Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Date | 12/03/2013 03:27 (12/02/2013 17:27) |
| Message-ID | <87txeqfz3d.fld@apaflo.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (3h & 36m) PeterN (10h & 1m) > Floyd L. Davidson |
Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanShot with a Sony FD91 Point & Shoot vintage 1999. It took 1024x758 JPEGs and saved 8 or 10 to a floppy disk.
Better than this: http://www.apaflo.com/images/sun04.jpg
It's a wonderful old shot for reasons you don't seem to comprehend! Try getting any modern sensor to make an image with those odd colors! That's a straight out of the camera shot.
It's been the headliner on my web page for 10 years!
Or this: http://www.apaflo.com/gallery3/d8a_7249.s.jpgAnother image you don't understand. It's a new hotel currently under construction in Barrow. I have been asked to document the construction.
Nice shot! It's documentation, and shot primarily for one specific person, except there has been quite a bit on interest in the hotel project and as a result that particular image has been posted to my website and to more than a couple forums.
And it's another one that has virtually no post processing.
It's a nice shot...
Or even this: http://www.apaflo.com/gallery2/d3s_4693.s.jpgA pretty nice photograph! If you don't happen to like it that's fine with me. It is very good photography though!.
I'm not entirely sure why you're giving Floyd so much credit here, Tony.Probably because he understands what good photography is a bit better than some people. Tony doesn't necessarily like a lot of what I shoot in the sense that he would never want to replicate it himself, but he understands fairly well that taste is personal, and quality is not.
I enjoy looking at his photography too, but don't want to produce the same kind of work.
I'm not the kind of person that would try to find faults with other peoples photography,Oh, of course not...
And you really shouldn't have, because you fall on your face when you do. The next example is really good one for that!
but staying in topic, I can say that there is nothing inherent in Floyds photographs that show any sign of a superior workflow. I would even claim that most of his photos would be greatly helped by using some state of the art software for post processing photographs that unfortunately aren't available to his choice of platform.You are dead wrong though. And it's hard to imagine why you say what you do, and entirely miss some of what would have been valid commentary on that particular image.
In fact, some of his photos seems to have been post processed with some really lesser tools (presumably gimp?), like this one:
http://www.apaflo.com/gallery2/d3f_5080.s.jpg
I'm quite sure the original file was quite ok, but it seems he has tried to blur out some wrinkles around the eye and nose while leaving some in place. The photo in itself seems pretty ok, nice bokeh and all - but the post processing is well, awful.
There was never, and it is rather obvious, any attempt to remove any wrinkles. An hilarious suggestion given that clearly a great part of what makes it an appealing image are those wrinkles!
Let me quote something for you to put some perspective on what makes a photograph:
"When nothing superfluous is included and nothing indispensable left out, one can understand the interrelation of the whole and its parts, as well as the hierarchic scale of importance and power by which some structural features are dominant, others subordinate." Rudolf Arhheim, "Entropy and Art", 1971
The key concept is that each image has parts arranged according to "the hierarchic scale of importance and power by which some structural features are dominant, other subordinate." The photographer is responsible for prioritizing each part and then through composition, content, and other measures placing each item in exactly the right place on that hierarchic scale. That is the way in which pre-visualization, camera work, and post processing are tightly associated, each helping to provide that exactly right arrangement.
Now, look at that image again and tell us what you perceive as the most dominant feature of the image. Then review which parts of the image could have been, but are not, more dominant. Then ask yourself just why that one dominant feature actually is the most dominating structural feature of the image.
After you've done that there are in fact flaws in the processing that will be *glaring*. And you're previous comments will also be clearly trivial too.
You can trust that the image on the web page was not the final product in that case. The prints that were made did correct the very glaring flaw. (As I've noted, the web page is not a showcase for fine photography. That was simply the first intermediate stage good enough to post.)
-- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
11/30/2013-
-
