haven’t yet gotten around to it.
My plan was to take more construction shots after 7:30am when they start work (noise regulations), but I’m supposed to go to a psychology lecture in a few hours, so that will wait until Monday.
Joanna, I assume the (M) master is my work, and the (VC1) is what you did. If I’m correct, why did many of the colors get so “dull” in VC1 ?
Maybe I’m getting this mixed up?
Original:
VC1
To be honest, I never noticed all these color splotches on the bottom side of each floor
Master:
VC1
Is this because I used both global saturation and vibrance?
I came across these two posts in another topic.
@Joanna’s reply also seems apposite in the context of this ever growing topic.
How about only removing color from the sky, and not for the rest of the image?
780_0611 | 2023-04-27.nef.dop (52.2 KB)
I’d go for a (pure) graphical solution – even as a test pic.
Yes.
Because I didn’t use Saturation and Vibrance.
Yes, plus the Smart Lighting raised the luminosity.
Lovely, and I like the composition.
Why? I’m with @Wolfgang on this one.
1 Like
If I may take the liberty of doing my B&W thing, with a red filter applied to give a more striking contrast…
2 Likes
Wow, I love it! And cutting off the bottom simplifies the composition, along with adding more sky on top. It barely resembles the original image from the camera. I never would have ‘thunk’ of that! I liked the “distortion” yesterday, but the image has more “life” now that you’ve brought it back closer to the reality of what I saw through the viewfinder.
I will have to remember the red filter idea for the future.
Please post your .dop file when you have time.
That was @Wolfgang’s idea. I just erased a bit at the bottom right, which allowed me to enlarge the framing.
Old B&W film trick to bring out detail in the sky. Anything from yellow, through orange to red is good, depending on the blueness of the sky and the presence of clouds.
I agree with @JoJu about all the small, interesting, and sometimes colorful details. I love taking an image, viewing it at 100%, and seeing so many of the “small things” that aren’t obvious in the rather small images we get to see in this forum.
Looking at the image at 100%, and paying attention to both the colors and the details, I find all that “small stuff” fascinating. As an image of the building posted here in the forum, all that “small stuff” is irrelevant I guess, and not needed. I think @Wolfgang and @Joanna “saw” (or envisioned) a similar view, which is the full image viewed at a scale and distance that obliterates all that “small stuff”.
I do this all the time with everyone’s images, viewing them as large as I can, studying them, and learning what’s all there when I’m essentially viewing them with a magnifying glass. I need to think about this some more, but when possible, I like to include all that “extra stuff” to see, if one wishes to…
Before coming home yesterday, I wanted to get a photo of the whole building under construction, but wondered if it would make for an interesting photo. The lens was set to 31mm focal length, as all the “stuff” below this view looked ugly. I especially wanted to show the Rotator Crane, which is capable of extending three times as far as in this photo. Work was stopping for the day, so I could stand wherever I wanted (within limits).
I very much like that when viewed full-size, so many of the details JoJu noted become perfectly clear, plumbing, painted areas, the lower surface of each floor. There is far too much to see, so this photo is overwhelmed by too much “stuff”. Being late in the day, the lighting was perfect. I wish the sky was more interesting, but they were stopping work for the day, and I thought they would be “parking” the crane for the night. I look at this now, and think I should have included more space to the right, but that would just have included more “tree”. Actually, the photo I wanted to capture was one of them raising those huge concrete pieces up and into position, as the workers struggled to align the concrete piece properly. (The reason for “gaps” in the concrete is that the concrete pieces were not sized correctly - there is no “wiggle room”, either they fit, or not.)
Sadly, only one control point. No need for a control line. I was going to darken the sky, but decided not to. I thought about converting to B&W, but didn’t.
780_0614 | 2023-04-27.nef (29.3 MB)
780_0614 | 2023-04-27.nef.dop (16.5 KB)
The B&W version/s above base on analyzing the pic … and from there the decision to strengthen the inherent graphic representation (e.g. by reducing distractions like the blue sky, controlling the composition, necessary retouching and such).
The composition of your new pic with the crane in front of the construction is not ‘satisfying’.
- To show the whole / most of the building, you should capture it / not crop it so tight.
- The crane misses the bottom part (it’s ‘foundation’) and the rope & hook are almost out of the pic.
- And of course I want to know / see what’s hanging from the crane.
You saw everything when you took the pic, but then show it to others too who lack that information.
1 Like
Agreed, as they were packing up and putting things away for the weekend. There was nothing hanging from the crane, but I could have shown that. The “stuff” below the crane was not very photogenic, but ditto. I ought to have opened the lens to full wide-angle, and captured a record shot. I intended to come back at 7:30am this morning, but I had a commitment photograph an event somewhere else, and the weather was lousy.
I sort of like the photo anyway, but I agree with you, it’s not “satisfying”. Something else I need to remember for the future.
Something inside me tells me to “do the best that you can regardless of any limitations”. At full size, I find lots of things to look at, and figure out. It’s almost like a “treasure hunt” exploring around the building. When I click on/off on the “Compare” button, I enjoy how PhotoLab helped improve the image, which right now is my own most important goal, learning.
In your words, when does “color” become a distraction? I know it helped in the earlier photo, but here is a very quick conversion to B&W of this most recent photo - and to me, the small amount of color in the original made it more interesting, or maybe I should say removing that small amount of color made the resulting image boring, like a clipping from a newspaper:
Why do so many of you feel that excluding the color improves the image? How do you recognize an image that would be “better” in B&W ? Or, worded better, how can I recognize this when it’s appropriate?
(When I was young, I shot B&W because I couldn’t afford color, and didn’t know how to process color. Once color became so easy to use, I mostly stopped doing B&W, except with my Leica camera when I was living in my past. What qualities in an image might suggest that B&W would be a better choice?)
Mike,
when you want to know / try yourself about the ‘necessity’ of the blue sky, check with the pic in question (and my enclosed dop-file).
The pic with the crane in front of is so far from a convincing composition, that I didn’t touch / downloaded it. Looks like you were quickly passing the scene while randomly having a wideangle lens at hand, but not like a shot from a seasoned photographer. – Your B&W rendition doesn’t improve it.
Two conflicting thoughts… As the artist, creating a graphic representation, you noted the it is good to reduce distractions, which I take to mean it is strengthening what is left of the image (without color).
…but, there is a flip side to this, seeing the image from the point of view of the viewer. As @JoJu pointed out, some of these “distractions” he enjoyed seeing, and simplifying the image by removing them took away something he wanted to see (at least that’s what I think he meant). I’m guilty of this too - since @Joanna’s (and your) photos are often so full of detail, I find it enjoyable to view them at 100% and wander around the image looking around for things I didn’t notice at first.)
Also, were you to hand me two photos of something, one in color and the other black & white, I would most likely ignore the B&W version and enjoy searching all over the color image. I might also enjoy the B&W image, but I would far rather see, enjoy, explore, and look around in the color version.
Way, way off topic – I broiled a steak two nights ago, with a little salt, pepper, Worchestire sauce, and a bar-b-que seasoning. Without the seasonings, I’d not have enjoyed dinner so much. I’ll be making coffee in half an hour or so, with cream and sugar. Leave out the cream and sugar, and I may drink it anyway, but I won’t enjoy it so much.
I think it is more of a challenge to create a good B&W image and still satisfy the viewer. I’m speculating that because it’s more of a challenge, you and Joanna enjoy doing it well despite the lack of color. Color tells the viewer more about an image, in so many ways. It’s like seasoning - too much of it, or used incorrectly, it degrades the end result. But used properly, and it makes the meal so much better.
(On the other hand, I’ve got to add that if I leave out color, other things become even more important, such as contrast, and shapes, and brightness. I think it’s more of a challenge to the photographer, if one still wants to get the viewer “involved in/with” the photo. …and since I’m not anywhere even close to the ability to do this, as you, it’s left for me to decide if the lack of color is a hindrance or a benefit… …for lots of reasons, Leica’s “Monochrom” cameras are selling out whenever they start to become available. The more I read about them, the more I want to buy one. …but I don’t think I have the skills, and the eyes, an the “imagionation” to be able to make proper use of them - yet. I’ve read what they can do, and how, and why, but I think converting my color images to B&W is good enough for me, and saves me $10,000.)
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2062427975/why-leica-s-m10-monochrom-is-more-than-just-a-gimmick
Where can I find the “enclosed dop-file”?
I’ve got lots of time this weekend to experiment.