More monotones

[Marie Hass]

Two different "looks" from today.

1. The General Store. I initially took a picture of this store in September of 2013. I returned, under different lighting and season conditions, and re-shot. My goal this time was to not loose all of the detail in the shadows, but not over-expose either. Still, I had no detail in the sky, so to salvage it, I created a vignette to help tone it down.


2. Spring flowers with a tone. I have shied away from converting flowers to monotone because I thought it just wrong (LOLs). Someone suggested I stop whining and give it a try.


Please dear reader, comment, critique.

Marie

[IzzieK]

I personally think you did a good job on both shots, Marie...I love the first one. It is a wall hanger type of shot I will gladly print large and display. #2 -- I will think about it...I like it too but I like #1 best. Oh why, oh why did you have to show 2 different ones, I have no idea but have to choose.

[Marie Hass]

Dearest Izzie,

You do not have to choose at all. I just appreciate your comments, so thank you.

Marie

[IzzieK]

Dearest Izzie,

You do not have to choose at all. I just appreciate your comments, so thank you.

Marie

But I did Marie because I want to.

[PhotoRob]

Marie, those old building shots are very interesting. I've had the monochrome bug for a bit, you mind sharing what software you use to post process, specifically the conversion from color to monochrome?

[travis4567]

These are great Marie. Absolutely love the first shot.

[Marie Hass]

Robert, thank you. I use CS5, Nik filters to get the tone range I want, a black and white adjustment layer, levels, brightness/contrast to fine tune. I also have AlienSkin Exposure 4, which has lots of nice presets for black and white. It really just depends on the look I want.

Travis, I despaired of getting the first image right. This was the one I liked the best. I kept blowing the light tin on the porch roof or making the branches too "crispy". I did better when I figured out how to do selective sharpening.

Marie

[Mike Buckley]

Both photos are wonderful. (Glad to see that you stopped whining. )

You mentioned that you kept making the branches too "crispy." The term I like best is "crunchy." I still think they're crunchy. They probably need no sharpening whatsoever as a way to help frame the texture in the building.

[Marie Hass]

Mike! Thanks for making comment. "Crunchy" it will be...if I remember. LOL's.

Marie

[ShaneS]

Both are great Marie and I like the toning on the flowers quite a bit. Try a slightly tighter crop on the flowers losing a bit of the top - as it stands right now it feels ever so slightly top heavy to me but that wouldn't stop me from printing and displaying it as is

[Shadowman]

Nice efforts.

[Marie Hass]

Hi Shane!!!! I will try your crop suggestion here in a bit and see how it goes. Thanks for the idea!

Hey, John! I appreciate your comment.

Marie

[dabhand]

Marie,

For me #1 is good but #2 is even better, such a beautiful tone - I'm in (at least) two minds re cropping as Shane suggested but I keep returning to not cropping at all, so I guess that's the answer as far as I'm concerned (maybe !).

steve

[PhotoRob]

Robert, thank you. I use CS5, Nik filters to get the tone range I want, a black and white adjustment layer, levels, brightness/contrast to fine tune. I also have AlienSkin Exposure 4, which has lots of nice presets for black and white. It really just depends on the look I want.

Marie

Thank for the details Marie, few more requests if you're so inclined; you mind sharing the Exif data and histogram of the original shot? Thanks!

[Marie Hass]

Dear Robert,

I posted this picture also on Flickr. Here is the link. I don't know how to post exif data on CiC, but Flickr has a feature that makes it available. Not sure how to post the original histogram, but if you can walk me through it?

https://flic.kr/p/nbR1Z5

Steve, thank you for your input. #2 is growing on me.

Marie

[Downrigger]

Really nice, both, and you demonstrate a virtuosity I can only hope for in that the two are so differently interpreted and processed. Congratulations.

[Marie Hass]

Thanks, Mark.

I am humbled by everyone's vast pool of knowledge and experience here on CiC. Everyone has so much to share and teach. I have learnt a lot.

Marie

[PhotoRob]

Dear Robert,

I posted this picture also on Flickr. Here is the link. I don't know how to post exif data on CiC, but Flickr has a feature that makes it available. Not sure how to post the original histogram, but if you can walk me through it?

https://flic.kr/p/nbR1Z5

Steve, thank you for your input. #2 is growing on me.

Marie

Thank Marie, here's what I scraped off Flickr: F/11, ISO400, with the crop of that camera around 70mm focal. I'm not a canon-shooter but I've read suggestions for other folks that there's less noise to be had if you use '160' intervals, so maybe 320 or 480 for this shot (one source of many here: http://nofilmschool.com/dslr/iso-noise/). I took a look at the Sept. version of the photo as well, big difference in the camera settings between the two shots.

(Oh and that shot of the farmer's hands is hands down my favorite, very well executed).

As for the histo. I'm an Aperture user so can't provide any guidance, don't go through any trouble for me, it was just a curiosity (too many kids books, starting to talk in rhymes again )

[Marie Hass]

Dear Rob,

Thanks for that information and the link. I also shoot in RAW and do my noise reduction before I bring the file into CS5. Never knew about the 160 interval. It would be easy enough to do.

I always shoot manual. It was difficult at first to do, but I have been doing it for the past 4 years and am quite quick.

You have made me realize an insight about myself, tho. I will shoot at higher ISO's so I don't loose a shot - usually around 400 or so, so if needs be, I can go higher or lower in shutter speed and still hand hold. Depending on what type of shooting I am doing, I will preset f11 or f5.6.

Interesting. If I would be better served by another method? I am always open to suggestions.

Thank you,

Marie

[PhotoRob]

Dear Rob,

Thanks for that information and the link. I also shoot in RAW and do my noise reduction before I bring the file into CS5. Never knew about the 160 interval. It would be easy enough to do.

I always shoot manual. It was difficult at first to do, but I have been doing it for the past 4 years and am quite quick.

You have made me realize an insight about myself, tho. I will shoot at higher ISO's so I don't loose a shot - usually around 400 or so, so if needs be, I can go higher or lower in shutter speed and still hand hold. Depending on what type of shooting I am doing, I will preset f11 or f5.6.

Interesting. If I would be better served by another method? I am always open to suggestions.

Thank you,

Marie

The best method is whatever works best for you.

I have years and years to go on the photography side, but in other, more practiced disciplines I've learned going from nothing, to average, to above average and then excellent goes much quicker than that last 1-2% to break into 'exceptional' territory (it's lonely at the top, right?). Who knows if you'll ever actually notice a difference shooting at 320 vs. 400 but I believe small adjustments add-up...