Project 52(late start!) by Gary (oldgreygary)

[Dave Humphries]

Thanks for your reply Mal. I will look at suggestions re: blacks and exposure(Amended version below, a bit more zip!). I think I could make a whole series with different settings!

Yes, I think abstract would be a good description. It certainly won't appeal to everyone's taste. But, I feel that it is worth exploring the individual elements of composition which will help the whole. At the moment I have an open mind and trying out things and I'll see where it leads. Due to current financial constraints I am restricted to my local area so I am trying to look at familiar subjects in a different way.

Hi Gary,

I still find this lacking in contrast and with a high black point. Here are the histograms for both versions of your shot.

Here's my edit, which I won't put in your P52 thread, but provide another link to an album.

I did this with the Levels dialog and Local Contrast Enhancement, there's a tutorial on that here.

I look forward to seeing your work in coming weeks.

You are indeed developing your hobby Gary, but it can't all be done in camera, some editing is necessary.

One of the difficulties I find with the Canon G2 is that it is not the best for reviewing what you have shot. Quite often what looks ok on the LCD can either be under or over exposed when I come to look at them back home.

Does the G2 have any kind of histogram you can use to help judge exposure post shooting?

Cheers,

[oldgreygary]

Thanks for your reply Dave. The G2 has a dial on top which basically allows me to switch the camera on/off and a display mode. The latter allows me to view image. It does display a basic histogram with the exposure settings. Also, image 'blinks' if any overexposed areas. For a while I was shooting in manual mode. When I did this I started to use the aforementioned switch to go between on and display mode to check histogram. More recently, I have been using either aperture or shutter priority mode. I admit that I haven't been using the histogram as I thought that being in these modes the camera would give the best exposure. But, I guess as I am choosing one half of the equation i.e. shutter or aperture then I am in effect in semi-manual mode. I must admit that I don't find the switching back and forward particularly friendly i.e. it doesn't encourage me to do it! I don't know how this works on more 'grown-up' cameras? I guess it might be more useable and friendly?

With regards to using PP software. I can say that I don't have problems learning new software and finding my way round the options. What I am a bit lost with is asking myself the question 'what am I actually trying to achieve by using this software?' That's were I am failing in that area. I don't fully understand what I am trying to achieve. Perhaps, there is some book, website, this forum that can broaden my understanding of this arena.
I must admit that I don't want to spend hours on my PC. Perhaps that is part of the problem? I need to develop a method which will give me the best results while not getting bogged down in the whole PP process. I will say that most if not all of my effort is put into what I do at source i.e. at camera. But, I can see the possibilities with PP software. It is for me anyway, understanding what the heck I am doing with it to achieve results that will improve the image. Any further thoughts welcomed! Maybe it is a thread I should start outside of Project 52?

I can see the difference between your version and mine. The histogram appears more stretched out across the spectrum. By paying more attention to the histogram I guess that is something I can correct in camera? The image does look a lot sharper. In Lightroom I understand that the LCE effect is achieved by using the Clarity slider?

Cheers for now

Gary

[Goldcoastgolfer]

Thanks for your reply Dave. The G2 has a dial on top which basically allows me to switch the camera on/off and a display mode. The latter allows me to view image. It does display a basic histogram with the exposure settings. Also, image 'blinks' if any overexposed areas. For a while I was shooting in manual mode. When I did this I started to use the aforementioned switch to go between on and display mode to check histogram. More recently, I have been using either aperture or shutter priority mode. I admit that I haven't been using the histogram as I thought that being in these modes the camera would give the best exposure. But, I guess as I am choosing one half of the equation i.e. shutter or aperture then I am in effect in semi-manual mode. I must admit that I don't find the switching back and forward particularly friendly i.e. it doesn't encourage me to do it! I don't know how this works on more 'grown-up' cameras? I guess it might be more useable and friendly?

With regards to using PP software. I can say that I don't have problems learning new software and finding my way round the options. What I am a bit lost with is asking myself the question 'what am I actually trying to achieve by using this software?' That's were I am failing in that area. I don't fully understand what I am trying to achieve. Perhaps, there is some book, website, this forum that can broaden my understanding of this arena.
I must admit that I don't want to spend hours on my PC. Perhaps that is part of the problem? I need to develop a method which will give me the best results while not getting bogged down in the whole PP process. I will say that most if not all of my effort is put into what I do at source i.e. at camera. But, I can see the possibilities with PP software. It is for me anyway, understanding what the heck I am doing with it to achieve results that will improve the image. Any further thoughts welcomed! Maybe it is a thread I should start outside of Project 52?

I can see the difference between your version and mine. The histogram appears more stretched out across the spectrum. By paying more attention to the histogram I guess that is something I can correct in camera? The image does look a lot sharper. In Lightroom I understand that the LCE effect is achieved by using the Clarity slider?

Cheers for now

Gary

I understand where you're coming from Gary - once upon a time I had the very same questions. I think the short version of the answer to your question is that PP allows you to transform your capture into the final vision of what you saw in your mind when you took the original photo. A lot of people liken PP to the negative development process of film cameras. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that process of taking a capture from film and putting it onto paper can actually be manipulated to alter how the photo looks. We're not talking layering like you can do in PP these days, but brightening or darkening, altering tones - that sort of thing.

These days I see the process of creating a photograph as capturing the scene as well as post processing it. What this enables me to do is to a have a vision of a photo I want to create, even if the scene itself doesn't present in that manner. I then capture the scene, focussing on composition and lighting elements, and then finish off the vision using PP. Sometimes I don't have to do a whole lot of PP - other times I might spend a fair while tweaking a photo to create my vision.

To be honest, once you get into the swing of things, you can do it quite quickly. I rarely spend more than a minute or two of PP unless I have a really complicated vision in mind.... or I completely mess up the capture but I still want to make something of the scene.

The other thing is with camera processing vs computer processing, the ability of a camera to tweak images is significantly less than that of a computer. The processing power of a computer is significantly greater that a camera's on board processor and memory. Therefore a computer is able to enhance a photograph that much more than a camera will be able to.

[oldgreygary]

This image is something that I decided to make after walking past a few times. Initially, I was out for a walk and noticed this pile of shattered glass on the pavement. Having seen this before, I thought some unlucky person has had there car broken into. On my return and passing the glass again I began to think, would that make a good image? Anyway, a few days later and having walked past it again a few times, I was walking back and had my camera. I noticed the shaft of sun which was in middle of the glass and thought what the heck I'll take a picture.

Interestingly, when I got back and started to do a bit of PP several thoughts began to come to me. It reminded me of the post on this site about someone having there car broken into and their gear being stolen. It also made me remember when I was burgled and how rotten that made me feel. All this coming from one image.
Therein lies the problem. If I didn't write all this preamble does the image stand on its own and convey any of this? That's what I wrestled with as I don't think it does. Anyway, I''l leave it up to you look at it and maybe offer some thoughts?

Cheers for now

Gary

[Goldcoastgolfer]

Well I actually looked at your photo twice, the first time not having read your preamble and the second after reading it. I think I can see the appeal of what you were trying to photograph but for me the photo appears a bit flat, even with the shaft of light the way it is. Kerry's better at seeing the opportunity with this sort of photo than I am, but perhaps if the light had been more of a diagonal and shot from a different angle it would have added a more 3 dimensional element to the photo the would create a bit more interest.

[oldgreygary]

Mal, I think it confirms what I thought. I only took one shot and didn't explore it further. I thought that it might have possibilities with telling a story. Afterwards, I thought that maybe if there had been part of a car in the image it might have made more sense. I agree about different angles. If I had explored different possibilities then it might have made me more aware of its validity as a image.

Cheers for now

Gary

[oldgreygary]

I have posted this image as it's a result of starting off with an initial problem and finding different solutions. On the forum I put a post up about problems I had been having with blown highlights. With skies and rain/dew drops.
I also mentioned that I was looking at HDR to see what options/possibilities that would offer. Anyway, one aspect which came out of this was to try metering off the sky. I went out with the intention of doing this and using AEB to then be able to process in HDR. This did work but I also noticed that one of the versions looked to be not far away from what I was looking for. This led me to go back and re-read about the Zone system and a post processing technique of dodging and burning. So, this is how that image came about. The sky was how I wanted it I just needed to to do the 'dodging' part in PP. It's not come out too badly.

More by accident than design I have stumbled on several new techniques. I actually felt that I had taken some steps forward over the past week. If you want to add any thoughts then always interested to hear from you.

Cheers for now

Gary

[Geoff F]

With that shot, Gary, I think I would crop out the little bit of bridge at the bottom. It was a nice idea but being so small and out of focus I find it too distracting.

With regard to 'gentle' HDR work, I have recently been rereading an article from Harold Davis about creating what he calls HDR by Hand. This starts out by taking a number of shots at different exposures but combining them using layers and masks instead of using auto editing.

Similar to creating different Raw conversions then combining them.

It was published, on another site, in 2010 but I can't find the correct links although the photos he used are there.

I often shoot in a similar manner to what you describe here. Get the sky correct then 'force the rest into compliance'.

Combining variously exposed layers like this, I find, gives a much better effect than using the dodging and burning brushes; but it does rely on having suitable software to handle layers and masks.

[oldgreygary]

Thanks for your reply Geoff. I will own up to the bridge not being planned in the shot. As I was trying out shooting brackets it was a convenient parking space for the camera. Interestingly, for me it is the opposite view. Because the bridge is out of focus it directs my eye down the railway line and into the distance. Sometimes, I think that an out of focus foreground has that sort of effect. It makes you look through the out of focus part.

By looking at HDR it has started to change my view about PP and the possibilities that it can offer. I have been using trial versions of Photomatix software to experiment with HDR which I think is an excellent piece of software. For me it has served two purposes. Firstly, to start to look at what HDR offers. The knock-on effect of that has also made me more aware of what can also be achieved in 'normal' processing software.

I will follow up suggested references as they sound like an interesting avenue to explore.

Cheers for now

Gary

[oldgreygary]

This week I have gone back to making some indoor shots. This one came about by look at some empty glass jars and noticing the reflections in them. I had also been trying using some coloured water to see how that affected things. I couldn't get it to work but then I found a wooden frame that I had made a while ago. So, I put the jars in there and put a white painted MDF board at the back and hey presto this is the result! Also, trying to further refine my PP skills and am definitely now seeing what that brings to the party. Any comments as always very
welcome.

Cheers for now

Gary

[Geoff F]

Shooting that sort of scene with a G2 really is pushing the boundaries. It just goes to show what can be achieved with a somewhat 'basic' older camera. At least by today's standards.

But it is still a competent piece of kit in the right hands.

I can't make up my mind about whether to crop that upright piece of wood on the right edge. As it is, it makes a firm 'stop' to the scene. Without it, there is an assumption that the jars go on further which adds a bit of mystery.

[Goldcoastgolfer]

I think the wood on the edge is okay but it would be better if it was a complete frame all the way around rather than seeing just one edge I think.

Gary - just with regards to blown highlight techniques - I don't do HDR just because I don't have the time to learn nor the tools to post process and combine images effectively so I tend to meter for light that avoids blowouts but doesn't have parts of the scene that are so dark that I lose too much light information. Checking with the histogram (if the G2 has it) is a good way of ensuring that you have enough information in your capture to do some effective post processing.

[oldgreygary]

Thanks Geoff and Mal, for your replies. I would say that the G2 has got enough and probably more features than I need. If they were translated onto a DSLR with a larger LCD and the ability to have lens changes then that wouldn't be too far off for me.

I will have to look at the other shots I did. I think I played around with the frame in full and missing altogether.

Mal, with regards to HDR. I would recommend that you download Photomatix Essentials which you can, as a 'trial'. It would take max. 10-15mins to learn basics. You can use it on single shots as well as multiple ones. It has shown me what is possible with HDR and normal processing. I think the message that you say and what I read on a regular basis is about getting things right at source i.e. when you take the picture. Checking the histogram is a routine that I need to get into as you say it gives feedback on whether a good range of information is available for PP.

Cheers for now

Gary

[Goldcoastgolfer]

Thanks Geoff and Mal, for your replies. I would say that the G2 has got enough and probably more features than I need. If they were translated onto a DSLR with a larger LCD and the ability to have lens changes then that wouldn't be too far off for me.

I will have to look at the other shots I did. I think I played around with the frame in full and missing altogether.

Mal, with regards to HDR. I would recommend that you download Photomatix Essentials which you can, as a 'trial'. It would take max. 10-15mins to learn basics. You can use it on single shots as well as multiple ones. It has shown me what is possible with HDR and normal processing. I think the message that you say and what I read on a regular basis is about getting things right at source i.e. when you take the picture. Checking the histogram is a routine that I need to get into as you say it gives feedback on whether a good range of information is available for PP.

Cheers for now

Gary

Perhaps I'll add it to the list of my projects for Project 52 - but just a bit later in the year. I'm just flat out doing so many things at the moment - and keeping up with all the projects on here is almost like a full time job. I don't know how Donald and the others manage to review so many of the photos on here!

[oldgreygary]

As we seem to be getting a lot of rain in the UK at the moment I thought I would use this image. Basically, its the overflow for a local lake which then feeds into a small stream. It gives me some more practice with PP work as well. Any thoughts welcome.

Cheers for now

Gary

[FrankMi]

Hi Gary, although the bright pipes grab the eye, they are also the part that makes this image interesting. What PP changes did you make?

[Geoff F]

Personally, Gary, I never like those very slow shutter speed shots of moving water. So this is just right for me.

[oldgreygary]

Thanks Geoff and Frank for commenting. With regards to the PP, the new thing that I tried out on this image was cloning. On the right-hand side one of the branches was stretched out about three quarters of the way across the water and I found it a bit distracting. So, there is a tool which allows for 'healing'. I used the clone option and worked along the branch using small areas and cloning of the water. I think it worked out ok on here. I have since tried it on another image and it didn't work at all and looked very messy and noticeable. It is probably ok on this image as it blends quite well, so I guess it might have a limited use.
I think I can hear a message, you need layers Gary!

Funny you should mention about the water Geoff, I did take some on a slower speed but decided on this one. I think it does make the water look better. What Frank said about the pipes making the image more interesting is what swung it for me. Although they are overexposed I don't think that it spoils the image.

Cheers for now

Gary

[Geoff F]

Putting it a bit too simply, Gary.

Healing Brushes create a mixture of the pick up and lay down points. Which can work very well when these are similar in colour and texture.

But sometimes there is too much variation so the result doesn't merge perfectly. That is where I find the Clone tool useful as it places an exact copy of the pick up point at the lay down point.

However, this can sometimes create a harsh result with noticeable hard edges even when using a soft brush with reduced opacity.

In those cases, I do the bulk of the transferring with the Clone Tool then clean up any problems with a Healing Brush.

After a bit of practice you will become aware of which will method will produce the best result.

[FrankMi]

It looks to me like the cloning was done well enough so that it is not noticed which, unless you compare it to the original, is good enough in most cases. I like the action in the water and although this is not a common scene and therefore more up to personal taste rather than right or wrong, I like the way it turned out. Make me feel like jumping in barefoot and letting the water caress my toes!