Excellent photography by all in the last several pages, gotta love the diversity.
Ken, great so see you!
Eliot, welcome to the thread and great shots wit the Thorium 35/1.4. As Laura mentioned, Rafael has an awesome collection of those lenses.
The SkyStar Wheel is new, added in November, 2023. It is probably a nice attraction but looks out of place on the historical Fisherman's Wharf waterfront.
28/2.8 AIs
This was at the end of the line at the waterfront, there is a circular wooden platform that turns the famous cable cars around. There was a long line and wait for a ride.
Season Greetings from Nikon and the Goodwill thrift shops. Bellows lens 105 F4 on the Bellows 5. Photos taken in the Maytag Studio (my laundry room)
Harry Palmer
I have to ask, while aware that this may not be the appropriate place to do so. How much post-shoot processing do most of you do before posting a pic or even concluding that an image is "finished"? I was just browsing through the Photo Critique forum. While there are some engaging and thought-provoking images there, it is clear that some of the content is the result of "creative manipulation", not merely "taking pictures". They might as well be AI-generated. It becomes more a question of creating art than capturing an image with a camera.
Some of the beautiful images here are awesome when downloaded in their near-native resolution and viewed on my laptop's screen. I wonder, would they look as good if downsized before being posted?
I downsize my images before posting, then generally apply Printshop Pro's Sharpen process to remove jpg artifacts. (It looks like GIMP might actually be better.) I rarely do much more. Then I save results as jpg at whatever the default quality value is, probably less than 100%, maybe 80%.
The point of my question is this: Where is the philosophical divide between image capture and image creation/modification? I assumed that since this thread is about specific lenses, then the subtlety of lens details is the whole point.
Just curious. You needn't answer, don't need to give away any secrets. I am still learning to be a "real" photographer, have only the experience of youth and what I see here to guide me!
pbraymond wrote:
No complaints yet, they are pretty tolerant. The occasional ice jam in the river nearby will flood this place, and so far everyone's seems here to stay.
---------------------------------------------
I've lost track, Rafael,are retirement congratulations in order for the occasion back in August I believe?
---------------------------------------------
The monochrome suits this narrow alley, Serge.
---------------------------------------------
That submerged boat steals the scene Colin. Permanent "exhibit"?
Ray I keep confusing myself about retirement, I am still working and thinking about retiring in August of '26.
Pretty Poignant memorial Matt, I do not understand how people can feel so much hatred, be they healthy or ill.
Beautiful bubble pond and sweetie James.
Serge, you are the wanderer of interesting places.
Colin, that sunken boat, the orange cone, the colors of the graffiti reflected in water, truy truly artful, so are the IR waterfront buildings
Jesper, that 13.5cm in your hands is an excellent image maker
Good that you are feeling better Ken, keep posting
Did someone say Thorium, I have a couple of 35mm 1.4 Throium Ns, long a favorite. I do not clear the brownish tint with ?UV, but rather enjoy using it.
Three of the five versions of this lens, the bad one is the 6XX serial number ais, it is not optically as good as the rest and its iris keeps getting oiled, the sharpest is one of the Ns.
jimmuller wrote:
I have to ask, while aware that this may not be the appropriate place to do so. How much post-shoot processing do most of you do before posting a pic or even concluding that an image is "finished"? I was just browsing through the Photo Critique forum. While there are some engaging and thought-provoking images there, it is clear that some of the content is the result of "creative manipulation", not merely "taking pictures". They might as well be AI-generated. It becomes more a question of creating art than capturing an image with a camera.
Some of the beautiful images here are awesome when downloaded in their near-native resolution and viewed on my laptop's screen. I wonder, would they look as good if downsized before being posted?
I downsize my images before posting, then generally apply Printshop Pro's Sharpen process to remove jpg artifacts. (It looks like GIMP might actually be better.) I rarely do much more. Then I save results as jpg at whatever the default quality value is, probably less than 100%, maybe 80%.
The point of my question is this: Where is the philosophical divide between image capture and image creation/modification? I assumed that since this thread is about specific lenses, then the subtlety of lens details is the whole point.
Just curious. You needn't answer, don't need to give away any secrets. I am still learning to be a "real" photographer, have only the experience of youth and what I see here to guide me!...Show more →
I would think most of us have our own patterns of processing we fell into as we learned with different software, and it evolves, at the moment I seem to favor RAW to lightroom and cobalt, then over to photoshop sometimes using Topaz and Dox packages as well depending on what it is. You might switch to RAW from JPG and then best thing is to play with copies and find your own path and preferences. Dont be afraid to play it is only dig files, you can delete it if you dont like it an start again.
jimmuller wrote:
I have to ask, while aware that this may not be the appropriate place to do so. How much post-shoot processing do most of you do before posting a pic or even concluding that an image is "finished"? I was just browsing through the Photo Critique forum. While there are some engaging and thought-provoking images there, it is clear that some of the content is the result of "creative manipulation", not merely "taking pictures". They might as well be AI-generated. It becomes more a question of creating art than capturing an image with a camera.
Some of the beautiful images here are awesome when downloaded in their near-native resolution and viewed on my laptop's screen. I wonder, would they look as good if downsized before being posted?
I downsize my images before posting, then generally apply Printshop Pro's Sharpen process to remove jpg artifacts. (It looks like GIMP might actually be better.) I rarely do much more. Then I save results as jpg at whatever the default quality value is, probably less than 100%, maybe 80%.
The point of my question is this: Where is the philosophical divide between image capture and image creation/modification? I assumed that since this thread is about specific lenses, then the subtlety of lens details is the whole point.
Just curious. You needn't answer, don't need to give away any secrets. I am still learning to be a "real" photographer, have only the experience of youth and what I see here to guide me!...Show more →
Hi Jim - good question
I think a lot depends on whether you shoot RAW or Jpeg. The image that we see on the back of the camera has already been manipulated into a relatively basic jpeg by the camera manufacturers software and when seen on a screein in, say lightroom, bears very little resmeblance to the actual scene.. If shooting RAW then a raw converter of some description has to be used to produce a jpeg for sharing.
The point of post processing in my view is to produce an image that shows the subject through the photographers eyes. In this regard AI additions are not acceptable, but masking to remove blown out highlights or to recover details in shadows is.
Our eyes have an amazing dynamic range which no camera can come close to duplicating so manipulations is almost always necessary.
The pimage lightly processed in Lightroom classic to remove blown out highlights , correct exposure in the sky and water and to lift shadows on the hill. Also cropped to 16x9 Much more the way I saw it
I always post-process.
I shoot in RAW and load images into Lightroom. RAW gives me total control and is a must for infrared shooting.
By default I apply the LR landscape profile and let LR auto whitebalance and auto expose.
From that starting point I will dodge and burn any areas that I feel need it and then crop as required.
When shooting at ISO 3200 I will often apply LR denoise. The default setting of 50 is too much (over processed) for my taste so I back that off to ~25 as I see fit.
I have no artistic issue applying LR's remove tools to get rid of minor unwanted objects or subtle use of other sliders to create a specific mood.
LR's photo merge capability comes in handy when deliberately shooting panos or when the lens I am using is too tight to capture a scene in one frame.
On the export side I use 100% quality, full-size, JPEG - but limit the output file size to 8MB max before uploading to Flickr.
When creating the BBCode URL link from Flickr (to paste into a FM forum) I constrain the max image dimension to 1600 pixels - so downsizing and compression is applied to my images you view directly in FM.
A 24MB RAW file --> 8MB (max) JPEG in Flickr --> 0.5MB in FM (size of downloaded on-screen image using 'save file as')
Cheers,
Colin
jimmuller wrote:
I have to ask, while aware that this may not be the appropriate place to do so. How much post-shoot processing do most of you do before posting a pic or even concluding that an image is "finished"? I was just browsing through the Photo Critique forum. While there are some engaging and thought-provoking images there, it is clear that some of the content is the result of "creative manipulation", not merely "taking pictures". They might as well be AI-generated. It becomes more a question of creating art than capturing an image with a camera.
Some of the beautiful images here are awesome when downloaded in their near-native resolution and viewed on my laptop's screen. I wonder, would they look as good if downsized before being posted?
I downsize my images before posting, then generally apply Printshop Pro's Sharpen process to remove jpg artifacts. (It looks like GIMP might actually be better.) I rarely do much more. Then I save results as jpg at whatever the default quality value is, probably less than 100%, maybe 80%.
The point of my question is this: Where is the philosophical divide between image capture and image creation/modification? I assumed that since this thread is about specific lenses, then the subtlety of lens details is the whole point.
Just curious. You needn't answer, don't need to give away any secrets. I am still learning to be a "real" photographer, have only the experience of youth and what I see here to guide me!...Show more →
The pimage lightly processed in Lightroom classic to remove blown out highlights , correct exposure in the sky and water and to lift shadows on the hill. Also cropped to 16x9 Much more the way I saw it
EMH2025, Oosty, DeltaSigma,
Great answers. Thank you.
Ever since I started semi-serious photography 55 years ago I have tried to capture what I see, images I wish to remember and possibly share, not images I imagine. Photoshop and AI can invent images but they are as meaningless as TV ads.
I have to use the tools at my elbow and polish the rough edges later if necessary. Even great tools have limitations. Some tool marks are "not flaws but part of the fabric", and some images are devilishly hard to capture! (I fail often enough.) So it's a tradeoff between invention and improving the tools and process. With my awesome new mirrorless Nikon (and old Luddite-ish lenses) the tool marks are different so the polishing is different. What could Michelangelo have done with a power belt sander?
