A Warm Refreshment

[MFS]

Thats what these Ice Pins (don't know the proper word for it) hanging on the edge of my roof, combined with the warm colors of the Sunset are.

Developed in LR not that much PP, no Crop though it was difficult to get them. I had too shoot from inside trough the windowpane of a door. Could not open the door otherwise the pins were broken off the roof by that same door (get it?). Made a serie, just picked two. . C&C welcome. Please let me know.

Shot with the Minolta 70-200 SSM (2x) today. Handheld with the support of the frame from a Window (don't know the English ord for it)

#1

Model DSLR-A700
Flash Used No
Focal Length 200 mm
Exposure Time 1/20 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 200

#2

Model DSLR-A700
Flash Used No
Focal Length 200 mm
Exposure Time 1/10 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 200

[Dr. Harout]

I like the colors, John.

[MFS]

Thanks Guys.

@Don: Nice Cool Refreshment but I prefer a written reaction Don.

[MFS]

If it's only praise and a pat on the back that you are looking for then I ain't your man. See ya' around, John.

-Sonolta

That's not what I am looking for Don, neither just couter pic's without any remark at all. So don't be agitated by a simple remark or actually a normal question. I can not imagine that it is a regular thing to do. Answering every picture with another picture. It's a forum whre you can post just for the sake of learning by comments, tips and trick's from fellow forummembers. At least thats my Idea of a forum. But Mabey I'm wrong about this.

[aster]

Hello John,

Welcome to the forum. I didn't have a chance to acknowledge your arrival before but have been looking at all that you posted photowise. Like many pointed out before you have a good eye and get nicely close to your subjects with interesting angles.

I like these as well, and can imagine where they can be used actually but won't say. Since you say they are not cropped, a full size image, printed or otherwise would show all the fine details on your icicles and more; would make a good poster or a book cover even! (designers in publishing know how to use such images). These compositions are rather challenging with their subtilty, they need some good imagination to place them in an environment...


Thanks for your different and imaginative photos,
Yildiz

[MFS]

Hello John,

Welcome to the forum. I didn't have a chance to acknowledge your arrival before but have been looking at all that you posted photowise. Like many pointed out before you have a good eye and get nicely close to your subjects with interesting angles.

I like these as well, and can imagine where they can be used actually but won't say. Since you say they are not cropped, a full size image, printed or otherwise would show all the fine details on your icicles and more; would make a good poster or a book cover even! (designers in publishing know how to use such images). These compositions are rather challenging with their subtilty, they need some good imagination to place them in an environment...


Thanks for your different and imaginative photos,
Yildiz

Thanks Yildiz for your warm welcome and your comments.

[MFS]

John...sorry is I sounded so harsh above, but at first glance I saw several *flaws* in the photos beyond the subject and composition.

1. Massive edge sharpening or something going on.
2. The tip of the first icicle is OOF big time.
3. Blurred icicles in the background are not quite *right*.
4. You are losing the color badly on the bottom left corner of pic #2
5. It appears as if the primary icicles are possible a bit OOF to start with.
6. The ice is lacking texture and/or bite.

You can't win them all, John. Keep up the good work.

-Sonolta

Don’t get me wrong Don when I say I like your second opinion better. Not for the contents (which also matters very much) but it’s profound good comment in a polite way. Positive feedback so to speak.

I know, comments can be positive or negative (in some sort of way). I rather get negative comment than no comment or comments just for the sake of being friendly. Also I do realize that not every photo can be as good as one wishes, but taste varies and that’s the way it should be. So, if you don’t like a Photo, feel free to comment also and speak out. But please in a constructive manner. I can coop with that. No problem. There is imho no need to get unfriendly as we al share the same interest and the need too learn from each other.

As you might found out by now I’m not a very technically Photographer. I shoot what I see but always try too shoot trough the VF to get the comp right at once instead of making huge crops. I follow my sense of style, my style. Given in by my surroundings and available light. I hardly use my flash btw.

As far as your comments I will try too answer them:

1. Massive edge sharpening or something going on.
It might look like massive sharpening due too the light shining true which give a black edge. If over sharpened you’d rather get these little white edges. Here I used the high pass filter in an extra layer after resizing for the web.
2. The tip of the first icicle is OOF big time.
That is correct. It was an extremely difficult angle. Me standing indoors shooting trough glass of the balcony door. The icicles were hanging on an edge. I could not open the door otherwise the icicles were broken off by that same door. So me, being indoor, standing on a little stool (chair) on the tip of my toes whit a 1.4 kg weighing Lens, minimum focus distance 1.2 metres. I approached as near I could. The toes work was too achieve the colouring. I had too lift my self in order to get the graduation (the sunset) in the sky through the icicles. With a zoom of 200mm at short range even at 5.6 impossible to get the tip in Focus as I found out later.
3. Blurred icicles in the background are not quite *right*.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I did not blur in PP, what you see is what I shot.
4. You are losing the colour badly on the bottom left corner of pic #2
Too get the right mood I wanted too preserve the gradient in the sky. I pulled the levers in LR maybe a bit too much. In the corner you mentioned indeed there is some sort of noise toward the darker areas.
5. It appears as if the primary icicles are possible a bit OOF to start with.
Could be sharper indeed but as I mentioned before, it was an extremely difficult angel to deal with.
6. The ice is lacking texture and/or bite.
The Icicles are smooth, build-up during day-time due too higher temperatures, water dripping down.

Thanks you came back a second time.

Cheers,
John

[David Kilpatrick]

Basically I showed you the technical flaws in your photo by posting mine.
-Sonolta

What you see as a technical flaw might be overlooked by others who value the artistic intention more than the processing technique when viewing the shot. Put John's picture and yours in front of a jury of photographers, non-photographers, artists, non-artists as you choose and I'm sure opinions on which was 'better' would be divided. I am also pretty sure that if you limited the judgment to technical aspects, and expert opinion, it would also be divided.

Beyond that both images show icicles, there is no similarity between the conditions, subjects or artistic intentions. If you wanted to help with the technical difficulties of handling colour gradations in a subdued afterglow sky, it would be appropriate to post a shot with a similar type of sky gradation handled better. Your entirely different, and almost irrelevant shot, just happens to be an icicle. Be honest, and admit you saw a couple of icicle pictures, thought 'I have a better icicle picture!' and stepped in to post it.

Nothing wrong in doing that, but you did not post your picture in order to help with 'technical flaws' in John's images. You posted it to show off the picture, and your technical criticism of John's work is unrelated. Your other comments ('OK let me put it plainly' etc) are completely out of order. John's icicle images are considered, well-observed photographs and would not look out of place in Swiss 'Photographie' or Japanese 'Camerart'. By all means show off your own examples - let's have icicles all round, I don't have a single good one myself! - but leave the camera club 'your subject plain old sucks' stuff out.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Now try afterglow or before dawn, like John was shooting. The sun had gone down (or not risen) before he shot his pic, you can tell that from the double gradation and the look of the light on the icicle. Colours can be stronger, or weaker, depends entirely on conditions. But sunset with the sun above the horizon is a different game generally for saturation.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, since when when was 17:06:09 - 6 minutes past 5 in the evening - 11:10:54pm? It is, exactly as I said, afterglow. The sun had set that day well before 5pm even allowing for Dutch time zone of +1 HR over GMT - it set around 4.30pm and twilight officially ended at around 5.15pm. Today it was 4.36 and 5.17pm, days are getting longer. I didn't need to check the EXIF data to guess that the picture was taken in the last minutes of twilight and well after the sun has set.

You can find similar conditions before dawn too. They are not the same as a sunset with the sun above the horizon. John is writing in English and calls it a sunset - I might call this gloaming, afterglow, dusk, twilight, or sundown. I would not expect John to know these words but he probably knows Dutch equivalents for all of them.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

I've asked John to send me the vertical file already, so I will see it in due course. It would be good if it was up full page repro standards, but if not, it would look OK at a quarter page.

David

[kingfisher]

hello john

it is a great picture , the colour`s and details are great

greatings
gustav

[bfitzgerald]

I can feel the negative vibes man!

Anyway, I think some c&c is good, but it must be done with respect..and with the goal of being constructive. I would ask myself if someone were commenting on my shots, what sort of tone would I like, and not like. I couldn't say hey it's boring..that doesn't tell the poster anything.
Something along the lines of.."have you tried this"
My fav one is.."just an idea now, but what about.."

No point in blasting someone for putting shots up..

Taste is a very personal thing..and technical aspects (bar obvious ones) are also open to debate.

[jcoffin]

I have 300K frames under my belt the past 5 years and all of the frames were shot in "my style" but I still like the photos to be well done technically so I can print them at 12 x 18 inches or whatever size I care to.

Most of my 300K frames are full frame as cropping is for compositional whimps.

Of the 300,000 photos I have shot, less than 200 of them were made with a flash. That's .00066 percent flash photos if you do the math...flashes are for whimps.

Dude, I am the *king* of high ISO with 125,000 ISO 1600-6400 shots the past several years so no need to make any of those sorts of excuses for technically difficulties around me.

[ ... ]

PSSS...If I were to start posting my shots that look good at web size but won't print worth a hoot we coud be here for a a decade or longer. Some of us have higher expectations than capturing frames for the web only. Many of us here shoot for 11x14's as a minimum so if the shot won't print at least a decent 8x10 then a lot of the shot's lustre is lost in my eyes...

1) It's a good thing you put "style" in quotes -- your pictures show about the restraint and elegance my nephew had when we was eight years old or so.
2) Cropping is sometimes useful. Your failure to recognize that some subjects are better portrayed at aspect ratios other than 3:2 is hardly a strength.
3) Flash can be useful too -- again, your inability to recognize its usefulness hardly makes you a better photographer.
4) If you want something that's for wimps, high ISOs would be a good place to start. You seem to need ISO 1600+ in situations where any decent photographer could get better results using ISO 100 or (in the old days) Kodachrome 64 or even Velvia 50.
5)
a) Most of what you post doesn't look very good even at web size, and it doesn't look like printing would help them.
b) 8x10 and 11x14 are puny prints anyway. Maybe when you post something that would look good 48 inches wide you'll have room for a little bit of attitude -- but somehow, despite having done exactly that, I (for one example) manage to be far more polite than you even try to be.
6) Shooting second rate athletes playing a second rate imitation of a sport that's itself exceptionally boring puts you in a poor position to make accusations about boring subject matter.

PS: "PS" stands for "postscript". A second one follows (is "post to") the first, so the abbreviation would be "PPS". A third would be "PPPS", and so on. Of course, if you think you need more than two postscripts, what you really need is to organize your thoughts better.

[David Kilpatrick]

It's interesting to see how good the old 7Hi actually was compared to the 7D even. When I used the 7Hi, I could not afford large CF cards - and I could not afford the 25 seconds wait for writing each raw file. So I took far too many JPEG only shots. A lot of those got on to Alamy when they accepted 14MB file size, and loads of them sold (for better money than you get today, but that is another story). Then Alamy did a big sort-out of stuff for new captioning and new settings which meant some RF had to be removed, but of anything you replaced the old files with had to be 50MB. From JPEGs, I could only get a few of the shots to pass quality control at 50MB. I had to abandon a load of pix, let them be deleted, even though some were good sellers.

I took a few raw shots with the 7i and 7Hi, and of course those were easily taken up the required size, almost as efficiently as 7D/5D files. But nearly all the shots I took on those cameras are 'wasted' because I never shot raw.

David