• Welcome Guest! If you are already a member of the BMW MOA, please log in to the forum in the upper right hand corner of this page. Check "Remember Me?" if you wish to stay logged in.

    We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMWMOA forum provides. Why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the club magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMWMOA offers?

    Want to read the MOA monthly magazine for free? Take a 3-month test ride of the magazine; check here for details.

  • NOTE. Some content will be hidden from you. If you want to view all content, you must register for the forum if you are not a member, or if a member, you must be logged in.

Photo Assignment: Weekend 10/19/07

sorry to be late to the party

... without a shadow of a doubt, US191 is one of my top 10 roads!!!

hp2_191.jpg
 
1021FallRide013s.jpg

Without a doubt - Winter is coming!

Paul,
Having looked at a bunch of your photos for a couple years now, I have a critical question or two. What camera are you using? How do the photos before you post them to photobucket look in comparison to after?

I ask because I've noticed a certain grayness and lack of sharpness to the photos. It's difficult to tell if it's the camera, the operator, or an artifact of the image processing on photobucket. I believe it's mostly the latter. Could you possibly send me a copy of the original file of the above image from before it was uploaded to photobucket? scott -at- bmwmoa -dot- org.
 
Yesterday...
r1200sallenspark.jpg

Looks like a GREAT day. :thumb

This is one of those where you wish you could take all the pieces and physically rearrange them. The tree mimics the shape of the mountain and hides most of it. It'd be great if there was a little more foreground, though perhaps not more parking lot, to visually support the bikes which then support the mountain.
 
WOW! How do you get the colors to come out so bold? I probably get 1 in 20 that turn out that vivid. Beautiful!

The color is deceiving. While it's what seems most striking about the image, what really makes it work is the composition, contrast in light and the distinctiveness of the shapes (which make that composition) and their 'speeds'. Even completely de-saturated, the image works - if not quite as well.

Hmm...there might be a lesson in there. :D

More in a bit.
 

Attachments

  • moacows.jpg
    moacows.jpg
    58.6 KB · Views: 122
That cow image is actually a great lesson in making an image. IMHO, much of what makes an image 'sing' is how the tension in the image. Much of this is created by the differences within the image (this is more than it sounds). In the cow image, there's a contrast/comparison of most everything except focus.

All of these things feed into each other, but a few:
1. differences of texture. The grass on the left vs. the smoothness of the water and cow shape. This is a visual thing, not a point about the actual texture of the objects
2. differences in contrast. The chunks of white and black on the cows vs the soft gradation in the water and across the grass.
3. differences in how the shapes interact with the edge of the image. THe cows squeeze the space above, but are supported by the bigger chunks below.

and so on.

It's these differences which can often best lead and excite the eye.

There's a bunch more in this photo alone. The way the light moves through the image, the clear subject matter supported by lesser subject matter, the pure range of tone and color, the sharp diagonal of the water balanced by the soft counter angle of the cow's backs.

What else do you notice?
 
Paul,
Having looked at a bunch of your photos for a couple years now, I have a critical question or two. ...

I ask because I've noticed a certain grayness and lack of sharpness to the photos. It's difficult to tell if it's the camera, the operator, or an artifact of the image processing on photobucket. I believe it's mostly the latter. Could you possibly send me a copy of the original file of the above image from before it was uploaded to photobucket? scott -at- bmwmoa -dot- org.


Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
scratchhead.gif
 
Shadow Boxer

Is is just me, or shouldn't the picture of the week be in this week's thread?
 
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/burnszilla/1693685413/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2158/1693685413_37b8f24a11_b.jpg" width="800" alt="Morro Bay Ride & Camp" /></a>

Cypress Mountain Drive...
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/burnszilla/1694535412/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2120/1694535412_67c0bac9d0_b.jpg" width="800" alt="Morro Bay Ride & Camp" /></a>
 
Paul,
Having looked at a bunch of your photos for a couple years now, I have a critical question or two. What camera are you using? How do the photos before you post them to photobucket look in comparison to after?

I ask because I've noticed a certain grayness and lack of sharpness to the photos. It's difficult to tell if it's the camera, the operator, or an artifact of the image processing on photobucket. I believe it's mostly the latter. Could you possibly send me a copy of the original file of the above image from before it was uploaded to photobucket? scott -at- bmwmoa -dot- org.


the lack of precieved sharpness can also be a result of processing the photo for web viewing i.e. reducing the DPI for faster downloading, also the monitor of the viewer, there is a big differance between brands even with the same resolution, also how much the image was cropped and zoomed in proccessing. having tons megapixels does always mean better shots. One of the best shots I ever took was with a 3.1 megapixel as seen here...

bikes-1-small.jpg


in other words, there are many factors that effect the digital image beyond the camera. just goes to show how its the photographer behind the camera more than the camera itself that makes a good photo an outstanding one, (like the cows!)

RM
 
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
scratchhead.gif

:dunno

It's photobucket. The difference is subtle, but, to my eye, is the difference between an ok photo and a good photo. The images you sent are crisper and have slightly more tonal range than the image processed by photobucket.

Go to this page and mouseover the image. It might take a moment for the second image to upload. You can best see the differences in the color of the big orange tree

http://conary.org/paul.html

You'll probably just think I'm crazy. :ha

Admittedly, there are changes that happen when files are moved from one image space to another, and these were then uploaded to smugmug - which does a fantastic job of preserving the original.
 
I think I like the B&W cows better and while the color shot is nice, it seems a tad over-saturated.
I have the same problem when processing my photos esp. nature shots I tend apply too much color saturation and then have to back it off some after a second review. Its so easy to get caught up in the post-processing. I'm trying to do more stuff in RAW but that really takes a lot of editing because most viewers and the web won't show that format so every shot has a minimum of editing needed if nothing else just to convert it to viewable form.

RM
 
the lack of precieved sharpness can also be a result of processing the photo for web viewing i.e. reducing the DPI for faster downloading, also the monitor of the viewer, there is a big differance between brands even with the same resolution, also how much the image was cropped and zoomed in proccessing. having tons megapixels does always mean better shots. One of the best shots I ever took was with a 3.1 megapixel as seen here...
-snip-
in other words, there are many factors that effect the digital image beyond the camera. just goes to show how its the photographer behind the camera more than the camera itself that makes a good photo an outstanding one, (like the cows!)

RM


Certainly. I've spent much of my life hunting for that balance between compression and preserving the qualities of the image. It's always a balancing act. With the advent of broadband and improvements in image processing algorithms, much of the problem has gone away. We don't have to fuss over making an image as tiny as possible. I look at my early trip reports with images wayyyy compressed and no more than a few hundred pixels wide and have to laugh when I remember people praising me for the photos. They're horrible little blurry things compared to what we can get away with now. Within the confines of the purposes of this thread, it's important, I believe, that the images be as well presented as reasonably possible.

Most any app will do a pretty good job of resizing an image for our needs. And if you're using a photo sharing site, some do a markedly better job than others in processing an image. Smugmug does exceptionally well, but it's not a free service. Of the free ones, IMHO, flickr, which Burnszilla uses, is, IMO, the best.

Ultimately, as you point out, it's the person behind the camera that makes the image. While this is true, having the right tools and understanding them is important.
 
Although I didn't have a photo to submit this week, I've really enjoyed the discussion. I know we're looking for "raw" images here, but some of the talk about contrast/color saturation led me to open up some of my old photos for editing. I've never done any photo manipulation beyond cropping. Anyhow, I grabbed a photo that I took many years ago in Amsterdam. It was a decent shot looking down a canal - nothing special, but I always kind of liked it. The problem was, it always seemed a bit washed it. It was overcast while I was there (October, I think). Anyhow, I started to adjust hue-lightness/saturation and just a minor change has made a HUGE difference. There were still some leaves on the trees and now things are more "real" looking, as well as color on the houseboats. I need to play with it more (and with other photos) but what a huge difference a little bit of post-processing can make. :thumb
 
:dunno

It's photobucket. The difference is subtle, but, to my eye, is the difference between an ok photo and a good photo. The images you sent are crisper and have slightly more tonal range than the image processed by photobucket.

Go to this page and mouseover the image. It might take a moment for the second image to upload. You can best see the differences in the color of the big orange tree

http://conary.org/paul.html

You'll probably just think I'm crazy. :ha

Admittedly, there are changes that happen when files are moved from one image space to another, and these were then uploaded to smugmug - which does a fantastic job of preserving the original.


We all have to have a sense of humor and thank you for the comments. Everyone can learn by well intended critical commentary.
 
Last edited:
Some of it is what we are viewing photographs on. They do not appear the same on an LCD screen as they do on an old fashioned CRT monitor.

You can modify a photo to look good on an LCD and it often shows too much contrast and too much saturation on a CRT. Laptop and desktop LCD users can be mousetrapped by the limitations of their screen.
 
We all have to have a sense of humor and thank you for the comments. Hopefully everyone can learn by well intended critical commentary.

Well put, Paul. And that critical commentary is precisely what this thread is about. We're all here to help each other, whether by asking questions or offering advice. I didn't know what knary was talking about. I hadn't occured to me that by uploading photos to a site that you might lose image quality. I learned something, something very important.

I also like to know that Josh has just started to play with post-processing. I relatively new to it myself and have much to learn. When we used to shoot film and dropped it off at the lab, THEY did this for us, adding blue, subratcting green and boosting contrast--for every, single image. If they didn't, or if the computer was out of whack, then the pictures didn't look good.

I, for one, really appreciate everyone's involvement here. It's helpful, interesting, and fun, unlike work, which I'm putting off by typing this letter. . . .
 
Some of it is what we are viewing photographs on. They do not appear the same on an LCD screen as they do on an old fashioned CRT monitor.

You can modify a photo to look good on an LCD and it often shows too much contrast and too much saturation on a CRT. Laptop and desktop LCD users can be mousetrapped by the limitations of their screen.

Or the CRT owner who doesn't recalibrate his monitor as it ages (the color shifts and contrast drops). LCD's have come a long way from the old days and are becoming more and more the choice amongst people for whom color is work.
 

This is one of my absolutely favorite images on this site; I remember it well. This shot was selected the third-ever picture of the week. We've had 122 by the way. It looks like a studio shot--really sharp and great lighting. I really just wanted to show it again--it's that good.
 
I've sat through many a 'crit' in my life, both as a student and as a professional. My apologies if I stepped on any toes. Please take any criticism or suggestions with a grain of salt. I'm just one voice and your goal, our goal, should be to find or improve your own. My own ideas about how an image is built, while, I hope, born of experience and training and all that that means, are just my own.
 
Back
Top