Sony FE Images Thread
p.2596 #1Sony FE Images Thread
More from Aberdeen. First, a house at the top of "Snake Hill" and, second, the beginning of the Wishkah Road heading north out of town.
12-24G, Loxia 35
12-24G, Loxia 35
Dec 20, 2017 at 08:06 AM
p.2596 #2Sony FE Images Thread
René, Ronny, Werner, Mathieu, you should be ashamed for making an old man blush like a debutante!! Your kind words are much appreciated nonetheless!!!
Werner, your Wall is awesome! And your cranes, Joshua! and Bob's "lighter fare". And John's Bosham shots! And René's unexpected ship shot! And Ryan's station and bird pics! And...
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me, and my preconceptions.
I did take up your kind suggestion, and here are two versions. The one I posted, and a reprocessed one. As you'll see, even when prodded by someone I admire like you, I din't push matters very far. Let me know.
Werner, your Wall is awesome! And your cranes, Joshua! and Bob's "lighter fare". And John's Bosham shots! And René's unexpected ship shot! And Ryan's station and bird pics! And...
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me, and my preconceptions.
I did take up your kind suggestion, and here are two versions. The one I posted, and a reprocessed one. As you'll see, even when prodded by someone I admire like you, I din't push matters very far. Let me know.
Dec 20, 2017 at 09:46 AM
p.2596 #3Sony FE Images Thread
philber wrote:
René, Ronny, Werner, Mathieu, you should be ashamed for making an old man blush like a debutante!! Your kind words are much appreciated nonetheless!!!
Werner, your Wall is awesome! And your cranes, Joshua! and Bob's "lighter fare". And John's Bosham shots! And René's unexpected ship shot! And Ryan's station and bird pics! And...
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me,...Show more →
Philippe, when I wrote my post last night, it was on this end of the world, the term that came to my mind was more "saturation" but a little later on, in the process, I changed the attribute to "dramatic". The saturation level in your re-edited version is fine but I still feel that the sky could use a little more from an increase in "dynamic". And that includes selected "tonal contrast" and "dynamic contrast" applied to the sky part only. The "regular" contrast as a slider in LR is applied globally. Those are the terms that Nik Software used and I am using that for editing my files. Tonal contrast will enhance micro contrast, the term that people use frequently to describe Zeiss lenses' capability they are famous for. They are differences alright but they are subtle. Confused? I don't blame you.
Please keep in mind that it is a matter of preference and taste and we all know that it is highly subjective. And it doesn't take anything away from your great capture. Case in point, Helena likes it the way it is and rightfully so.
If you don't mind, I can download your image, play with it and send you an email that back to you with my edit.
________________________________
Another image of the Bosque but without wildlife, just for kicks..,
René, Ronny, Werner, Mathieu, you should be ashamed for making an old man blush like a debutante!! Your kind words are much appreciated nonetheless!!!
Werner, your Wall is awesome! And your cranes, Joshua! and Bob's "lighter fare". And John's Bosham shots! And René's unexpected ship shot! And Ryan's station and bird pics! And...
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me,...Show more →
Philippe, when I wrote my post last night, it was on this end of the world, the term that came to my mind was more "saturation" but a little later on, in the process, I changed the attribute to "dramatic". The saturation level in your re-edited version is fine but I still feel that the sky could use a little more from an increase in "dynamic". And that includes selected "tonal contrast" and "dynamic contrast" applied to the sky part only. The "regular" contrast as a slider in LR is applied globally. Those are the terms that Nik Software used and I am using that for editing my files. Tonal contrast will enhance micro contrast, the term that people use frequently to describe Zeiss lenses' capability they are famous for. They are differences alright but they are subtle. Confused? I don't blame you.
Please keep in mind that it is a matter of preference and taste and we all know that it is highly subjective. And it doesn't take anything away from your great capture. Case in point, Helena likes it the way it is and rightfully so.
If you don't mind, I can download your image, play with it and send you an email that back to you with my edit.
________________________________
Another image of the Bosque but without wildlife, just for kicks..,
 |
||
 © AGeoJO 2017 |
||
 |
Dec 20, 2017 at 10:22 AM
p.2596 #5Sony FE Images Thread
 |
||
 |
||
|
Edited on Dec 22, 2017 at 04:30 AM · View previous versions
Dec 20, 2017 at 10:27 AM
p.2596 #6Sony FE Images Thread
I was shooting the CV 35/1.7, CV 40/1.4, and CV 75/2.5 this night, but I believe these are all from the 35/1.7. Love these guys, always a super fun show.
Voigtlander 35mm f/1.7 Ultron VM at f/1.7 on Sony A7
01-20171216-DSC04816 by diogenic, on Flickr
03-20171216-DSC04886 by diogenic, on Flickr
02-20171216-DSC04853 by diogenic, on Flickr
20171216-DSC04892 by diogenic, on Flickr
20171216-DSC04870 by diogenic, on Flickr
20171216-DSC04836 by diogenic, on Flickr
Voigtlander 35mm f/1.7 Ultron VM at f/1.7 on Sony A7
01-20171216-DSC04816 by diogenic, on Flickr
03-20171216-DSC04886 by diogenic, on Flickr
02-20171216-DSC04853 by diogenic, on Flickr
20171216-DSC04892 by diogenic, on Flickr
20171216-DSC04870 by diogenic, on Flickr
20171216-DSC04836 by diogenic, on Flickr
Dec 20, 2017 at 10:39 AM
p.2596 #7Sony FE Images Thread
philber wrote:
René, Ronny, Werner, Mathieu, you should be ashamed for making an old man blush like a debutante!! Your kind words are much appreciated nonetheless!!!
Werner, your Wall is awesome! And your cranes, Joshua! and Bob's "lighter fare". And John's Bosham shots! And René's unexpected ship shot! And Ryan's station and bird pics! And...
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me,...Show more →
Philippe -- in the spirit of holiday friendliness and good will:
I understand your concerns, and I agree that I don't care for pimped-out HDR types of images.
I consider PP to be one half of any photograph. Since we are not following the codes of documentary or forensics photographers, we need not be concerned with ultimate "legitimacy" in our photos. Our photos are illustrative and free of creative constraints (other than good taste). Things like correct exposure in-camera lead immediately to "correct rendition" in PP. The "correct rendition" is a combination of proper balance of exposure, contrast, saturation, DR, color balance, and cropping -- at the very least. Also, we are not only dealing with what the camera records (as supposed reality), but our remembrance of it as well -- an idealized or augmented human vision vs. the technical recording mechanism of the camera. This not only gives us a lot of latitude as visionaries, but compels us to do our best to communicate important details and help direct the viewer through composition and cropping.
In your photo example, it is obvious that the sky can be brought down a little in value thus enhancing the color somewhat, and the cliff face can be raised slightly to improve its "readability" and correspond better with human visual memory of the scene. I find the LR Adjustment Brush is essential for dodging and burning and localized color/tone, and the Graduated Filter is terrific for areas such as the sky.
Basically, I'm saying you have a lovely photo there, regardless, and it doesn't require much manipulating to move it from a technical document to an artistic statement without compromising your original vision (as you have already been doing). It's just a bit of dusting and sprucing up, not a total make-over.
I'm by no means an authority on the subject of PP or good taste. I'm constantly learning by observing my betters here on FM -- and there are plenty to learn from -- including you, my friend.
Merry Christmas, and thanks for all your contributions here.
René, Ronny, Werner, Mathieu, you should be ashamed for making an old man blush like a debutante!! Your kind words are much appreciated nonetheless!!!
Werner, your Wall is awesome! And your cranes, Joshua! and Bob's "lighter fare". And John's Bosham shots! And René's unexpected ship shot! And Ryan's station and bird pics! And...
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me,...Show more →
Philippe -- in the spirit of holiday friendliness and good will:
I understand your concerns, and I agree that I don't care for pimped-out HDR types of images.
I consider PP to be one half of any photograph. Since we are not following the codes of documentary or forensics photographers, we need not be concerned with ultimate "legitimacy" in our photos. Our photos are illustrative and free of creative constraints (other than good taste). Things like correct exposure in-camera lead immediately to "correct rendition" in PP. The "correct rendition" is a combination of proper balance of exposure, contrast, saturation, DR, color balance, and cropping -- at the very least. Also, we are not only dealing with what the camera records (as supposed reality), but our remembrance of it as well -- an idealized or augmented human vision vs. the technical recording mechanism of the camera. This not only gives us a lot of latitude as visionaries, but compels us to do our best to communicate important details and help direct the viewer through composition and cropping.
In your photo example, it is obvious that the sky can be brought down a little in value thus enhancing the color somewhat, and the cliff face can be raised slightly to improve its "readability" and correspond better with human visual memory of the scene. I find the LR Adjustment Brush is essential for dodging and burning and localized color/tone, and the Graduated Filter is terrific for areas such as the sky.
Basically, I'm saying you have a lovely photo there, regardless, and it doesn't require much manipulating to move it from a technical document to an artistic statement without compromising your original vision (as you have already been doing). It's just a bit of dusting and sprucing up, not a total make-over.
I'm by no means an authority on the subject of PP or good taste. I'm constantly learning by observing my betters here on FM -- and there are plenty to learn from -- including you, my friend.
Merry Christmas, and thanks for all your contributions here.
Dec 20, 2017 at 10:46 AM
p.2596 #9Sony FE Images Thread
After reading Jim's excellent post above I'm a bit worried now. This is basically as I remember it - but is it now overcooked ? 
A7r and Loxia 21mm.
The path to the holy, and very sacred, waterfall in the Meili Snow Mountain range. Often monks can be seen making this pilgrimage despite the hardships involved.
A7r and Loxia 21mm.
The path to the holy, and very sacred, waterfall in the Meili Snow Mountain range. Often monks can be seen making this pilgrimage despite the hardships involved.
Dec 20, 2017 at 11:23 AM
p.2596 #10Sony FE Images Thread
philber wrote:
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me, and my preconceptions.
I did take up your kind suggestion, and here are two versions. The one I posted, and a reprocessed one. As you'll see, even when prodded by someone I admire like you, I din't push matters very far. Let me know.
everybody has their own taste in these matters, but if one want to accurately represent the colors and contrast of a scene one needs to change the tone curve, boost contrast, and/or modify colors in some way. most raw converters default to a tone curve that preserves maximal extremes of dynamic range to facilitate ease of processing to taste. then of course there's the different color profiles. comparing a straight raw conversion from adobe to same shot on any color film shows a dramatic difference because processing in post was much more difficult with color film. the raw file will look utterly subdued compared to the film shot. i don't think boosting a shot should really be compared to doping since the raw is not supposed to be an accurate representation of the scene and is intended to be modified in post either for greater accuracy or less according to ones artistic vision.
just a little example of the same shot unprocessed on film, portra 160 (a quite subdued film):
and the same shot on digital with massive boosting of tone curve and colors (i'll need to search another hard drive to find an unprocessed version):
despite my best efforts, i could not get the same color and contrast levels from the digital raw that i could from the film shot.
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me, and my preconceptions.
I did take up your kind suggestion, and here are two versions. The one I posted, and a reprocessed one. As you'll see, even when prodded by someone I admire like you, I din't push matters very far. Let me know.
everybody has their own taste in these matters, but if one want to accurately represent the colors and contrast of a scene one needs to change the tone curve, boost contrast, and/or modify colors in some way. most raw converters default to a tone curve that preserves maximal extremes of dynamic range to facilitate ease of processing to taste. then of course there's the different color profiles. comparing a straight raw conversion from adobe to same shot on any color film shows a dramatic difference because processing in post was much more difficult with color film. the raw file will look utterly subdued compared to the film shot. i don't think boosting a shot should really be compared to doping since the raw is not supposed to be an accurate representation of the scene and is intended to be modified in post either for greater accuracy or less according to ones artistic vision.
just a little example of the same shot unprocessed on film, portra 160 (a quite subdued film):
and the same shot on digital with massive boosting of tone curve and colors (i'll need to search another hard drive to find an unprocessed version):
despite my best efforts, i could not get the same color and contrast levels from the digital raw that i could from the film shot.
Dec 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM
|
p.2596 #11Sony FE Images Thread
philber wrote:
René, Ronny, Werner, Mathieu, you should be ashamed for making an old man blush like a debutante!! Your kind words are much appreciated nonetheless!!!
Werner, your Wall is awesome! And your cranes, Joshua! and Bob's "lighter fare". And John's Bosham shots! And René's unexpected ship shot! And Ryan's station and bird pics! And...
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me,...Show more →
Phillipe,
This is a lovely shot and I think there are many ways to process it. My own views are similar to Helena's that the original is best, but I almost always love Helena's artistic vision, so that doesn't surprise me. In this shot I think there is a balance with the sky less dramatic and the reflection in the pool in the foreground understated that anchors the shot on the cliff. The lovely composition emphasized that with the curved brighter light together with the foreground clouds is lovely. I am sure Joshua or Jim would process this shot to be lovely as well, as they both a fantastic photographers and clearly very good at post processing. Nevertheless I like the balance you have created in this shot and I think you should mostly trust you own artistic vision for the shot. You produce lovely images and this is a great example.
René, Ronny, Werner, Mathieu, you should be ashamed for making an old man blush like a debutante!! Your kind words are much appreciated nonetheless!!!
Werner, your Wall is awesome! And your cranes, Joshua! and Bob's "lighter fare". And John's Bosham shots! And René's unexpected ship shot! And Ryan's station and bird pics! And...
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me,...Show more →
Phillipe,
This is a lovely shot and I think there are many ways to process it. My own views are similar to Helena's that the original is best, but I almost always love Helena's artistic vision, so that doesn't surprise me. In this shot I think there is a balance with the sky less dramatic and the reflection in the pool in the foreground understated that anchors the shot on the cliff. The lovely composition emphasized that with the curved brighter light together with the foreground clouds is lovely. I am sure Joshua or Jim would process this shot to be lovely as well, as they both a fantastic photographers and clearly very good at post processing. Nevertheless I like the balance you have created in this shot and I think you should mostly trust you own artistic vision for the shot. You produce lovely images and this is a great example.
Dec 20, 2017 at 11:54 AM
p.2596 #12Sony FE Images Thread
Over the shoulder glance by MedicineMan4040, on FlickrDec 20, 2017 at 12:22 PM
p.2596 #13Sony FE Images Thread
MedicineMan404 wrote:
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4690/38302785325_1c2558ef73_o.jpgOver the shoulder glance by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr
Great shot !
What people (I'm not referring to this shot) often leave out when stating what combination a bird was shot with .. is the critical information of the distance to the subject. Can I ask what ca. was the distance here ?
I haven't made my mind up yet whether to get the FE100-400 + x1.4 or x2.0. I'll add the other TC later but I'm referring to the initial purchase. My mind is moving in the direction of the x2.0 at the moment.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4690/38302785325_1c2558ef73_o.jpgOver the shoulder glance by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr
Great shot !
What people (I'm not referring to this shot) often leave out when stating what combination a bird was shot with .. is the critical information of the distance to the subject. Can I ask what ca. was the distance here ?
I haven't made my mind up yet whether to get the FE100-400 + x1.4 or x2.0. I'll add the other TC later but I'm referring to the initial purchase. My mind is moving in the direction of the x2.0 at the moment.
Dec 20, 2017 at 12:47 PM
p.2596 #14Sony FE Images Thread
you nailed the focus on this little guy Medicine Man
beak, eye, white feathers very sharp
beak, eye, white feathers very sharp
Dec 20, 2017 at 12:51 PM
p.2596 #15Sony FE Images Thread
Oh wow, thank you, everyone! I'm glad that I brought my camera, lol
Dec 20, 2017 at 12:55 PM
p.2596 #16Sony FE Images Thread
Frogfish you can find the information on his Flickr post of this image
I first purchased the 1.4 for my 100-400 but Medicine Man's images convinced me to add the 2.0 to my bag also
I first purchased the 1.4 for my 100-400 but Medicine Man's images convinced me to add the 2.0 to my bag also
Dec 20, 2017 at 12:55 PM
p.2596 #17Sony FE Images Thread
Frogfish I must apologize for NOT knowing the distance 
I do know I was in a blind which still stands in the same spot so I
know I was no more than 15-20 feet.
RFisher uh oh! Now if you don't like the 2.0 I'll be to blame I'll keep my
fingers crossed you do.
Just remember, the a9 has an outstanding Sony sensor eh, just avoid the cropping
as best you can and all will be good!
I do know I was in a blind which still stands in the same spot so I
know I was no more than 15-20 feet.
RFisher uh oh! Now if you don't like the 2.0 I'll be to blame
I'll keep myfingers crossed you do.
Just remember, the a9 has an outstanding Sony sensor eh, just avoid the cropping
as best you can and all will be good!
Dec 20, 2017 at 01:04 PM
p.2596 #19Sony FE Images Thread
Steve Spencer wrote:
Werner, your Wall is awesome! And your cranes, Joshua! and Bob's "lighter fare". And John's Bosham shots! And René's unexpected ship shot! And Ryan's station and bird pics! And...
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me, and my preconceptions.
I did take up your kind suggestion, and here are two versions. The one I posted, and a reprocessed one. As you'll see, even when prodded by someone I admire like you, I din't push matters very far. Let me know.Phillipe,
This is a lovely shot and I think there are many ways to process it. My own views are similar to Helena's that the original is best, but I almost always love Helena's artistic vision, so that doesn't surprise me. In this shot I think there is a balance with the sky less dramatic and the reflection in the pool in the foreground understated that anchors the shot on the cliff. The lovely composition emphasized that with the curved brighter light together with the foreground clouds is lovely. I am sure Joshua or Jim would process this shot to...Show more →
"Your Honor, I call on Steve Spencer as the primary character witness in my mental competency hearing!"
philber wrote
René, Ronny, Werner, Mathieu, you should be ashamed for making an old man blush like a debutante!! Your kind words are much appreciated nonetheless!!!Werner, your Wall is awesome! And your cranes, Joshua! and Bob's "lighter fare". And John's Bosham shots! And René's unexpected ship shot! And Ryan's station and bird pics! And...
Joshua, I am usually reluctant to boost saturation, maybe because I see so many pics that are "spectacularised" and "glamourized" (mostly not here, though). Somehow, in my mind, a "great" shot shouldn't need boosting any more than a great sportsperson should need... banned substances. But, hey! That's just me, and my preconceptions.
I did take up your kind suggestion, and here are two versions. The one I posted, and a reprocessed one. As you'll see, even when prodded by someone I admire like you, I din't push matters very far. Let me know.
This is a lovely shot and I think there are many ways to process it. My own views are similar to Helena's that the original is best, but I almost always love Helena's artistic vision, so that doesn't surprise me. In this shot I think there is a balance with the sky less dramatic and the reflection in the pool in the foreground understated that anchors the shot on the cliff. The lovely composition emphasized that with the curved brighter light together with the foreground clouds is lovely. I am sure Joshua or Jim would process this shot to...Show more →
"Your Honor, I call on Steve Spencer as the primary character witness in my mental competency hearing!"
Dec 20, 2017 at 01:20 PM
p.2596 #20Sony FE Images Thread
DuelingLenses wrote:
Really amazing Joshua!
Thank you very much, Brett!
__________________________________
Stranded on the rocky beach...
Just for kicks..
Really amazing Joshua!
Thank you very much, Brett!
__________________________________
Stranded on the rocky beach...
|
||
 © AGeoJO 2017 |
||
|
Just for kicks..
Dec 20, 2017 at 01:28 PM