Revisit On Recent Work

[nickjohnson]

I've been revising some recent work – now that I have a proper workstation. C&C please. Thanks for looking.

#1 5D 17mm f11 @1/50sec ISO 100 – on a tripod.



#2 5D 24mm f11 @1/80sec ISO 400



#3 5D 22mm f11 @1/500sec ISO 400



#4 5D 28mm f11 @1/160sec ISO 400

[Antonio Correia]

They are all very nice indeed but the one I like best is the last one.

Reviewing... I also like the first one very much.

[nickjohnson]

Thank you!
A few more to look at.

#5 5D 400mm f8 @1/640sec ISO 400



#6 5D 24mm f11 @1/500sec ISO 400



#7 5D 24mm f11 @1/30sec ISO 400

[jiro]

A lot of good shots coming from you, here Nick. I see a lot of potential on the first image you posted. I really like the way you incorporated the rock on the lower right to show depth on the image. I wish the bush right in front of the ferns on the foreground is not that prominent. If this was my shot, I would probably try to find a better angle to lessen its presence inside the frame. If that is not possible, then I might resort to cloning it out in PP later.

Looking at the histogram of the first image, I think you can still add some extra contrast to make the image pop. I would really love to see the green area near the horizon as my center of interest or as the main subject so I would make it lighter or brighter. I would also darken the surrounding so I can guide the viewers attention to the green fields. Here is one possible edit on your first image based on the idea that I have in my mind if you may, Nick. I hope I did not offend you by editing one of your work.

[Barry]

It is always nice to go back at look at your earlier images, and to rework them as you have leant new techniques, and I think Jiro has just proved that with your first image which I also liked.

[nickjohnson]

Jiro, thanks for the comments and the illustration. I understand what you say about the prominent field needing to be – well – more prominent. I may give that a bit of a go. In general I have to say that your edit looks way over processed to me. There is too much contrast, which makes parts of the image too dark, which makes the whole thing too saturated – at lest for me.
Now what we are talking about here is opinion rather than technical rights or wrongs. For me – with this type of colour image – one needs to be very careful about local (rather than global) adjustments. As soon as a local adjustment is as obvious as yours here , the integrity of the image is broken – and with it – the representation of reality. If you look at your edit closely I think you can see that the overall light levels are about what one might expect to see after sunset – e.g. twilight. However, the sun is some way from setting so it actually looks wrong – from a realism perspective. Can you see that?
I suppose that the fact that I was there and you where not is both a curse and a boon for both of us.

[jiro]

Your comments are very valid, Nick. I am not a purist per se as it is evident on most of my work. I create my own reality based on the image (or vision) of the scene I saw in my mind. I can be as technical as I could when it comes to "correcting" an image. However, based on my experience, my "technically correctly processed" image would fall short in creating an interaction with my prospective viewers if the emotion on my image is not there. Bringing out the emotion from an image involves many variables. At times, even a small change in contrast is all it needs to make a powerful impact compared to the SOOC shot. But on typical cases, even the most highly regarded photographers out there admit that they apply numerous adjustments to their work to bring out the emotion that they want to share to the viewers. One example of this would be Vincent Versace, David Duchemin, Damien Lovegrove, Jeff Ascough, and others. I am not encouraging a lengthy discussion here. What I want to share is that most of the time, having a definite vision even before pressing the shutter button of my camera gives me all the creative freedom I need to bring out that image and doing it by using my camera and post-processing skills helps a lot.

At the moment I saw your first image, I immediately saw this image (the result of the post-processing I did on your shot) in my mind and it only took me 15 minutes to do all those adjustments because my "vision" is guiding me. What I saw was an image of a setting sun illuminating a certain portion of the field. It may not be the case at the time you took the shot but for me that is how I interpreted it. That is why I said that kindly be not offended on the edit because that is how I imagined it would be. I am also not insisting that you accept my edit as the correct one. I am merely sharing my opinion and idea about one possible edit on your subject. Kindly accept my sincere apology if you have been offended.

As for the technical side of editing, a small levels adjustment is all you need to maximize your camera's exposure range (or sensor dynamic range as what some calls it) since you do not have true black level areas on your image. Thank you very much for the nice discussion.

[nickjohnson]

Dear jiro,
First of all please understand that I am in no way offended by your edit or your words. I should be very foolish to be offended by someone offering a viewpoint and putting in a considerable effort to illustrate their point. This especially so since it was I who asked for comments in the first place.

It is clear that – on this image at least – our view of what we wish to present to our viewer is some way apart. That situation is healthy, and to be expected. At the very least we have given ourselves the opportunity to respectfully understand where we don't agree.

Regarding true black. It may be helpful to remember the wide variability of the maximum black that our audience experiences as part of their viewing experience. I deliberately tend to be cautious – for fear of rendering my images with large areas of absolute black – rather than the shadow detail that I intended.

[nickjohnson]

Some more ......


#8 5D 17mm f11 @1/800sec ISO 400



#9 5D 400mm f8 @1/1600sec ISO 400



#10 5D 400mm f8 @1/200sec ISO 400



#11 5D 40mm f11 @1/60sec ISO 400

[Antonio Correia]

Image number 8, the 1.st of this set, is impressive and makes me wonder what is that ? A sculpture ?
However, the image doesn't have that touch, that richness of details and tones I have seen before in other of your photos like the 4.th of the first set for example.
-
The image of the wind-surfer is nice and well composed.
-
Photo number 10 makes me clearly remember the style you have used before on the 5.th. Personally, I think that is good.
I have always thought to take landscapes - or scenes like these - from far away with long focal lens. They - the lenses - make us to see differently because of their focal length. Maje us to see at the distance. The further I have experimented was with the 20D+1,4 multiplier+70-200 what is not that bad but - shame on me - at the time I was not aware of the power of such a combination.
You did a nice work again.
I wouldn't have "placed" the seagull over there but that is just an option.
-
The 11.th is a nice reflection with perhaps a bit of lack of detail or brightness at the lower part but I begin to see that this is - perhaps - your style.
-
May I sugest something ? Well to sugest yes I can, but you to follow is something different ;D
You post 4 images in a row. Wouldn't it be better to post one at a time ? Wouldn't people be more ... shall I say dedicated to the critic and appreciation of one instead of 4 at the same time ? Unless they were related somehow. Oh, OK just a thought... Forget it !

[nickjohnson]

Dec 30, 2011 15:56:04 GMT Antonio Correia said:

-
May I sugest something ? Well to sugest yes I can, but you to follow is something different ;D
You post 4 images in a row. Wouldn't it be better to post one at a time ? Wouldn't people be more ... shall I say dedicated to the critic and appreciation of one instead of 4 at the same time ? Unless they were related somehow. Oh, OK just a thought... Forget it !

Thanks for your review Antonio. I think you are right about the muli-post. For this type of work I will post a single batch (say 4 images) from now on.

[Barry]

I like image number 8 (Angel of the North), good composition, showing just enough of the wing to let us know what it is, good exposure with no burnt out areas whilst still retaining detail in the shadow area.
Image 9 is especially special to me being a power-kite user myself, you have caught the action well with the inclusion of those white waves.
I like the lines in image 10, this was well spotted, I felt that the seagull makes for a goof focal point.
Image 11 just does not work for me, although the upper third may had worked better as a image in itself.

[nickjohnson]

Thanks for your comments Barry. I think your probably right about #11 - some (lots?) of folks will see this as two images rather than the single one I intended. I maybe tried to do too much in one hit .... yet again!

[chrisc]

I cannot say that there was really any one thing that particularly bothered me about the first one other than it seemed a bit dull in the foreground. I toyed with playing with it for a few and wasn't going to until Willie's edit. I think Willie hit on part of that little nag I had, though like yourself, I thiink he did tend to oversaturate it a tad too much.

I merely added a layer mask and built in some highlight colors to the foreground, as if it was getting just a touch of light from the distand setting sun. I didn't apply it everywhere as I was really looking for more a subtle hint...not even sure it is really noticeable.

[nickjohnson]

Thanks Chris. I can see what you mean. Within the limitation of your having to edit a jpeg - it's just a tiny bit - just a hint. But it doe's lift the foreground a treat. Food for though and further work. BTW this was one of the images I had in mind for use of GND filter - especially a reverse model.