|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
I associate sepia with a deeper brown, mainly I think from my parents' photo albums. I did a bit of internet research before making my comment. Generally I found that brown is more common, but equally I found examples of other shades. It's something I don't recall doing in my wet darkroom days except as toned papers. I guess tones would have been limited by the chemicals, but lots of other metals were used for toning, eg selenium, which I think gave lighter tones. Nowadays anything can go, of course, as you say, and indeed I think that this tone is pleasing and appropriate. |
Dec 23rd |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Thanks, Helen. Like many "secret" war stories, it's quite astonishing when what they did and how they did it is revealed.
Beginners' luck for me in the composition actually, not a result of conscious effort really. However, it's encouraging that people like it.
I had thought, based on what I'd seen in club competitions, that "creative" photos were very contrived and a bit twee. However looking at creative groups here on PSA DD, I can see that's not the case, and I'll have to make the occasional foray into the genre. |
Dec 23rd |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Very nice - simple picture, strong story, great composition, good mono, I love it.
Minor suggestion - a little highlight in the eye? Due to the angle, perhaps only a midlight. |
Dec 23rd |
 |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Another nice barn photo.
My first impresion was "it's leaning to the left, needs clockwise adjustment of a few degrees". Fortunately correcting this as John has done makes the job or removing the distracting road a bit easier. The rotation has made John crop off a little of the top which is a shame; if you are doing it Helen, I'd have tried to clone in some of the blank area caused by the rotation to retain more space above the barn. Also, and maybe I need my eyes tested again, John's is a little too much rotated? |
Dec 23rd |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
The strong diagonal is key to this composition I think, giving it a strong sense of action. I don't normally like photos of sculptures, but I'll make an exception here! The artist's story, clear to viewers who are free to walk round it, is well caught in one photo here.
There seems to be a noticeable halo on the tail that is in front of the sky. An artefact from sharpening or adjusting the sky? There are other faint halos on closer inspection on other edges. |
Dec 23rd |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
I'd agree with all the foregoing comments. To me, the most interesting part is the contrast between three textures - the cloth in the window, the wood below it, and the stone. I'd have removed the dark feature at the top right by cloning it out to avoid the distraction and to maintainthe symmetry.
Isn't it a bit pale for sepia? I thought sepia was more brown than this. I like the tone, it's not a criticism, just an observation. |
Dec 23rd |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Sorry I'm late.
So, you have Dutch Barns in America! That's the name we give to the double slope roof. Alternatively a "Mansard" roof. By coincidence, my house has a roof shaped like this. They are not common in Cheshire, but more so in Oxfordshire. And in Holland, of course.
Anyway, I agree with the previous comments, I also think it's a nice pictorial mono with lots of detail to keep the viewer interested.
I'd agree with Donna, a little more space around would perhaps increase the drama and context. The building partly lost on the left is a pity, but nothing to be done about it I guess. I suspect a rotation a few degrees anti-clockwise would balance the verticals a little better? as it seems to lean to the right to me a little.
|
Dec 23rd |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Apologies for my being late.
At first glance I thought it looked like a Loch Ness Monster photo! I see I'm not the only one :-)
I've got to agree with the others, the loss of detail on the ranch, presumably due to the high contrast ratio, renders what could have been the subject into a dark shadow with little interest apart from the shape. The water patterns I think are interesting, but it's a common subject and needs something to lift it. Due to the lack of detail, the branch fails to do that for me. |
Dec 23rd |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
I'm really flattered by these comments; thank you all.
I was awaiting someone to point out that the ends of the rotor shaft aren't clear. You can see on the "Original 2" that it was resting on acrylic suppports, and they have caused this. So I'll get to work with my clone brush and fix it. Maybe I'll change my previous decision and put it into a club competition this year. |
Dec 17th |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Thanks Stan, and an interesting idea. There are many photos on display there, and maybe they might like a copy of this. Like many museums here, the admission price is good for a year, so I'd planned a return visit as there's so much to read and see. I'll take a print of it with me. |
Dec 10th |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Thanks, Stephen. I agree, I find DD a most rewarding and inspiring venue to come to. It's not just the good photographs we see, it's even more the good discussions and feedback. And Tom's software enables it all in a most excellent way. |
Dec 7th |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Thanks, Jerry. It's amazing really, I started off on this photo with only a vague idea of I might produce, when I saw it browsing my photos for an entry this month. Certainly I had no idea then of what it would become. Perhaps it's a lesson telling me to think more and go and make photographs, rather than just see what presents itself. The best photographers seem to start with a good idea of what they are going to produce and perhaps I should try harder to emulate that approach. |
Dec 7th |
| 64 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Coming from the administrator of a creative group, I consider that a high complement. Many thanks, Jerry. :-) |
Dec 7th |
7 comments - 6 replies for Group 64
|
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
The problem I had with your review method is that the photos come up at different scales, and zooming one tab zooms the others as well (Firefox) making comparison difficult for me. So this time I opened those windows and zoomed in to see just the flower head and screen copied, getting the same scale for each one before I copied. This gave me two images in Affinity that I can see at the same scale and zoom into. Indeed, the colour noise is better on your version, I can see that clearly now.
You've definitely warned me off Topaz! I watched some webinars of theirs some time ago before I got the trials. Their demos were good but I didn't get the same results myself, and they were quite expensive I thought, so I stuck with Affinity. Indeed every one of these top flight image processors is expensive compared to Affinity. Affinity has noise reduction of course, but I've not tried it back to back with others. So here's an opportunity - I've denoised my copy of Nilan's original with Affinity. The luminance denoise had the biggest effect and set to 100% it looks similar to your version, to me. What do you think? |
Dec 23rd |
 |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Tom, I tried Topaz AI some time ago as a freebie trial, and I found it of very marginal benefit. Taking screen shots of the original and your modified images into Affinity so that I can flip between them for comparison, I find the difference to be imperceptible. Maybe it's a consequence of my images being only about 700x500 pixels? I did see some benefit from the AI in Topaz demonstrations, but whilst I was attracted to the concept, I didn't see benefit in practice. How do you find it in general? |
Dec 23rd |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Yes, I think this is a straightforward but appealing photo.
I remember once a photo in my camera club of a vase of dead flowers. Most people found it rather sad and a bit revolting. However, we lap up natural history TV with pictures of the full life cycle, so why not have the occasional past-its-best bloom? So to me, whilst I see Tom's point, the shrivelled ones are OK.
I'd have preferred a little more space above the blooms, and maybe a little less on the right.
|
Dec 23rd |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
I think we need to remember that they are (or seem to be) a 2-man band doing a fairly professional job for a couple of young people. I've no idea what support they have. My kit has been reliable so far (now a year or so old). They have had supply issues due to the pandemic, and the flash arms were originally due out before now, but I don't have a date for them yet. I'll email them and ask. However faults on delivery should not have to be returned at your cost in my view - they should have refunded that.
Now I've looked at their emails, they announced a while ago to schedule the launch of the flash units on 1st March 21 |
Dec 18th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Yes, you've fixed the highlights, which I think is better. But I did also like the original brown colouration, which I failed to mention previously. On reflection, it was already a mono! |
Dec 17th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
It's always interesting to review people's comments on DD. I've learned that my explanations (narrative) need to be clearer, a ramble through what actually happened is not always clear, and clearly it's not clear here ;-)
So in attempt to be clearer, I did intend the photo with few particles in it to be my photo this month. It was taken with my "maximum magnification" kit at 5.5: magnification, referred to the micro 4/3 sensor size. (Some writers refer to the full frame size in which case it is 11:1). The 1:1 was just sent for reference as it's hard to envisage what I photographed without a little help.
You might find this further musing interesting. Sorry if it isn't, but it reminds me of the past, as you'll see. Magnification (as in "macro magnification is at least 1:1") is a good metric for explaining the camera's setup. but of course the final impression is the displayed result. After adjustment of my zoom ratio to get "Original" to fit my laptop screen so that I can measure it with a ruler, my screen is showing the photo 16 cm wide, so my sensor-to-screen magnification is 16/1.7 (the ratio of screen size to sensor size in cm) = 9.4. Since the image magnification (object to image size ratio) was 5.5, the object to screen magnification was 9.4 x 5.5 = 51.8. Since the central yellow particle is about 85mm diameter on my screen, in real life it is 85/51.8 = 1.6mm in diameter. Sounds about right!
I used a similar technique in university to estimate the sizes of droplets in a fan spray of a flammable liquid which we were adjusting to get the best combustion, and the average size of droplets in the spray was an important factor in understanding the experiment. So I photographed it with a plate camera (well it was 45 years ago!) using a high speed flash (what is now a normal speed flash!) to get plate images that I could measure under a microscope. I've not thought about that for years.........I think I might even have a contact print of it somewhere. |
Dec 17th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
There are often several ways of skinning a cat (sorry if any cat lovers read this!) and there's no harm in having more than one way as some might be better in some situations than others. Colour is definitely not my strong point, I often fail to see slight colour casts that friends notice immediately, so I'm quite happy to be told there's something I'm missing. Thinking about it now, I guess varying the colour of the light might be useful when photographing with a mono photo in mind as altering the colour balance of incoming light will alter the way the mono conversion will go when doing that. Sounds like an area for experimentation sometime! |
Dec 16th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
The magnetic filter heads are very neat, and not very expensive considering how well made they are, but you get little control, just primary colours really, plus diffusers which come in several grades and my two, bought as different, seem to be identical! Unless they goofed with the packaging, they have no "grade" marked on them. The arm heads can't vary in colour temperature. I've test used some studio lights with variable temperature, but failed to see what benefit that has. I never use anything but auto white balance, I can corrct any perceived errors in post. What benefit do you find? |
Dec 6th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Me too, flash is something I use infrequently. I've made several flash deflectors which can help. Here are two - the left one is a Nissin i40 flash, and the right one an Olympus FL-LM2, the little one that you get with the camera. The tubes are made from an A4 sheet of glossy photo paper, glossy side in, sellotaped to fit over the flash head and with a drooping end to reflect the flash down at roughtly the end of the macro lens. Seems to work OK, but you do get directional light unless you use further reflectors to bounce some back to the "dark side" of the subject. |
Dec 6th |
 |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Ah, you just skipped the M1ii then, which I have. If they'd upped the pixel count in the sensor I might have been tempted as well, but am now waiting to see if there'll be an M1iv from the new owners. |
Dec 6th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Actually, Ord is a Scottish name, and Yorkshire people give Scots a run for their money in being "canny", or so they say. I deny it absolutely!
I'm much of a DIYer too, but I liked these young chaps developing a business by crowdfunding and so helped, after deciding not to buy an Olympus macro flash. I'm awaiting a couple of their flash arms which have been on "order" for nearly a year, Covid has put their release way back. The current arms aren't perfect, but are good. My biggest criticism is that the arms aren't as bendy as I would like, and the lights are not as bright as I'd like (even the superbright ones). |
Dec 5th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Yes, I was unclear, sorry. Never mind, people can see them all! |
Dec 5th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Your picture shouts "mono" at me. It might convert well.
Nice texture and pattern. The bright highlights area bit distracting to me. |
Dec 5th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
Well, if you are following the discussion on the Bulletin Board, then strictly speaking, it doesn't! But I don't mind, rules are made for bending if the result is as good as this. Lovely.
Don't say you've deserted Olympus !?!?! |
Dec 5th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
A nice picture, Barbara. Taking pictures with water drops in is difficult to avoid reflections.I've tried using a polariser to suppress these. It's not a panacea, but it does help. Even ring flashes or ring lights don't guarantee a lack of reflections.
The very centre is a bit soft - maybe f16 or f22 and full power flash would help this. Well done for getting the flash on the subject - did you use a reflector? |
Dec 5th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
An interesting picture, Tom. A sense of scale is important, I think, as most people wouldn't know what an optical fibre is like.
I worked on a project for some time on optical fibres about 20 years ago, trying to help Cornel Glass with better coating techniques at their plant near here. The fibre is mainly a protective polymer coating (applied onto the fibre (as it is made) as a liquid, then cured by UV light). The glass itself is a high refractive index core with a lower refractive index disk outside the core. The core is only a few microns in diameter. The signal, laser light, goes down the core and is kept in the core by total internal reflection. ie if it tries to escape, the changing refractive index acts like a mirror and reflects it back into the core. It's amazing to me how much faster these are than copper cables. We live in the countryside and can get 80MB/sec via optic fibres to a nearby hub and then by copper to our house. We choose a slower service which seems enough, about 40MB/sec, and pay £40/month ($50/month).
Your setup works well. I use a mixture of my DIY LED lights and Adaptalux. Whatever works! My Adaptalux was more expensive, about £400 I think, but I do have 5 lighting arms.
That f45 always makes me jealous!
|
Dec 5th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Thanks, Barbara. I don't really like taking photos of bugs, so I have to look for other small interesting things. I guess there's more around than we realise! |
Dec 5th |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Reply |
Thanks, Carol. Some balls are blurred on the lower mag photo, guess I should have made a bigger stack, although choosing how many images to merge let's you decide on the depth of field and I like to exercise that option sometimes. The central one in the high mag image is a little blurred in the centre and I thought that it was a software artefact. But your comment made me look again and I found 2 problems - a blurry photo which might have been a test shot before I took the stack. So I re-merged, excluding that one, and got a clearer result. There was still an area which was little blurred and I think that was due to me being a bit casual about incrementing the camera. I've tried to fix it with a bit ogf cloning. So I'll put that here - is that better to you? |
Dec 5th |
 |
| 95 |
Dec 20 |
Comment |
I can't have been clear with my email to Bill. My image this month is the top right one (highest magnification) and the others were for explanation. |
Dec 5th |
7 comments - 12 replies for Group 95
|
14 comments - 18 replies Total
|
