Blow-out correction
tony cooper
To the Photoshop users here....
In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
too fine to do a selection on.
I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
can't figure it out. Maybe something else.
Any technique suggestions?
Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Thomas
I would suggest you post this to the PS groups instead, and will be
interested to see more expert answers than mine. In the meantime, here
is my amateur opinion. (I'm assuming you don't have a better original
(eg a raw file)...?)
It's a nice looking shot and it's a pity you/whoever didn't grab two
images, one for the building, one for the sky..
There are some close-to-insurmountable problems with trying to ease the
burning sensation:
1. There just doesn't appear to be any usable detail in the lost areas
in any channels, be they RGB or LAB... if there was, then yes, you can
selectively duplicate detail from one channel into others.
2. The scene wouldn't be easy to fix even if there was some usable data
- the foliage, the lamp, the detailed bits of building would all need to
be watched/selected/layer-erased out depending on your approach. Plus
that flare that extends over the side of the building will somehow have
to be balanced against whatever you do - a pasted blue/grey sky would be
awkward and just not look right, imo, and you still have no building
details.
I had a quick go at a simple duplicate layer, curved down a bit and then
selective erasure, but it just didn't look like I was heading anywhere
useful...
How about a radical suggestion? I experimented a bit with the curves
and then channel mixing it to monochrome, and the burning seemed much
less of an issue, partly by making it look as if you had gone for
deliberate contrast.. "I meant to do that!"
Floyd L. Davidson
>To the Photoshop users here....
>
>In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
>
>the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
>of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
That is exactly the case. It is blown out. You *can't*
get any detail to show in that no matter what you do.
The white in that area has a grand total of 3 levels!
(253, 254 and 255). There simply is no detail.
>Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
>I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
>without negatively affecting the non-white parts.
I'm not sure what you mean by "toning that white down".
If you just want it to be a shade of grey, rather than
white, that can be done easily enough. But it is still
*all* going to be just one shade (posterized, if you
will), and there just is no texture in it at all.
I suppose though, that you could use a gradient and have
to top part remain pure white and let it smoothly
transition to something a wee bit darker lower down. I
didn't actually try doing that. But one weird thing I
did try, that gives some really odd effects (not exactly
realistic though) was adjusting the color of all that
white (actually, changing the color of the posterized
layer) to various shades like pink, orange, and yellow.
...
>Any technique suggestions?
>
>Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
I'm not familiar with those. But can give you a generic
description that uses layers. Duplicate the layer, then
use whatever facilities you have to posterize the copy
layer. Roughly, everything below a level of 253 can be
made black, and everything above that can be made white
(or just left alone if you have the ability to do that).
If you have a "threshold" tool, that will do it. Or I
suppose you can use curves and put the black level at
252, which would do it too!
You can then use that layer as a mask. Invert it if you
like, or use it as is.
Personally, I don't think anything you do to it will
improve it. Making all that pure white into some shade
of pure gray just looks really ugly for the most part.
Plain old blown out pure white may not be what you'd
like to see, but...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
tony cooper
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>Just to show I do sometimes do more than play with trolls.. (O:
>
>tony cooper wrote:
>> To the Photoshop users here....
>>
>> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
>>
>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
>> of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
>>
>> Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
>> I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
>> without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
>> area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
>> affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
>> that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
>> too fine to do a selection on.
>>
>> I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
>> can't figure it out. Maybe something else.
>>
>> Any technique suggestions?
>>
>> Note: Photoshop 7.0, not a CS version.
>>
>I would suggest you post this to the PS groups instead, and will be
>interested to see more expert answers than mine. In the meantime, here
>is my amateur opinion. (I'm assuming you don't have a better original
>(eg a raw file)...?)
I did, but I didn't cross-post. I hate to drag people from one group
to another. Some don't play well together.
>It's a nice looking shot and it's a pity you/whoever didn't grab two
>images, one for the building, one for the sky..
Normally, I shoot with a Nikon D40. This was taken with a Nikon P2
point and shoot; my pocket camera. We took a walk around the block
after lunch and I was too lazy to go to the car's trunk and get my
D40.
If I see a scene that I think will make a good photograph, I tend to
over-shoot. I'll change angles and change f-stop and change the focus
point. In this case, there were two facing sets of steps in this
Savannah house. Here's the other set:
http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannahsteps.jpg
In this image, the problem is at the upper left. The cornice is
washed out on the corner. I can work on that, but I haven't yet.
The thing is, though, the purpose of my post of the other image was to
tap the knowledge of others in how to correct problems in images. Not
to have it done for me, but to learn which steps to use. I'm pretty
proficient with Photoshop (v 7.0), but there's always something more
to learn. I'm working at improving my use of adjustment layers in
Channels, but I'm not up to speed yet.
I like to fiddle with images. For this shot, for example, in another
version I've added a layer blended with Multiply, pulled down the
opacity to 40%, and I get a deeper, richer yellow wall.
Mark Thomas
>>>
>>> Any technique suggestions?
>>>
>> I would suggest you post this to the PS groups instead...
>
> I did, but I didn't cross-post. I hate to drag people from one group
> to another. Some don't play well together.
Very ture - that's good and I shall watch the other thread/s with interest.
>
>> It's a nice looking shot and it's a pity you/whoever didn't grab two
>> images, one for the building, one for the sky..
>
> Normally, I shoot with a Nikon D40. This was taken with a Nikon P2
> point and shoot; my pocket camera. We took a walk around the block
> after lunch and I was too lazy to go to the car's trunk and get my
> D40.
>
> If I see a scene that I think will make a good photograph, I tend to
> over-shoot. I'll change angles and change f-stop and change the focus
> point.
Given the limited dynamic range of the P2, maybe it might be an idea to
use exposure bracketing for these sort of images, if it has it.. (I too
have tiny Ricoh carry around and it does, but it also has worse dr
performance, so maybe that is just an acknowledgment..!).
I don't mean to try to teach the wise (I too still get these shots
wrong, despite knowing better!), but your in-built exposure sensor (aka
'brain') needs to be able to recognise these scenes and the warning
bells should go off - "Bzzzt - my camera probably won't handle that
exposure range!"
> In this case, there were two facing sets of steps in this
> Savannah house. Here's the other set:
>
> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannahsteps.jpg
hahah, Snap! It's a pity *one* of them doesn't have a decent
background, and you could simply reverse it and paste it in!
> The thing is, though, the purpose of my post of the other image was to
> tap the knowledge of others in how to correct problems in images. Not
> to have it done for me, but to learn which steps to use. I'm pretty
> proficient with Photoshop (v 7.0), but there's always something more
> to learn. I'm working at improving my use of adjustment layers in
> Channels, but I'm not up to speed yet.
>
> I like to fiddle with images. For this shot, for example, in another
> version I've added a layer blended with Multiply, pulled down the
> opacity to 40%, and I get a deeper, richer yellow wall.
Sounds like you are about where I am with PS.. Enough knowledge to be
dangerous, and to realise that there probably is a better way to do
(insert task)... Like I said, I'll watch the other thread with some
interest.
tony cooper
Davidson) wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>To the Photoshop users here....
>>
>>In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
>>
>>the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
>>of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
>
>That is exactly the case. It is blown out. You *can't*
>get any detail to show in that no matter what you do.
>The white in that area has a grand total of 3 levels!
>(253, 254 and 255). There simply is no detail.
>
>>Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
>>I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
>>without negatively affecting the non-white parts.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "toning that white down".
>If you just want it to be a shade of grey, rather than
>white, that can be done easily enough. But it is still
>*all* going to be just one shade (posterized, if you
>will), and there just is no texture in it at all.
>
Thanks for the suggestions, but I've given up on that image.
Instead, I'm using
http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannahsteps.jpg This photo is blown
out on the upper left, especially the cornice corner and the top of
the lamp post. I'm not sure what caused that, but it could be that
the camera's metering system took in only the lower area of the steps.
I didn't have my dslr with me, and used my Nikon P2 P&S.
I don't know if you are familiar with Savannah (Georgia) architecture.
Many of the older houses in the historic area have the main entrance
on the second floor. This was to prevent the family quarters from
being flooded if the river rose. The first floor (in the American
sense of "first floor") was the kitchen area.
This particular house had two matching, curved staircases that faced
each other across a flagstone terrace in front. I shot both.
The Savannah historic district is a photographer's dream and a
photographer's nightmare. Fantastic architecture, unique
architectural detail, and interesting scenes all over the place. But
the streets are narrow, the houses are tall, and there are spreading,
mature trees on every street. This leaves what you want to shoot
shrouded in shadow any time of day. Not just shadow, but streaks of
shadow and streaks of sunlight coming in through gaps.
You see this great window with aged and flaking paint, hand-blown
glass panes, and wrought iron shutter brackets...and there's a
whacking great shadow pattern across it.
I like photographing city architecture, though.
Ron Hunter
Blown out is blown out. It means, simply put, that there is no data to
correct. The only alternative is to replace the area with the same data
from a shot that is not blown out, and that is pretty tedious, when
possible.
Paul Furman
The blown sky can't be fixed, maybe somewhat with a raw file... the one
simple thing I would do is remove that blue fringing at the edge of the
leaves. Curiously, I did that by making an adjustment layer for
saturation and selecting blues only, cranked the saturation all the way
down and the offending fringes disappeared without hardly any effect on
the rest of the image. I was planning to erase the adjustment layer
outside that area and surprised how little relevance that had.
The next thing I tried was to lift the shadows with a curves adjustment
layer... my curve lifts the shadows on the left side then uses another
control point to correct that lift on the rest at the 1/4 mark, then
another control point at the 3/4 mark to straighten the remainder a tiny
bit darker than the straight line.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
tony cooper
Dave, in a Photoshop newsgroup, came up with an interesting solution.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yvnnxq&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1
He changed the building in the background from white to yellow. This
doesn't repair the blown-out details, but it fools the eye because the
contrast between the main subject and the background is less stark.
You don't notice the blown-out area as much.
It's an interesting solution, and one I had not thought of. It's one
of those tricks that I'll keep in mind for some future project.
I might make that yellow a little more mustardy and soft, and I don't
care for the green version, but the real value of Dave's suggestion is
that it's the type of out-of-the-box thinking that we can file away
and try on other things.
In case anyone comments that the shade of yellow makes the building
too bright, consider that it's technique - not final results - that's
the lesson. Technique can be modified by the user and final results
can change.
(Dave listed the steps he used in alt.graphics.photoshop if anyone's
interested.)
Alan Browne
Re-shoot. Get the right side of the histogram inside the box. Even if
the shot looks underexposed in the field, you'll be able to curve it at
home. Shoot raw to maximize you possibilities.
In photoshop CS3 you can mask on color and then fill. Not sure about
'junior' versions. The effect is not that great, but better than FFFFFF
in your shot.
A couple years ago I shot some black trains in Colorado. To bring out
the details in the trains I over exposed by about 2/3 of a stop.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
Re-shoot. Get the right side of the histogram inside the box. Even if
the shot looks underexposed in the field, you'll be able to curve it at
home. Shoot raw to maximize you possibilities.
In photoshop CS3 you can mask on color and then fill. Not sure about
'junior' versions. The effect is not that great, but better than FFFFFF
in your shot.
A couple years ago I shot some black trains in Colorado. To bring out
the details in the trains I over exposed by about 2/3 of a stop. This
worked fine, but in shots that included the sky the blues were killed
and the clouds plain blotches.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> To the Photoshop users here....
>>
>> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
>>
>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
>> of the white building is bad, bad, bad.
>>
>> Using Photoshop v. 7.0....
>> I've tried various ways of toning that white down, but I can't do it
>> without negatively affecting the non-white parts. Selecting that
>> area, and using "Replace Color", I can tone down the white, but that
>> affects the leaves, branches, and street light. I can do a selection
>> that omits the street light, but those leaves and branches are just
>> too fine to do a selection on.
>>
>> I have a hunch I can do something in Lab Mode using channels, but I
>> can't figure it out. Maybe something else.
>>
>> Any technique suggestions?
>
>Re-shoot. Get the right side of the histogram inside the box. Even if
>the shot looks underexposed in the field, you'll be able to curve it at
>home. Shoot raw to maximize you possibilities.
As explained in other posts, the shot was taken in Savannah, Georgia.
I live in Orlando, Florida. Mapquest says that's over a 4 hour drive,
but Mapquest doesn't factor in restroom and meal stops.
As explained in other posts, the shot was taken with a Nikon P2
because I was too lazy to walk back to the car and get my D40 out of
the trunk. P2s don't shoot raw.
>In photoshop CS3 you can mask on color and then fill. Not sure about
>'junior' versions. The effect is not that great, but better than FFFFFF
>in your shot.
As explained in other posts, I use Photoshop v 7.0 and don't own CS3.
Alan Browne
> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken in Savannah, Georgia.
> I live in Orlando, Florida. Mapquest says that's over a 4 hour drive,
> but Mapquest doesn't factor in restroom and meal stops.
>
> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken with a Nikon P2
> because I was too lazy to walk back to the car and get my D40 out of
> the trunk. P2s don't shoot raw.
> As explained in other posts, I use Photoshop v 7.0 and don't own CS3.
What makes you think I read the other posts? I read and reply in
posting order.
I guess your take from this should be:
1. When in high DR, it pays to under expose. Blown highlights are gone;
underexposure can be raised, if at the expense of some noise.
2. When in high DR, it pays to shoot raw and under expose. More of 1
above. Dump the P2. Keep your D40 (relatively small) handy.
3. When shooting something worth shooting it pays to use the right
camera and technique (see 1 and 2 above).
As to PS 7, I don't know if it can do the same functions, that is up to
you to find out. I just suggested the means to do so and that AFAIK the
result will not be terribly pleasing.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken in Savannah, Georgia.
>> I live in Orlando, Florida. Mapquest says that's over a 4 hour drive,
>> but Mapquest doesn't factor in restroom and meal stops.
>>
>> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken with a Nikon P2
>> because I was too lazy to walk back to the car and get my D40 out of
>> the trunk. P2s don't shoot raw.
>
>> As explained in other posts, I use Photoshop v 7.0 and don't own CS3.
>
>What makes you think I read the other posts? I read and reply in
>posting order.
I assume you do, and probably rightly so. It's unlikely that you just
randomly select a post to read and not read others. It is likely that
you might skip posts entered by known trolls, though.
>I guess your take from this should be:
>
>1. When in high DR, it pays to under expose. Blown highlights are gone;
>underexposure can be raised, if at the expense of some noise.
>
>2. When in high DR, it pays to shoot raw and under expose. More of 1
>above. Dump the P2. Keep your D40 (relatively small) handy.
>
>3. When shooting something worth shooting it pays to use the right
>camera and technique (see 1 and 2 above).
>
No, Alan, my take is that I think I have an interesting problem of
blown highlights in a photograph that might otherwise be interesting.
Not great, but interesting. That take prompts me to offer the image
for discussion.
My take is also that some people enjoy figuring out how to bolt the
barn door after the horse is gone by using Photoshop. I can't imagine
that there's any active photographer in this group who hasn't taken an
image thinking at the time that he's done it right, and finding out
later that there's a problem in the photo. I can't imagine that
there's any active photographer in this group who has not been in the
position of seeing an interesting scene but not having the right
equipment with him at the time. It happens.
My take is that some will read this and participate in the discussion
with helpful suggestions, some who will read this and would rather go
do battle with the resident trolls, and some who will read this and
make useless suggestions like "dump the P2" and "use the right
equipment".
What do you want out of this newsgroup, Alan? Endless discussions
about P&S capabilities, a series of character attacks on the other
posters, a bigoted commentary about homosexuals, or more dreary
side-taking on Nikon vs Canon?
Or, would you rather have a discussion about an actual digital image
that didn't work out right and what can be done about it? If this is
your choice, provide meaningful commentary or go on to what interests
you.
Alan Browne
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:46:43 -0500, Alan Browne
>> I guess your take from this should be:
>>
>> 1. When in high DR, it pays to under expose. Blown highlights are gone;
>> underexposure can be raised, if at the expense of some noise.
>>
>> 2. When in high DR, it pays to shoot raw and under expose. More of 1
>> above. Dump the P2. Keep your D40 (relatively small) handy.
>>
>> 3. When shooting something worth shooting it pays to use the right
>> camera and technique (see 1 and 2 above).
>>
>
> No, Alan, my take is that I think I have an interesting problem of
> blown highlights in a photograph that might otherwise be interesting.
> Not great, but interesting. That take prompts me to offer the image
> for discussion.
This is not so much blown highlights as entire portions of an image that
are void of information.
> My take is also that some people enjoy figuring out how to bolt the
> barn door after the horse is gone by using Photoshop. I can't imagine
> that there's any active photographer in this group who hasn't taken an
> image thinking at the time that he's done it right, and finding out
> later that there's a problem in the photo. I can't imagine that
> there's any active photographer in this group who has not been in the
> position of seeing an interesting scene but not having the right
> equipment with him at the time. It happens.
Mature, experienced photographers recognize when a photo is beyond
reasonable recovery in photoshop. Your photo is not worth much time.
I've made similar and for that matter much worse, took my lesson and
moved on.
> What do you want out of this newsgroup, Alan? Endless discussions
> about P&S capabilities, a series of character attacks on the other
> posters, a bigoted commentary about homosexuals, or more dreary
> side-taking on Nikon vs Canon?
Tony, yes, it's absolutely and entirely my fault that you took a crappy
shot and are hoping to recover completely blown highlights (eg: No
recoverable detail) into an acceptable photo.
Where we discuss PS here it is in the domain of the 'possible' not the
domain of creating something from nothing.
Dump your P&S camera and use your D40. That will give you a lot more
chances in marginal conditions.
> Or, would you rather have a discussion about an actual digital image
> that didn't work out right and what can be done about it? If this is
> your choice, provide meaningful commentary or go on to what interests
> you.
You're missing the point.
You want to recover a seriously blown out photo. You can:
1. Spend many hours to do something in PS that may be satisfactory.
This means inventing detail because absolutely no detail was recorded.
It was completely and irrevocably burned out of the image.
2. You can look for a magic solution (there is none).
3. You can accept the fundamental lesson that if you want a higher take
level then it begins at the moment you record the data.
The majority of people here are _photographers_ not photoshop jockeys.
We use photoshop as a tool to present a photo well taken with a minimum
of repair because we (at least try to) take technically adequate if not
superior images. We also dump the dogs.
And from my dealings with people who compose advertising and corporate
art and who know photoshop inside and out, I can assure you that they
look for quality inputs for their quality outputs. They do not waste
time with poor stock.
And neither should you. In the time you will take to 'recover' the
image you could be out in the street in sunny warm Florida making
another hundred images with a higher level of care.
John McWilliams
It shows! Both examples are unsalvageable as to "properly exposed", but
are good shots as is, the first more so than the second. You could crop
in to the lamppost to remove a bit more of the blown area. The second
one has the lamp itself overexposed.
Just hafta go back and reshoot in more favorable light for those angles!
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken in Savannah, Georgia.
>> I live in Orlando, Florida. Mapquest says that's over a 4 hour drive,
>> but Mapquest doesn't factor in restroom and meal stops.
>>
>> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken with a Nikon P2
>> because I was too lazy to walk back to the car and get my D40 out of
>> the trunk. P2s don't shoot raw.
>
>> As explained in other posts, I use Photoshop v 7.0 and don't own CS3.
>
> What makes you think I read the other posts? I read and reply in
> posting order.
Just what is that? Reading in threaded view would have given you most of
the info to have obviated most of that reply.
--
john mcwilliams
Alan Browne
John, John, John, ... usenet is a conversation.
Paul Furman
> In article <tukth4lg2usi4ji54...@4ax.com>,
> tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> To those who are interested in this project...
>>
>> Dave, in a Photoshop newsgroup, came up with an interesting solution.
>> http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yvnnxq&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1
>>
>> He changed the building in the background from white to yellow. This
>> doesn't repair the blown-out details, but it fools the eye because the
>> contrast between the main subject and the background is less stark.
>> You don't notice the blown-out area as much.
>
>
>
> I used "Replace Color" and selected the whitest part. Then tuned the
> fuzziness so it only included the blown out part.
>
> Then I adjusted the hue and saturation to make it a color but didn't
> like any of it.
>
> Actually it *should* be blown out, it's part of the bokeh
The building isn't blown, only the blue channel is pushing the edge of
the histogram if you select that area only in PS. Well.. hmm, neither is
the sky blown according to that... maybe some in-camera anti-blowout
work already being done? Anyways I agree it's alright as is more or less.
Pat
I don't have time to play with pictures today :-( but if I were
approaching either of your pictures, I think I would create a new
layer. Then I would convert the new layer to B&W. Then I would play
with levels and contrast to get a VERY contrasty image with every
piece of data that you have pushed to black. Just the completely
blown out sections as white. Then on the B&W layer I would hand-draw
in whatever lines you need to complete window frames, etc. etc. I
would then cut out the black areas where there is data leaving just
black areas where you need to fix the image. I would then play around
with the B&W layer on top of and under the image and play around until
you get something that looks decent. The black should end up the
appropriate level of misty gray.
Option 2 would be to create a window where the data is missing. Go to
another, similar building from the same area and take the exterior of
the other building and use that to create detail in the image.
John McWilliams
You are joking, right? Or have you not read any other reply in this thread?
--
john mcwilliams
Pat
I don't understand your statement. Sure the guy blew the picture and
the bulk of the posters are having fun blasting him for it. I guess
that's good fun for some. But he didn't ask people how to bad his
photos were, he asked for some help on fixing photos that he really
can't re-take. So all of the suggestions to retake this or bracket
that might be great for the next time, but it doesn't help the here
and now.
I've blown pictures before and I'm sure you have to. Sometimes you
just have to play the hand that's dealt to you. I mean who hasn't
cloned a bit of pavement to get rid of a pothole or a mirage? Who
hasn't cloned some brick to fill in the spot where a telephone photo
was? Who hasn't spent hours spotting out negatives trying to fix the
problem by making negative masks and inter-negs?
No solutions are perfect but there are ways to enhance what's there.
I think that's what he was originally look for, not just criticism and
suggestions for the future.
Pat
wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:46:43 -0500, Alan Browne
> >> I guess your take from this should be:
>
> >> 1. When in high DR, it pays to under expose. Blown highlights are gone;
> >> underexposure can be raised, if at the expense of some noise.
>
> >> 2. When in high DR, it pays to shoot raw and under expose. More of 1
> >> above. Dump the P2. Keep your D40 (relatively small) handy.
>
> >> 3. When shooting something worth shooting it pays to use the right
> >> camera and technique (see 1 and 2 above).
>
> > No, Alan, my take is that I think I have an interesting problem of
> > blown highlights in a photograph that might otherwise be interesting.
> > Not great, but interesting. That take prompts me to offer the image
> > for discussion.
>
> This is not so much blown highlights as entire portions of an image that
> are void of information.
Yes there are entire portions that are blown. So what. Blowing out a
sky to get a better exposure is often acceptable because it's easy to
replace a sky with a better sky. Then you can arrange your clouds,
etc. Window reflects are also nearly impossible not to blow out if
the sun is in the right position.
There are some fixes that are available. Why not concentrate on being
positive and offer suggestions as to how to fix the image in question
rather than making suggestions that don't help fix the problems.
Mark Thomas
Did you get out of bed on the wrong side, John?
I thought Pat's answer was quite useful, and gave a good explanation of
a very simple, if potentially time-consuming technique, that could be
useful in this case.
Hands up if you have never screwed up a shot similarly. My hand is down.
tony cooper
I think you misunderstand John's comment. I read it as pertaining to
the suggestion to re-take the image or take another shot of a similar
building in the same area and blend it in. John's read the other
posts that explained that I can't do that because the location of the
shot is quite distant from where I am now.
I don't feel anyone was critical of the photo itself. Most
concentrated on exactly what I brought up: correcting the one flawed
area.
Don't get me wrong. I don't expect accolades for the photo even if it
didn't have a flawed area. In my opinion, it's an interesting but not
great photo. It became more interesting to me as an exercise in
correction.
Alan's comment that good photographers take good pictures that don't
have flaws in them was a bit supercilious, but that's Alan. I think
most of us have taken the almost-right shot, and if that almost-right
shot was taken away from our home base then rescue efforts are useful.
You don't wait for an important shot to learn how to rescue. You
practice on any shot and learn the skills.
John McWilliams
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:29:01 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Pat wrote:
>>>> On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> To the Photoshop users here....
>>>>>
>>>>> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
I felt that all the bases had been covered, that with a JPEG from a
compact, given the size and circumstance, that there was really nothing
to be done in post processing that'd make a much better end result. So
it felt to me that Tony had his answers and then some.
Sorry to Pat if I came across as harsh.
--
john mcwilliams
Pat
Eeks. A newsgroup post that contains rational discussion and
civility. What will be next ??? I fear that this may lead to a
decline in civilization as we know it.
tony cooper
I plead guilty to attempting rational and polite discussion. It's
a character flaw on my part that I attribute to my upbringing. I was
taught that disagreement between parties can be an acceptable
condition, and that disagreement can result in mutual enlightenment.
Obviously, that has ill-prepared me for newsgroup participation. I
blame my parents.
John McWilliams
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:27:26 -0800 (PST), Pat
> <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 16, 10:47 am, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:29:01 +1000, Mark Thomas
>>>> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 9:20 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> To the Photoshop users here....
>>>>>>>> In this image: http://tonycooper.fileave.com/savannah%20020b.jpg
>>>>>>>> the upper-right corner has a lot of white blown-out. The third story
>>> << Snipped bits out >>
>>> I felt that all the bases had been covered, that with a JPEG from a
>>> compact, given the size and circumstance, that there was really nothing
>>> to be done in post processing that'd make a much better end result. So
>>> it felt to me that Tony had his answers and then some.
>>>
>>> Sorry to Pat if I came across as harsh.
>> Eeks. A newsgroup post that contains rational discussion and
>> civility. What will be next ??? I fear that this may lead to a
>> decline in civilization as we know it.
>
> I plead guilty to attempting rational and polite discussion. It's
> a character flaw on my part that I attribute to my upbringing. I was
> taught that disagreement between parties can be an acceptable
> condition, and that disagreement can result in mutual enlightenment.
>
> Obviously, that has ill-prepared me for newsgroup participation. I
> blame my parents.
Hey, you freakin' moron, you chillblane on the butt of trailer-trash,
you cretin of monstrous proportions, you realize he was complimenting ME
on the RESTRAINT AND CIVILITY I HAVE er, had. And I forgot to put all of
it in CAPS!
Yes, Tony, your parents are partly to blame, as are mine, may they r.i.p.
And, Pat, yes, usenet is dead, film at eleven- although not that type of
film....
--
john mcwilliams
tony cooper
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Hey, you freakin' moron, you chillblane on the butt of trailer-trash,
Look, you ill-educated blot of snot on my screen...the word is
"chilblain", and it affects the feet, fingers, and - occasionally -
the earlobes. Unless you have your head and your ears stuck far up
your ass, you can't have chilblains on your butt.
How'd I do? I think I successfully combined a personal insult with a
condescending touch of superiority in knowledge of medical
afflictions.
Pat
There we go. All is right with the world. All the moron and trolls
are back feeding off of each other and insulting the world with their
senseless dribble. Ahh. Sanity has returned.
At least no one has hijacked the thread and returned to the usual
banter that effects this newsgroup such as the superiority of one
camera system over another or some political B.S. that gets everyone
arguing opinion instead of facts. BTW, did any of you notice that the
pictures of Obama -- our soon-to-be first black president -- seem to
be noticeably better when shot with Canon cameras. It must be their
far superior sensors and outstanding lenses. And as for Palin,
nothing helps there, not even shooting in RAW can reach the depths of
her soulless aura. And what's up with RAW. How come people always
use RAW but don't use JPG and instead use jpg or .jpg. Is this some
subtle form of discrimination. But WHY DON"T WE JUST PUT EVERYTHING
IN CAPS?
With the newsgroup fixed, I guess I'll just have to decide what I am
buying myself for Christmas -- a P&S or a SLR. I think I'll get them
cheap because no one is buying many film cameras anymore. Boy, I LOVE
shooting film.
John McWilliams
Sweet! But: YOU FORGOT THE CAPS AND EXCLAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've not thought much about chillblains since a year in England eons
ago, but the concept of same on one's posterior was, uh, novel, thought I.
--
john mcwilliams
J. Clarke
Well, you were doing fine until you asked for a rating.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Mark Thomas
> ..moron.., trolls ..senseless dribble.
> Canon cameras... far superior sensors... outstanding lenses.
> Palin('s) soulless aura.
> And what's up with RAW. How come people always
> WHY DON"T WE JUST PUT EVERYTHING
> IN CAPS?
> Boy, I LOVE shooting film.
As you disruptive influences continue this flagrant abuse of the thread,
just remember which bits will be quoted in future...
(O:
Alan Browne
>>>> Alan's comment that good photographers take good pictures that don't
>>>> have flaws in them was a bit supercilious, but that's Alan. I think
That's not what I said. What I said was we strive to avoid these
errors, specifically:
"" You can accept the fundamental lesson that if you want a higher take
level then it begins at the moment you record the data. ""
and
"" We use photoshop as a tool to present a photo well taken with a
minimum of repair because we (at least try to) take technically adequate
if not superior images. ""
The above is PRECISELY what I wrote and NOT what you attributed to me.
Photographers generally have two goals when they depress the shutter:
asthetic and technical. With experience (including many errors of many
kinds in many situations) we learn to avoid, protect, correct, construe,
manipulate, change the time of the shoot, shade light, add fill,
whatever, to overcome the local conditions in order to capture a viable
image.
I also said that when crap happens, we take the lesson, swallow our
pride and move on.
We certainly don't blame others who can't fix our errors as you are wont
to do.
>>>> most of us have taken the almost-right shot, and if that almost-right
>>>> shot was taken away from our home base then rescue efforts are useful.
>>>> You don't wait for an important shot to learn how to rescue. You
>>>> practice on any shot and learn the skills.
There is NO POSSIBLE SKILL OTHER THAN INVENTING DETAIL TO FIX THAT
IMAGE. The data was blown to smithereens.
0xFFFFFF in RGB has no detail. None. Nada. Gone. Kablooie.
The patient is dead, Tony.
>>> I felt that all the bases had been covered, that with a JPEG from a
>>> compact, given the size and circumstance, that there was really nothing
>>> to be done in post processing that'd make a much better end result. So
>>> it felt to me that Tony had his answers and then some.
>>>
>>> Sorry to Pat if I came across as harsh.
>>>
>>> --
>>> john mcwilliams
>> Eeks. A newsgroup post that contains rational discussion and
>> civility. What will be next ??? I fear that this may lead to a
>> decline in civilization as we know it.
>
> I plead guilty to attempting rational and polite discussion. It's
> a character flaw on my part that I attribute to my upbringing. I was
> taught that disagreement between parties can be an acceptable
> condition, and that disagreement can result in mutual enlightenment.
>
> Obviously, that has ill-prepared me for newsgroup participation. I
> blame my parents.
Blame yourself. Just because you're not getting what you came for is
certainly not the fault of those telling you that there is no detail to
recover in perfectly blown highlights.
Your misrepresentation (above) of what I said was dishonest. Putting
words in my mouth to defend your pettiness is something I expect from a
spoiled 15 year old. I made it clear that I've made similar errors in
exposure and worse but I did not expect to be able to recover the
unrecoverable.
And I certainly never get upset at anyone else who can't fix what I broke.
Pat
wrote:
Okay, I'm confused. Are you on the sarcastic part of this thread or
are you being serious?
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>>>>> Alan's comment that good photographers take good pictures that don't
>>>>> have flaws in them was a bit supercilious, but that's Alan. I think
>
>That's not what I said. What I said was we strive to avoid these
>errors, specifically:
>
>"" You can accept the fundamental lesson that if you want a higher take
>level then it begins at the moment you record the data. ""
>
>"" We use photoshop as a tool to present a photo well taken with a
>minimum of repair because we (at least try to) take technically adequate
>if not superior images. ""
Yeah, right. A rather pretentious way of saying good photographers
don't take good pictures that don't have flaws in them.
>
>
>The above is PRECISELY what I wrote and NOT what you attributed to me.
>
>Photographers generally have two goals when they depress the shutter:
>asthetic and technical. With experience (including many errors of many
>kinds in many situations) we learn to avoid, protect, correct, construe,
>manipulate, change the time of the shoot, shade light, add fill,
>whatever, to overcome the local conditions in order to capture a viable
>image.
Oh, spare me this. I know what photographers do. Most of us don't do
it from such a high horse, though.
>I also said that when crap happens, we take the lesson, swallow our
>pride and move on.
>
>We certainly don't blame others who can't fix our errors as you are wont
>to do.
I've not blamed anyone - except myself - for anything.
>>>>> most of us have taken the almost-right shot, and if that almost-right
>>>>> shot was taken away from our home base then rescue efforts are useful.
>>>>> You don't wait for an important shot to learn how to rescue. You
>>>>> practice on any shot and learn the skills.
>
>There is NO POSSIBLE SKILL OTHER THAN INVENTING DETAIL TO FIX THAT
>IMAGE. The data was blown to smithereens.
You just don't get it, do you? Any image, no matter how bad, can
provide a useful exercise in learning about the tools available to
rescue images. It's not a matter of making this specific image into a
flawless image, but a matter of learning about what can be done to an
image.
The rest of the people who have participated in this thread have done
so in this spirit. They've offered suggestions on how to go about
improving the image. No one - including me - has taken the position
that the corrections make the image what it should have been had it
been shot right.
Some of us will pick up some techniques from the discussion that can
be applied to some other image. If you don't chose to go along with
this, that's fine. The topic was not introduced to please you.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to Pat if I came across as harsh.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> john mcwilliams
>>> Eeks. A newsgroup post that contains rational discussion and
>>> civility. What will be next ??? I fear that this may lead to a
>>> decline in civilization as we know it.
>>
>> I plead guilty to attempting rational and polite discussion. It's
>> a character flaw on my part that I attribute to my upbringing. I was
>> taught that disagreement between parties can be an acceptable
>> condition, and that disagreement can result in mutual enlightenment.
>>
>> Obviously, that has ill-prepared me for newsgroup participation. I
>> blame my parents.
>
>Blame yourself. Just because you're not getting what you came for is
>certainly not the fault of those telling you that there is no detail to
>recover in perfectly blown highlights.
I *did* get what I came for...some different Photoshop techniques.
None that work here, but some that will be considered for future use.
>
>Your misrepresentation (above) of what I said was dishonest. Putting
>words in my mouth to defend your pettiness is something I expect from a
>spoiled 15 year old. I made it clear that I've made similar errors in
>exposure and worse but I did not expect to be able to recover the
>unrecoverable.
Don't be such a stuffed shirt. I reported what your comments came
across as.
tony cooper
>Okay, I'm confused. Are you on the sarcastic part of this thread or
>are you being serious?
I don't think he recognized what was being done. It appears that he
actually thinks I was upset and not just going along with the joking
twist that John introduced.
tony cooper
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>The rest of the people who have participated in this thread have done
>so in this spirit. They've offered suggestions on how to go about
>improving the image. No one - including me - has taken the position
>that the corrections make the image what it should have been had it
>been shot right.
For anyone who is interested, there's a quite interesting discussion
of this going on in alt.graphics.photoshop. KatWoman did some truly
remarkable Photoshop magic. The area is still blown-out, but she's
made it much more palatable.
http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-b4-after263.jpg is her
rendition.
The image still doesn't make the cut as a good photograph, but it is
good to see that some people see it as a challenge to do what can be
done.
John McWilliams
Well done, Katwoman. I used to sub to the rec. photoshop group, and she
was always helpful and creative.
My recollection of a number of comments was that there weren't enough
pixels to work with, [obviously not in the blown out areas] in the
merely overexposed areas, due to the number of pixels captured and the
subsequent downsampling to the JPEG you presented.
I personally felt that the over exposure didn't detract all that much
from the overall image.
--
john mcwilliams
Paul Furman
Agreed on all points :-)
(looks like she did paint in the sky and clapboard texture)
Douglas Johnson
>> My take is also that some people enjoy figuring out how to bolt the
>> barn door after the horse is gone by using Photoshop. I can't imagine
>> that there's any active photographer in this group who hasn't taken an
>> image thinking at the time that he's done it right, and finding out
>> later that there's a problem in the photo. I can't imagine that
>> there's any active photographer in this group who has not been in the
>> position of seeing an interesting scene but not having the right
>> equipment with him at the time. It happens.
>
>Mature, experienced photographers recognize when a photo is beyond
>reasonable recovery in photoshop. Your photo is not worth much time.
>I've made similar and for that matter much worse, took my lesson and
>moved on.
Gee. Once upon a time, I took a shot with nearly blown highlights and got a lot
of useful advice from this group on how to recover it. I didn't even get many
lectures implying I wasn't a mature, experienced photographer.
If he likes it enough to try to recover it, and maybe learn something along the
way, your opinion of the value of it doesn't matter very much, does it?
-- Doug
Alan Browne
> Don't be such a stuffed shirt. I reported what your comments came
> across as.
No. You fabricated words in my name to support your hissy fit.
Alan Browne
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:23:54 -0500, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The rest of the people who have participated in this thread have done
>> so in this spirit. They've offered suggestions on how to go about
>> improving the image. No one - including me - has taken the position
>> that the corrections make the image what it should have been had it
>> been shot right.
>
> For anyone who is interested, there's a quite interesting discussion
> of this going on in alt.graphics.photoshop. KatWoman did some truly
> remarkable Photoshop magic. The area is still blown-out, but she's
> made it much more palatable.
> http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-b4-after263.jpg is her
> rendition.
Oh Bravo! The shutters (right) look like cartoons.
The 2nd balcony is well done, I'll give her that.
> The image still doesn't make the cut as a good photograph, but it is
> good to see that some people see it as a challenge to do what can be
> done.
Only if you learned how to do the same thing Tony. Did you?
Otherwise she wasted her time.
Send her at least $50.00 for her work.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:23:54 -0500, tony cooper
>> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The rest of the people who have participated in this thread have done
>>> so in this spirit. They've offered suggestions on how to go about
>>> improving the image. No one - including me - has taken the position
>>> that the corrections make the image what it should have been had it
>>> been shot right.
>>
>> For anyone who is interested, there's a quite interesting discussion
>> of this going on in alt.graphics.photoshop. KatWoman did some truly
>> remarkable Photoshop magic. The area is still blown-out, but she's
>> made it much more palatable.
>> http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08460/savannah-b4-after263.jpg is her
>> rendition.
>
>Oh Bravo! The shutters (right) look like cartoons.
>
>The 2nd balcony is well done, I'll give her that.
>
>> The image still doesn't make the cut as a good photograph, but it is
>> good to see that some people see it as a challenge to do what can be
>> done.
>
>Only if you learned how to do the same thing Tony. Did you?
>
I would not expect there to be a reason to do the same thing. That
would require taking a photograph that is otherwise interesting but
has a blown area that is partially obscured by other background and
has a setting where the background is only replaceable by similar
architecture and no other photograph is on file with similar
architecture. What are the odds?
Whew! What a sentence.
>Otherwise she wasted her time.
I doubt very much if she thinks so. Photoshoppers like challenges.
There's a self-reward in trying to come up with a way to do what seems
difficult. There's a bit of competitiveness in trying to accomplish
something better than other people can. There's a brag factor in
doing something that others have not done so well.
It's fairly common for photographers who also use Photoshop to spend
quite a bit of time on a photograph that will never be printed, never
be shown to anyone else, and will never end up as a prized photo. The
reward is in the process, not necessarily in the result.
In a way, it's similar to the mandates in the Shoot-In. In the
Shoot-In, the objective is to find a scene that meets some requirement
of shape or content. You aren't just looking for good photograph.
You are looking for a good photograph that meets some requirement.
There's a challenge involved.
Evidently, you don't understand this concept of responding to a
challenge just for the fun of it. That's OK, I don't understand why
people like karaoke bars, become Vegans, get bent out of shape over
brands of cameras, get tattoos, appear on shows like "Jerry Springer",
or go find pleasure in S&M sex.
However, I don't get snide over someone else's interest just because I
don't share it.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> Don't be such a stuffed shirt. I reported what your comments came
>> across as.
>
>No. You fabricated words in my name to support your hissy fit.
My exact comments were: "Alan's comment that good photographers take
good pictures that don't have flaws in them was a bit supercilious,
but that's Alan."
Hissy fit? I think not. Your reaction? Hissy fit? I think so.
Alan Browne
Horsecrap. You asked 'how' does one fix this?
(Specifically you asked: "" Any technique suggestions? "")
We idiot photographers said, 'dunno, toss the photo. Shoot better next
time.'
You found someone who COULD do it; but didn't learn how yourself.
Man!
Alan Browne
That's not what I was referring to as your general hissy fit. Now
you're into selective quoting. I guess that's a small improvement in
your behaviour over what really gets my goat.
And that is: I do get upset when people attribute sayings to me that I
never said.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:51:04 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't be such a stuffed shirt. I reported what your comments came
>>>> across as.
>>> No. You fabricated words in my name to support your hissy fit.
>>
>> My exact comments were: "Alan's comment that good photographers take
>> good pictures that don't have flaws in them was a bit supercilious,
>> but that's Alan."
>>
>> Hissy fit? I think not. Your reaction? Hissy fit? I think so.
>
>That's not what I was referring to as your general hissy fit.
Then what was?
Alan Browne
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:22:56 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:51:04 -0500, Alan Browne
>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't be such a stuffed shirt. I reported what your comments came
>>>>> across as.
>>>> No. You fabricated words in my name to support your hissy fit.
>>> My exact comments were: "Alan's comment that good photographers take
>>> good pictures that don't have flaws in them was a bit supercilious,
>>> but that's Alan."
>>>
>>> Hissy fit? I think not. Your reaction? Hissy fit? I think so.
>> That's not what I was referring to as your general hissy fit.
>
> Then what was?
What part of 'general' confuses you Tony?
Stop side stepping: You claimed I said something that I manifestly did not.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:22:56 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:51:04 -0500, Alan Browne
>>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't be such a stuffed shirt. I reported what your comments came
>>>>>> across as.
>>>>> No. You fabricated words in my name to support your hissy fit.
>>>> My exact comments were: "Alan's comment that good photographers take
>>>> good pictures that don't have flaws in them was a bit supercilious,
>>>> but that's Alan."
>>>>
>>>> Hissy fit? I think not. Your reaction? Hissy fit? I think so.
>>> That's not what I was referring to as your general hissy fit.
>>
>> Then what was?
>
>What part of 'general' confuses you Tony?
>
>Stop side stepping: You claimed I said something that I manifestly did not.
A "hissy fit" is a fit of pique; a tantrum. Like your reaction to me
reporting what your statement came across as. It is not side-stepping
an issue.
Clearly, you were referring to something else when you said "to
support your hissy fit". Where did I have any kind of tantrum?
How would you prefer that I interpret your statement? As: "Good
photographers *keep* only good pictures that don't have flaws in them
and don't bother doing any post-processing."? Is that closer? It's
certainly what it sounded like to me.
Personally, I think good photographers keep trying to improve their
skills both in-camera and in post-processing.
J. Clarke
If good photographers don't bother doing any post-processing then
Ansel Adams must have been a bumbling incompetent.
The trouble is that a lot of what in the digital age is considered to
be "post processing" was in the film era incidental to what one _had_
to do in order to get something that people could look at.
I suspect that many of these self-proclaimed "experts" would benefit a
great deal from some time spent cranking Tri-X through a Leica.
Alan Browne
>> Stop side stepping: You claimed I said something that I manifestly did not.
>
> A "hissy fit" is a fit of pique; a tantrum. Like your reaction to me
> reporting what your statement came across as. It is not side-stepping
> an issue.
Your first bit of frustrated hissy-fitism was your thrice use of lead
ins to sentences ... "As explained in other posts..."
Your second bit was your classic turnaround, "What do you want out of
this newsgroup..."
Accusing me of being supercilious and then "proving" that by claiming I
said something I did not...
(This is w/o going into your other posts in this thread).
And still you don't admit that you misquoted me. Pathetic.
> Clearly, you were referring to something else when you said "to
> support your hissy fit". Where did I have any kind of tantrum?
>
> How would you prefer that I interpret your statement? As: "Good
> photographers *keep* only good pictures that don't have flaws in them
> and don't bother doing any post-processing."? Is that closer? It's
> certainly what it sounded like to me.
I really don't care what it sounded like to you. What I meant was what
I wrote, not what you construed me to write.
> Personally, I think good photographers keep trying to improve their
> skills both in-camera and in post-processing.
Indeed. Which is why an early well known American landscape
photographer put a lot of emphasis on capture in his classic 3 major
step approach to using cameras, developing film and printing the result.
Each part inextricably linked to the others.
Alan Browne
>> Personally, I think good photographers keep trying to improve their
>> skills both in-camera and in post-processing.
>
> If good photographers don't bother doing any post-processing then
> Ansel Adams must have been a bumbling incompetent.
>
> The trouble is that a lot of what in the digital age is considered to
> be "post processing" was in the film era incidental to what one _had_
> to do in order to get something that people could look at.
>
> I suspect that many of these self-proclaimed "experts" would benefit a
> great deal from some time spent cranking Tri-X through a Leica.
Yes, but it's an end to end process. This is what Tony does not seem to
grasp.
Ansel Adams would not bother rescuing a seriously bad exposure.
This is also why he wrote three books on the major components to image
making:
The Camera
The Negative
The Print
And all inextricably linked. You could not rescue a good print from a
burned negative. Not even Ansel. (Although he probably had more
exposure latitude on the high side than any digital camera).
What's more, a limited application of the zone system is simply applied
to making digital exposures, even with P&S cameras.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>>> Stop side stepping: You claimed I said something that I manifestly did not.
>>
>> A "hissy fit" is a fit of pique; a tantrum. Like your reaction to me
>> reporting what your statement came across as. It is not side-stepping
>> an issue.
>
>Your first bit of frustrated hissy-fitism was your thrice use of lead
>ins to sentences ... "As explained in other posts..."
Seems like a calm and reasoned way of back-referring.
>Your second bit was your classic turnaround, "What do you want out of
>this newsgroup..."
Seems like a calm and reasoned, and very valid, question.
>Accusing me of being supercilious and then "proving" that by claiming I
>said something I did not...
Don't forget the stuffed-shirt reference.
>
>(This is w/o going into your other posts in this thread).
>
>And still you don't admit that you misquoted me. Pathetic.
I did not quote you. A quote is surrounded by quote marks to show
that the actual words are being repeated. As in the next sentence.
>> Clearly, you were referring to something else when you said "to
>> support your hissy fit". Where did I have any kind of tantrum?
>>
>> How would you prefer that I interpret your statement? As: "Good
>> photographers *keep* only good pictures that don't have flaws in them
>> and don't bother doing any post-processing."? Is that closer? It's
>> certainly what it sounded like to me.
>
>I really don't care what it sounded like to you.
That works both ways.
>What I meant was what
>I wrote, not what you construed me to write.
>
>> Personally, I think good photographers keep trying to improve their
>> skills both in-camera and in post-processing.
>
>Indeed. Which is why an early well known American landscape
>photographer put a lot of emphasis on capture in his classic 3 major
>step approach to using cameras, developing film and printing the result.
> Each part inextricably linked to the others.
--
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Yes, but it's an end to end process. This is what Tony does not seem to
>grasp.
>
> Ansel Adams would not bother rescuing a seriously bad exposure.
What you do not seem to grasp is that techniques can be learned and
improved on with any image; good or bad. It's better to learn and
practice now, on any image at hand, than to wait until you have an
image that is almost-right and try to learn then.
Most books on Photoshop include either a CD or a link to webpage with
an image that you can use to learn a particular technique to improve
that photo. They don't use photos that don't have a need for
correction.
I really don't understand your objections to this project. It served
well as a learning experience for some readers. Comments by some of
the followers of the thread gave others ideas for different ways to go
about things. Several people contributed their attempts. They
wouldn't have spent the time on the project if it wasn't of interest
to them.
The thread generated interest, and the interest - except for your
contribution - was positive.
Alan Browne
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:12:24 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but it's an end to end process. This is what Tony does not seem to
>> grasp.
>>
>> Ansel Adams would not bother rescuing a seriously bad exposure.
>
> What you do not seem to grasp is that techniques can be learned and
> improved on with any image; good or bad. It's better to learn and
> practice now, on any image at hand, than to wait until you have an
> image that is almost-right and try to learn then.
Except that you learned nothing.
Somebody else did for you what you did not learn to do.
Have the last word Tony, I'm done with this.
Douglas Johnson
>I suspect that many of these self-proclaimed "experts" would benefit a
>great deal from some time spent cranking Tri-X through a Leica.
In my early days, I shot black and white almost exclusively. It was the only
thing I could afford. It was a rare shot that didn't get improved in the
darkroom.
More recently, I was traveling with someone who had bought black and white film
by mistake. It was not discovered until they were processed. But the pictures
provided a very different and worthwhile view of the trip than others' color
photos.
Maybe I need to drag out my beloved OM-2 and push some Tri-X through it. But my
darkroom is no more. Sigh.
-- Doug
Alan Browne
You don't need a darkroom. Shoot and develop in a Patterson tank.
Scan the film.
Not 'quite' the same, I agree, but it is 'genuine' B&W.
Homer Simpson
Use any decent garage-sale slide projector for even illumination of the
negative, a salvaged lens with an iris-diaphragm from an old bellows camera with
torn bellows (if totally undamaged it might be worth money as-is), a few plastic
trays from the "family pack" meat department in your grocery story.
I've done more with much less. I still have a nice 1920's "formulae" book from
Kodak that has recipes for various papers and emulsions, let alone the more
commonly known developing chemistry. It was fun trying most of them.
"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride, on clouds of white stallions
with bright fiery eyes. Chasing stars into corners of yesterday's skies. If
wishes were horses then beggars would ride." ~Michael Johsnon~
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:12:24 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, but it's an end to end process. This is what Tony does not seem to
>>> grasp.
>>>
>>> Ansel Adams would not bother rescuing a seriously bad exposure.
>>
>> What you do not seem to grasp is that techniques can be learned and
>> improved on with any image; good or bad. It's better to learn and
>> practice now, on any image at hand, than to wait until you have an
>> image that is almost-right and try to learn then.
>
>Except that you learned nothing.
>
>Somebody else did for you what you did not learn to do.
Why, Alan, how could you? You've made a statement about something
that you say I've done, and that statement is completely a
misrepresentation.
I did several versions. Some based on what I know about Photoshop,
and some based on the suggestions of others. I learned a great deal.
No one else did it for me. They put up examples of what they had
done, but the images on my drive are my own efforts.
And, actually, as you point out, no one did it. Fix it, that is.
It's still a photograph with a fatal flaw. The flaw was minimized,
but not corrected.
>I'm done with this.
Excellent exit strategy.