Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Too Much Of The Good Stuff? (Photoshop Or Similar)  
User currently offlineJofa From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, RR: 15
Posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3732 times:

Hello fellow photographers!

Browsed through the recent uploads and came across these two concordepics.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Shawn Byers


To get right to the point, why boost colors to a point where the image IMO looks bad? It's like plastic surgery, could be an improvement if it's done subtle, but you don't want to end up looking like Michael Jackson right?
Needless to say, i prefer the darker and more natural one.
The hits speak against my opinion tho. Sure, the thumbnail looks more appealing on the colorful one, but once i opened it i felt kinda "deceived".

What's your opinion?




9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3693 times:

I guess I see your point, but there are more factors here.

Mike's picture, i believe, was taken from a slide, as Shawn's was digital camera, which already makes a HUGE difference, especially, i think, in terms of exposure. So you can't even really compare the two.

Another part is just about interpretation. Shawn may have wanted to captrue the early morning darkness as it was a part of that historic day, while Mike wanted to bring out the color of the sunrise and show detail in the low-light situation.

I think both are great shots.



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2738 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

One telling point in these two photos is to view the histogram of each photo.

Shawn's photo has a compressed gamma range and lacks the full tonal range that the image should have. It has been artificially darkened. This IS NOT a criticism, but could very much be the way the photographer wanted it. However I am positive that this is not the way the camera recorded it, or it was scanned.

Mike's image has a much broader gamma range and includes all tones from 0-255. As presented, it is the more natural image as the camera recorded it, but then again, not every scene is 18% luminosity as most meters would define it.

Note that this does not address the issue of color saturation which can also be enhanced but isn't as easy to check on.

I think this nicely illustrates how different photographers "see" the same image and choose to portray it. And how both images passed the screeners, yet are so remarkably different as a recording of the same event.

Steve


User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3578 times:

To get right to the point, why boost colors to a point where the image IMO looks bad?

Sorry, you didn't like my shot. It was taken on Provia 400F and I'll tell ya, the scans looks very similar to the slide....no boosting of colors. Remember, it helps to get the full facts before you post a comment like that.

Needless to say, i prefer the darker and more natural one.

IIRC you were not next to us when the shot was taken, how do you know which one is the "more natural one"? I have no problems with you comments if they were based on facts.

Now, I know a lot of people are saying...what in the heck is Mike doing shooting Provia  Smile Well, I'll tell you this much, I'm very pleased with the grain (low) and looks of 400F for shots similar to this. You'll never (at least until they discontinue K64) see me use Provia on a "boring" 50mm side-on but do expect more Provia on special/low light shots like this.....enjoy it or not that is your choice.

Mike




User currently offlineJofa From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3487 times:

Photopilot
You're completely wrong about the histograms. In fact, Shawns photo contains the full tonal range, as no highlights are burnt out, i.e the lights. Hold your ALT key while dragging the white arrow in Levels in PS and you'll see what happens if you move the white point too far in. Burnt out highlights. Also, let me ask you this, when have you ever seen a white sky with an orange horizon? Shawns image shows exactly what all good digicams would record, the truth =).

Mikephotos
Calibrate your monitor, I don't believe you have skies that are RGB 0,0,0 in New York, no matter how polluted the air ;o)
BTW, i liked your shot, i just don't like what you have done with the colorsaturation.


User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

BTW, i liked your shot, i just don't like what you have done with the colorsaturation.

Thanks, but I didn't bump-up the saturation, blame it on Provia F.

what all good digicams would record, the truth =).

Funny, I say the same thing about K64  Big grin

Michael


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3449 times:

. . . what all good digicams would record, the truth . . .

When it comes to colours, there is no such thing as the truth, only interpretation.
Even the human eye is in no way perfect. 10 people may look at the same colour and see a different colour.

Harm



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineCarlos Borda From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 538 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3382 times:

Jofa- Here's a quick shot I took with my Sony P72 as it passed by right after I shot slides of it myself... I was there with these guys and I can assure you 100% that Shawns pic is darker than the scene actually was. Not a knock at all on his photo... like Photopilot said, "this nicely illustrates how different photographers "see" the same image and choose to portray it."

My shot has not been enhanced in anyway... just resized and compressed to show here.




Don't judge a book by it's cover...

~Los

Jofa writes:

>>Mikephotos
Calibrate your monitor, I don't believe you have skies that are RGB 0,0,0 in New York, no matter how polluted the air ;o)
BTW, i liked your shot, i just don't like what you have done with the colorsaturation.<<


User currently offlineJofa From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3366 times:

Carlos
As i said in both of my posts, it's the colorsaturation i don't like (i havn't said anything about the lightlevels). The picture you posted further strengthened that opinion.


User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3305 times:

jofa, you are not understanding the difference between film (slide) and digital. you come to my house one day and I'll show you the provia slide. then you'll have to say "ah, damn mike was right..he didn't do anything with saturation" and then buy me a beer.

remember, digital saturation, slide saturation, film brand saturation and true saturation are all different and as Harm nicely put it: "When it comes to colours, there is no such thing as the truth, only interpretation." my scan represents exactly how i saw the scene and the slide i was able to produce. no "fake" saturation needed...just pure skill  Big grin

shawn's shot is very nice and shows the scene the way he saw it as well as carlos' shot. thats whats so great about photography, there is no exacts and everybody is right in their own way...well except for joe...he didn't even get a shot bwhahahaha

Michael



Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
2X TC Too Much For The 70-200 F4 L? posted Thu May 27 2004 23:29:05 by MNeo
Help - Backlit Too Much Or Acceptable? posted Fri Feb 24 2006 08:27:12 by Frippe
Too Many Pics Of The Same Plane posted Thu Jun 5 2003 17:10:34 by BR715-A1-30
Status Of The LAX Radisson? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 05:04:27 by Crank
Clarification Of The Double Rule posted Wed Nov 1 2006 11:20:47 by Timdegroot
Too Low In The Frame? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 18:35:15 by Linco22
Too Much Dead Space? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 23:45:26 by LOCsta
Too Much Jpeg Compression Rejection - Help Please posted Mon Sep 25 2006 00:16:24 by Acontador
Too Much Foreground Clutter? posted Mon Sep 18 2006 12:00:21 by Pavvyben
Too Much Fence? posted Sun Sep 17 2006 23:51:50 by Linco22