Hi, nothing special here, just a picture of a nice sunny late autumn day. I like the colours of the Kodak - reminds me of slide film...
BTW Carsten, I instantly recognized the look of the Zeiss Makro Planar, it was the colours that didn't fit in what I expected. Therefore I looked at the EXIFs
alba63 wrote:
BTW Carsten, I instantly recognized the look of the Zeiss Makro Planar, it was the colours that didn't fit in what I expected. Therefore I looked at the EXIFs
I guess it is a question of philosophy: accurately portray the drab colours of late fall, or assist a little, and get a more vibrant shot.
In fact, the closeup of the dried flower was almost not touched at all, and the previous shot I tried to develop so that it looked like what I saw. The only thing I might have done which isn't accurate is to hit the Vibrance slider a single time, to bring out the greens a bit. The moment I set up to take the shot, the sun popped out and shone directly on my stone! Very lucky.
I was trying to push a little more contrast into only the bright tones of the central gravestone, but my Aperture skills are insufficient. Hints appreciated.
I really like this shot as it is Carsten, but if I wanted to do a localised and specific contrast adjustment I'd move into photoshop, do an eliptical select, press Q gaussian blur the selection mask, and then do a curves adjustment.
carstenw wrote: I guess it is a question of philosophy: accurately portray the drab colours of late fall, or assist a little, and get a more vibrant shot.
Oh, I absolutely have nothing against adding a bit of vibrancy - for a good photo I believe it's necessary to make if photogenic, a 2D representation on screen or in print is not reality, so in order to evoke the actual scene and atmosphere one must show it "bigger than life", at least to a certain extent, but at the same timelife- like. My autumn shot has already more vibrancy than how the eyes saw it (the Kodak does that slide look by default), not too much however.
What I meant with your makro planar shot is that the colour palette and general look does not look Kodak. Most of the time the Nikons have a certain tint and hues that tend to the warm side & green and brown tones. That's why I was puzzled about your photo and checked the EXIFs, which kind of reassured me.
However the photo in itself and the "drawing style" if the macro planar are gorgeous!
thrice wrote:
I really like this shot as it is Carsten, but if I wanted to do a localised and specific contrast adjustment I'd move into photoshop, do an eliptical select, press Q gaussian blur the selection mask, and then do a curves adjustment.
Thanks Daniel, I will give that a try. I still have CS4 but I presume it has both selection mask and curves adjustments
alba63 wrote:
Oh, I absolutely have nothing against adding a bit of vibrancy - for a good photo I believe it's necessary to make if photogenic, a 2D representation on screen or in print is not reality, so in order to evoke the actual scene and atmosphere one must show it "bigger than life", at least to a certain extent, but at the same timelife- like. My autumn shot has already more vibrancy than how the eyes saw it (the Kodak does that slide look by default), not too much however.
What I meant with your makro planar shot is that the colour palette and general look does not look Kodak. Most of the time the Nikons have a certain tint and hues that tend to the warm side & green and brown tones. That's why I was puzzled about your photo and checked the EXIFs, which kind of reassured me.
However the photo in itself and the "drawing style" if the macro planar are gorgeous! ...Show more →
Thanks Bernie! I wish I knew if you meant my sunny gravestone or the dried plant shot I presume the latter, but I wasn't sure. In fact, I took that second shot while I was waiting for you. If you recall, we meet by the building just outside the cemetery, and that is where I spotted this plant, and took the shot just before you arrived.
It might be the Aperture development which is different than you are used to. I find it more subtle in some things (white balance, black point), less subtle in other things (saturation, contrast, vibrancy) and completely different in third ways (no shadow fill, for example). It is taking quite some getting used to, and I have idly speculated about returning to Lightroom, but then I recall how much I dislike Adobe.
alba63 wrote:
What I meant with your makro planar shot is that the colour palette and general look does not look Kodak. Most of the time the Nikons have a certain tint and hues that tend to the warm side & green and brown tones. That's why I was puzzled about your photo and checked the EXIFs, which kind of reassured me.
However the photo in itself and the "drawing style" if the macro planar are gorgeous!
Now I finally know what you meant with this. This isn't a Kodak SLR/n shot at all, I made a mistake. It is with the D3. I will try to remove it, and put it over in the Zeiss thread instead. You could have been more blunt, I was totally dense there
Here is another shot instead, cropped to the square (need to get that old Hasselblad out again). The EXIF is bogus, it was the ZF21 at f/2.8.
