Photo of the Day - March 2010

[pdxflint]

Great capture. I love how he looks like he's almost floating up the steps... only the edge of his heel is touching the ground.

Like you, I find I keep at most 1 in 10 images I shoot primarily due to sloppy exposure, composure, or blur (focus, motion, or shake) and to a lesser extent a subject that just didn't look good in afterthought.

It's amazing how the transition from shooting on a precious resource (film) to what is effectively a free resource (digital storage) has changed the way people shoot. As you say, it means you don't need to spend time evaluating the scene to ensure you get the right exposure as there's simply no cost to bracketing it all over the place.

It's equally amazing where RAW editing and Photoshop are taking us too... they demand even less investment in the moment of capture as you can shoot a scene with nearly any settings (within reason) and produce a perfectly good image later.

Over time, the care and attention one needs to invest at the moment of capture is diminishing.

^^^ On that note... I worry that eventually there will be no "special" photographs--only creations from software...no artists/photojournalists required. If the decisive moment doesn't get captured... have the software interpret the before and after images... do a little calculating--bam! Perfect moment delivered...well, sorta. There are certainly pros to all the technology, but when there's software capable of effortlessly changing peoples' features commonly used in the portrait/wedding business, and content-aware image modification in photoshop, and all the rest... what photography once was (and was respected for) will just be gone. There will be nothing special about it, push a button and spectacular images will sprout from your computer. They'll just be fake, that's all. But nobody will care, so a discipline will simply fade away, and die.

I hope this doesn't happen, but...

 

[gnd]

Gathering of the Cows

Gathering of the Cows

Camera: Pentax K20D
Lens: Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Focal length: 17mm
Exposure: 1/30s
Aperture: f/8
ISO: 400

 

[NathanCH]

^ That would make a perfect wallpaper!

 

[macrumormonger]

^ That would make a perfect wallpaper!

also good for burgers.

 

[kallisti]

Nice!

Minor quibble, but please use tags when quoting. See the first post in the thread if you need help in the mechanics of this.

[quote="mcavjame, post: 9517611"]A cloudy day when the sun broke through for a moment in this sleepy, Normandy town.
[img]http://files.me.com/jimmymac8up/ytor2p[/QUOTE]
I like this. I actually thought it was one of Doylem's when I first saw it. Great lighting.

Gathering of the Cows

Nice shot. The cows are a bit underexposed for me, losing a bit of shadow detail. Maybe recover a bit in post? Cool composition and I really like the image.

 

[Doylem]

Yes, very different from shooting film! I used to use a Nikon FE and I really liked that camera. Still have it but don't use it any more. I recently got a Canon XSi but I haven't used bracketing. No reason not to though, is there, it's the film mentality kicking in!

I keep getting more and more critical. Photos that used to be my favourites, taken with my first digital, a Fujifilm FinePix 810 I now look at and think, 'the sky's blown', or 'there's a bit of purple fringing between the roof of that building and the sky'. Can't throw them all away though, there'd be hardly anything left!

Me too. I used a Nikon FE for, oh, about 20 years. Two FEs, in fact: one chrome body for Velvia (fine-grained transparency film), and a black body for black & white. I should have put them on eBay while they still had some smidgin of value; now they're just paperweights.

Like you, I find I keep at most 1 in 10 images I shoot primarily due to sloppy exposure, composure, or blur (focus, motion, or shake) and to a lesser extent a subject that just didn't look good in afterthought.

It's amazing how the transition from shooting on a precious resource (film) to what is effectively a free resource (digital storage) has changed the way people shoot. As you say, it means you don't need to spend time evaluating the scene to ensure you get the right exposure as there's simply no cost to bracketing it all over the place.

It's equally amazing where RAW editing and Photoshop are taking us too... they demand even less investment in the moment of capture as you can shoot a scene with nearly any settings (within reason) and produce a perfectly good image later.

Over time, the care and attention one needs to invest at the moment of capture is diminishing.

I think it's vital to give full attention at the moment the shutter is pressed. Always has been, IMO, and always will be. I don't shoot a lot of pix in the hope that I'll get lucky and one will be OK. Every time I press the shutter, I think I've got 'the shot' (I even have this fantasy that I'm using a 10x8in view camera, and every exposure counts). The reality is rather different, of course... and I get a lot of 'nearly' pix...

I want to get it right in the camera. I honestly don't think you can 'rescue' a poor pic with any software yet available.

^^^ On that note... I worry that eventually there will be no "special" photographs--only creations from software...no artists/photojournalists required. If the decisive moment doesn't get captured... have the software interpret the before and after images... do a little calculating--bam! Perfect moment delivered...well, sorta. There are certainly pros to all the technology, but when there's software capable of effortlessly changing peoples' features commonly used in the portrait/wedding business, and content-aware image modification in photoshop, and all the rest... what photography once was (and was respected for) will just be gone. There will be nothing special about it, push a button and spectacular images will sprout from your computer. They'll just be fake, that's all. But nobody will care, so a discipline will simply fade away, and die.

I hope this doesn't happen, but...

I don't believe this for a minute. There are a lot of creative cul-de-sacs in photography, mostly to do with software. But, for me, there's no short cut worth taking.

We've always been suckers for convincing fantasies; the software just makes them easier to construct.

 

[Jason Beck]

Just north of Cedar City.

 

[YosemitePaul]

Harrogate in Spring

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=219911&stc=1&d=1269894348

 

[Jason Beck]

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=219911&stc=1&d=1269894348

Ahh nice work!

 

[pdxflint]

I don't believe this for a minute. There are a lot of creative cul-de-sacs in photography, mostly to do with software. But, for me, there's no short cut worth taking.

We've always been suckers for convincing fantasies; the software just makes them easier to construct.

Thankfully... there are still folks like you with your old school convictions. I share your philosophy at the heart of things, but I'm afraid we're a dying breed. I guess that's my issue with technology. I'm a tech lover, always looking to adopt new things and discover things I could never have done before, at least on a personal budget. Many creative opportunities are now available because of technology, and that I certainly do get. But... the integrity of the image is what will forever be called into question--if not now, certainly very soon. Technology moves so fast, that what may not even seem possible today will be here tomorrow. Just look at the demos for PS CS5, and the 2 minutes it takes to literally take a photograph, or several photographs, and create something good enough to be used in advertisements. The camera no longer has to even capture what is eventually the final product. So... no more need for a decisive moment. The sun isn't right, plug it in. Missed the critical moment in a rapid fire sports sequence-- just have the software analyze the frames before and after, and through constantly improving algorithms, simply "create" it by sampling and modeling the subjects. This is already here. When technology becomes refined enough, and good enough to fool anyone's naked eye, and cheap enough for virtually anyone to use without much skill required... what will govern it's use? Anything? Probably it will be impossible to regulate, so what will happen is all photography will simply be called into question almost out of habit. You make a beautiful photo the old fashioned way, wait for the light and the decisive moment... and while it's beautiful, most people will in the future likely think it was simply concocted. That's what I'm concerned about. Maybe in the end it really doesn't matter.

PS: Love the bell shot. It got a chuckle out of me on this rainy, stormy day here.

 

[VirtualRain]

I think it's vital to give full attention at the moment the shutter is pressed. Always has been, IMO, and always will be.

I suppose this thread it not the place for this discussion. At any rate, I agree that it's vital or at least wise to invest in the moment of capture but you can exploit a number of "insurance" measures to increase the chance of achieving your goal. You can also fully control the dark-room process in software further enhancing the chance of a successful outcome. This is unlike the days of film where you dropped off a role at your local drug mart and hoped for the best. In Camera JPEG processing is akin to the drug mart photolab of 15 years ago. It's ok, but no professional would trust their work to it.

I think where pdxflint was going is that software is also setting a bar for photographers that is tough to match... sort of like steroids in sports. It's almost like every post-card is an HDR composition now. The photographers that don't embrace software enhancements whether it's sharpening, saturation, HDR, or more creative stuff, will ultimately get left behind as drab dull soft photos will have no market.

 

[kallisti]

I want to get it right in the camera. I honestly don't think you can 'rescue' a poor pic with any software yet available.

Doylem,

I love your images. While some do more for me than others, I think you are one of the most consistent posters in this forum.

I am going to have to quibble a bit with you on this particular point.

I think there are some images that can be "rescued." I won't repost here, but I commented in a thread about RAW where I needed a family pic in a high dynamic scene that lacked a "correct" exposure. Indoor lit scene with an outdoor lit window background. Waiter taking the pic. There was no "correct" exposure regardless of digital vs film, crop vs full frame, etc. No chance for "studio" lighting options as it was a snapshot. One moment in time. Either take the pic with a point-and-shoot or not have the image.

By shooting in RAW I was actually able to salvage an acceptable image for what I needed. In this case, all options were "poor" options. Yet I was able to come away with an acceptable image for the uses I needed from it.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/882349/

Not ideal, but RAW saved me in this specific case. I was able to rescue an image where there wasn't a proper exposure. It wasn't an image that needed to be perfect for my "portfolio." It was an image I needed for my family.

 

[mcavjame]

Love the mood created by the clouds in both of these. Well done!

I like this. I actually thought it was one of Doylem's when I first saw it. Great lighting.

Thanks for the feedback. Dark clouds with a strong front light is my favourite shooting condition outside. I just wish it happened somewhere more interesting.

 

[pdxflint]

I suppose this thread it not the place for this discussion. At any rate, I agree that it's vital or at least wise to invest in the moment of capture but you can exploit a number of "insurance" measures to increase the chance of achieving your goal. You can also fully control the dark-room process in software further enhancing the chance of a successful outcome. This is unlike the days of film where you dropped off a role at your local drug mart and hoped for the best. In Camera JPEG processing is akin to the drug mart photolab of 15 years ago. It's ok, but no professional would trust their work to it.

I think where pdxflint was going is that software is also setting a bar for photographers that is tough to match... sort of like steroids in sports. It's almost like every post-card is an HDR composition now. The photographers that don't embrace software enhancements whether it's sharpening, saturation, HDR, or more creative stuff, will ultimately get left behind as drab dull soft photos will have no market.

Yeah, probably not the right thread for this discussion--it just was an impromptu subject... however one last little thing... you're close to where I was going, but take it further... to the actual fabrication of false images, so the entire construct is open to question. When the public comes to know and accept that virtually any photo is "doctored" or "'shopped," those who adhere to old principles will simply have their contributions devalued, because nobody (generally speaking) will know the difference.

On your last point, I don't think drab, dull soft photos ever had a market at any time. But maybe the definition of what "drab, dull and soft" mean will keep changing. I do still believe that real light from actual sources can't be duplicated---yet. But I've just been thinking of where we go down the line. Nothing is as certain as it once was.

Anyway, I'm done. Back to the POTD's. Thanks for brief use of the thread...

 

[Designer Dale]

I took 500+ pix yesterday, and I'm just editing them now... which means deleting a lot of them.

As a rule I bracket shots (a 'correct' exposure... and one either side). When I was shooting this white, newly renovated, art deco hotel I bracketed even more... cos the sheer brightness of the paintwork was throwing my exposures all over the place.

<<__>>

So I shoot a lot, and throw away a lot... very different to shooting film!

Hi. According to the EXIF data that is in this pic, your EV compensation is 0 and Exposure Mode is Manual. How did you read the image to nail the exposure in camera? I would have done this one of two ways. One would be to lock the exposure on the grey of the steps or read there and then set that as a starting point for manual exposure. The other would be to use the Zone System. Reading the wall of the building would put it in Zone V, neutral grey, and you want to move it to Zone VII or VIII. That means overexposing two or three stops. That would be done in manual, also. What was your approach to this?

Here are my comments on the string of posts that followed this image.

<<__>> I should have put them on eBay while they still had some smidgin of value; now they're just paperweights.

^^ Thanks! Now I know what to do with my dead Canon AE-1.

Doyloem continued: I think it's vital to give full attention at the moment the shutter is pressed. Always has been, IMO, and always will be. <<__>>

I want to get it right in the camera. I honestly don't think you can 'rescue' a poor pic with any software yet available.<<__>>

We've always been suckers for convincing fantasies; the software just makes them easier to construct.

<<__>> I worry that eventually there will be no "special" photographs--only creations from software...no artists/photojournalists required. <<__>>.

^^^ This will not happen. You and a thousand thousand others will see to that. I assure you.

<<__>> it means you don't need to spend time evaluating the scene to ensure you get the right exposure <<__>>

^^^ I disagree. My work with several repeated shoots of Mt. Rainier have convinced me that attention to detail in setting the exposure in camera is a first requirement to a great photo.

VirturalRain continued: you can shoot a scene with nearly any settings (within reason) and produce a perfectly good image later.

Over time, the care and attention one needs to invest at the moment of capture is diminishing.

^^^ No. Please see above...

Dale

 

[Doylem]

Technology is amazing. Hell, I'm sitting in a small wooden hut, on the shore of some lake in a small, north European, island kingdom, and I can natter, in real time, to people from around the globe.

Light is special. Its effects can't be duplicated by software. Yes, of course, Photoshop can 'rescue' a badly-exposed pic, to the point where it's worth keeping. But if you want something special, you'd better start with something special.

A dying breed? I don't think so. Patience and attention are the tools of the trade for landscape photographers. Ask any of them who regularly publish their pix. It's a long and winding road, with interesting things to see and experience every step of the way. It never gets dull...

Hi. According to the EXIF data that is in this pic, your EV compensation is 0 and Exposure Mode is Manual. How did you read the image to nail the exposure in camera? I would have done this one of two ways. One would be to lock the exposure on the grey of the steps or read there and then set that as a starting point for manual exposure. The other would be to use the Zone System. Reading the wall of the building would put it in Zone V, neutral grey, and you want to move it to Zone VII or VIII. That means overexposing two or three stops. That would be done in manual, also. What was your approach to this?

I set the camera up on a tripod and 'locked' the composition. After a couple of test shots - checked on the back of the camera - I had my exposure sorted (with ISO=100 and aperture=f11, there's only one variable).

 

[wheezy]

Canon EOS 5D Mark II :: 35mm 1.4L :: f 6.3 :: 1/400 sec :: iso 200

 

[mcavjame]

My work with several repeated shoots of Mt. Rainier have convinced me that attention to detail in setting the exposure in camera is a first requirement to a great photo.

I like this discussion. I'll just throw in that without a good initial exposure, pushing an image too far will introduce clipping and noise, even in a raw image.

With that said, I don't have a problem with people tweaking their image. A camera simple doesn't "see" what the human eye can and tweaks often bring the image closer to what was viewed. If we can introduce a polarizer to bring out the blue of a sky(pre-processing), why frown on post processing?

 

[macrumormonger]

Light is special. Its effects can't be duplicated by software. Yes, of course, Photoshop can 'rescue' a badly-exposed pic, to the point where it's worth keeping. But if you want something special, you'd better start with something special.

A dying breed? I don't think so. Patience and attention are the tools of the trade for landscape photographers. Ask any of them who regularly publish their pix. It's a long and winding road, with interesting things to see and experience every step of the way. It never gets dull...

I agree with you. Today, cameras themselves have in-camera tools that was non-existent a few years ago. I'm reading "Understanding Exposure" which was written in 2004, and it was still marvelling at the availability of 'evaluative metering', something that's in nearly all cameras today. ISOs can now go to 6400 reducing the need for flash in many instances, image stabilization, in-camera sharpening, auto white balance, etc. It's getting harder to take bad pictures!

 

[Doylem]

It's getting harder to take bad pictures!

It's getting easier and easier! Despite all the technological advancements, has there ever been a time when so many bad pictures have been taken by so many photographers? We let our 'smart' cameras take the decisions we should be taking ourselves... and we live with the results. Excuse my verbosity; I've had a drink...

 

[pdxflint]

I do still believe that real light from actual sources can't be duplicated---yet. But I've just been thinking of where we go down the line. Nothing is as certain as it once was.

I think we're in agreement on the issue of light...

Light is special. Its effects can't be duplicated by software. Yes, of course, Photoshop can 'rescue' a badly-exposed pic, to the point where it's worth keeping. But if you want something special, you'd better start with something special.

I agree. I just hope it stays that way...

It's getting easier and easier! Despite all the technological advancements, has there ever been a time when so many bad pictures have been taken by so many photographers? We let our 'smart' cameras take the decisions we should be taking ourselves... and we live with the results. Excuse my verbosity; I've had a drink...

I'll drink to that!

 

[sonor]

Hi. According to the EXIF data that is in this pic, your EV compensation is 0 and Exposure Mode is Manual. How did you read the image to nail the exposure in camera? I would have done this one of two ways. One would be to lock the exposure on the grey of the steps or read there and then set that as a starting point for manual exposure. The other would be to use the Zone System. Reading the wall of the building would put it in Zone V, neutral grey, and you want to move it to Zone VII or VIII. That means overexposing two or three stops. That would be done in manual, also. What was your approach to this?

Dale, it seems to me that you're trying to hang on to your traditional approach to exposure, that you would have used with film and apply this to your digital photos. If you're shooting jpegs, then this makes sense, but hopefully you're shooting RAW, in which case I'd suggest you would benefit from a different approach. For many situations, to get the highest quality digital image, you simply want to expose to the right. You want the image as bright as possible, without blowing the highlights and this is easy to check on the histogram. The image itself may initially appear too bright/over-exposed, but when you process the raw file you can easily make any adjustments you need to the brightness/tone/contrast and as long as the highlights aren't blown you won't have lost any quality. This is often the best starting point for maximising dynamic range/minimising noise.

 

[zagato27]

C&C welcome as always.

f/10, 1/400, ISO 200, 18mm

I must have missed this one when first posted. I've seen other comments regarding composition and flowers and lovely.......yadda yaddda yadda. Heck, I just want to drive that road!

 

[VirtualRain]

^^^^^ That's exactly what I was thinking!!!

On the other subject...

Not ideal, but RAW saved me in this specific case. I was able to rescue an image where there wasn't a proper exposure. It wasn't an image that needed to be perfect for my "portfolio." It was an image I needed for my family.

Another way to look at this is that you "developed" (processed) the "negative" (RAW file) differently from the way the "photolab" (camera) did.

BTW, I fully agree with others that light is that special thing we all try to capture with our little black boxes and while 3D rendering professionals would argue that it can be created/duplicated in software, that's not what this hobby/profession is about.

 

[Razeus]