Ladies in Chainsaw and Long Saw Competitions

[Jim A]

These were three of the ladies taking part. I did get a number of pics. Wish that I could have managed to get a better viewing point. Also, should have used a slower shutter speed to get more of the feeling of action, perhaps? I have processed the first one pretty fully and just about there. The other two, up to this point have only received fairly minimal processing.

[William W]

Viewed and edited on a Calibrated Studio Monitor - the question is why represent a dynamic scene with a muddy and condensed B&W conversion?

The original is on the top - the bottom is an INDICATIVE of a wider DR - and not a "solution" simply as a pause for thought

The question is which has more visual impact? - even though we can't see her eyes, her mouth is definatively purposeful and aggressive.

There is more to work on - defining her forearms would be where I would begin.



WW

[rpcrowe]

Viewed and edited on a Calibrated Studio Monitor - the question is why represent a dynamic scene with a muddy and condensed B&W conversion?

The original is on the top - the bottom is an INDICATIVE of a wider DR - and not a "solution" simply as a pause for thought

The question is which has more visual impact? - even though we can't see her eyes, her mouth is definatively purposeful and aggressive.

There is more to work on - defining her forearms would be where I would begin.



WW

I would guess that midway between these two might be right for me..

[Geoff F]

Yes, that was also my thoughts. These scenes require a fairly high level of contrast.

[xpatUSA]

Yes, that was also my thoughts. These scenes require a fairly high level of contrast.

Indeed, my thoughts are similar. Always ready to "cheat", one click in Fiji/ImageJ does the trick, IMHO:



Contrast-Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalizer.

[William W]

^ Yes to you three: as I wrote "the bottom is an INDICATIVE of a wider DR - and not a "solution" simply as a pause for thought."

Obviously the pause for thought was targeted to Jim - but heavens, as we are all now confined to barracks, we might as well all play these games. I have watched all the re-runs of Walker Texas Ranger.

Crikey Ted - you do like that "Contrast-Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalizer". Your emotion-thingy made me laugh.

WW

[Jim A]

These interesting comments and suggestions are certainly giving me food for thought. Here is the original (slightly edited), and as you can see the white jeans on the lady show very brightly and draw the eye, whereas the viewer needs to be looking at the action. Nevertheless, am beginning to think that I should be swapping back to colour?

[William W]

Irrespective of the final image being colour or any Monochrome, this is an image where "sports editorial" applies -

> you gotta get close to the action
> you gotta see the impact, the blood and gore
> you gotta see the intent.

apropos of the last point - you've gotta milk all there is in the expression in her face- the grimace- the intent- the passion- the effort.

One way of address that, is to widen the DR and lift the detail in the face, etc.

WW

[William W]

It doesn't matter about Colour or B&W to get the most bang for the buck for any Sports Image the techniques are almost always the same -

Which has more punch - the top or the bottom?

Indicative rough and quick edit done, saved compiled and uploaded it the time between these two commentaries this is 00NOT 'the solution' only an indication for a pause for thought - increase DR - crop - dodge and burn local areas: face; forearm; jeans; end of log - the white jeans aren't a problem - just set about enhancing the effort from her gluts and quads.



WW

[xpatUSA]

These interesting comments and suggestions are certainly giving me food for thought. Here is the original (slightly edited), and as you can see the white jeans on the lady show very brightly and draw the eye, whereas the viewer needs to be looking at the action. Nevertheless, am beginning to think that I should be swapping back to colour?

Thanks for posting that, Jim. I was tempted to play with it, but global adjustments seem to be frowned upon around here ...

[Manfred M]

Thanks for posting that, Jim. I was tempted to play with it, but global adjustments seem to be frowned upon around here ...

I would suggest that I tend to suggest that global adjustments can be the place to start, but rarely give great final results Ted.

To quote Bill: "increase DR - crop - dodge and burn local areas". The only global adjustment he suggests is to increase DR.

In the long ago film days; the technicians working at the photo labs used by the corner drug store would do that. If one wanted a better print, one went to a custom printer who would dodge and burn.

[xpatUSA]

I would suggest that I tend to suggest that global adjustments can be the place to start, but rarely give great final results Ted.

To quote Bill: "increase DR - crop - dodge and burn local areas". The only global adjustment he suggests is to increase DR.

In the long ago film days; the technicians working at the photo labs used by the corner drug store would do that. If one wanted a better print, one went to a custom printer who would dodge and burn.

So, if I understand correctly, someone who neither dodges, burns, nor uses a kajillion layers and masks, etc. will only "rarely" get a "great final result", or a "better print" for that matter ...

... which means that I might as well quit, because I will never labor to that degree on any of my captures. If they are found lacking, they go straight to the trash as obvious failures - never to be seen again ...

[William W]

Thanks for posting that, Jim. I was tempted to play with it, but global adjustments seem to be frowned upon around here ...

I am obviously missing something in a back story here that prompted this comment: my guess is that it is contained in a previous conversation between Ted and Manfred. I'm not that interested in knowing it, I do have an hope that it does seem and it will remain light-hearted ...

Anyway - the reason for this post is that I wanted to comment on the value and/or lack of value of "global adjustments", my view is they are akin to any automatic function - you've just gotta know what that auto function is going to do: the fact that I use M Mode and Spot Metering on my DSLR cameras 90% of the time, doesn't mean that M Mode and Spot Metering is "the best" - it simply means that I know exactly what I am doing and I know precisely the outcomes when I use MY procedure.

As an example (rarely mentioned on the www), typically I capture raw + JPEG (L) and use Spot Metering.

I have two preset "in camera" jpeg post production processes, basically one is used for Outdoor Scenes and the other is used for Outdoor with Flash as Fill Portraiture and Indoor Portraiture Available Light.

Then, after a cull for my 99% of my "Final Images" I PP the jpeg in a two step sharpening protocol, (about 10 seconds) and only crop about 30% of my images - that's it.

It is only rarely that I use the raw file, either for that one extraordinary keeper that I might nail and want to print - OR - I because I want to use the raw file as an example of the techniques of Post Production.

There are interesting and useful 'global adjustment programs' available: I rarely comment on them, because I am ignorant of 99% of them - that doesn't mean that everything manual is the best - it all depends on the outcomes that YOU want.

WW

[DanK]

I'll offer a middle ground.

Global adjustments are usually important, sometimes absolutely essential. Moreover, in many cases, they can have a far larger impact on an image than local adjustments. Think about exposure, global contrast, and local contrast.

I haven't kept track of which of my images have won in competitions, but I am certain that if I identified them, quite a number would be images that were edited only in Lightroom. These can have local adjustments, of course, and I often used them--e.g., dodging and burning with the adjustment brush and spot removal. But in many cases, most of the editing was global adjustments. I almost always use adjust global tonality and contrast, and I usually make global adjustments with texture or clarity and vibrance. I often make global adjustments to white balance. When the image permits, I do global adjustments to sharpening. I don't do much global noise reduction for the simple reason that I rarely do any noise reduction.

These adjustments can be quick, but they aren't always. They can consume a fair amount of time in some cases.

So I would never disparage global adjustments. I consider them the foundation.

On the other hand, Manfred has pointed out that to polish many images requires a lot of local adjustments. These can be much more complex and time-consuming. However, IMHO, some images require little or no local adjustments. I find that this sometimes the case when I am using controlled staging and lighting, for example.

So, I don't see any reason to disparage anything. We all have different ideas of what we want to construct, and we have a very large toolbox from which to select tools.

Personally, I'm trying to expand my toolbox by learning new techniques. Some are for global adjustments, but most are for local ones. E.g., I just learned how to combine a gradient with an adjustment layer in Photoshop, and I am going to take advantage of being under house arrest to finally learn how to make use of luminosity masks.

[Manfred M]

First of all, I can't recall ever saying that there should be NO global adjustments. In fact, I have said the opposite, like Dan, who have suggested that these are the foundation that we have to build our images on. In fact, I suggest that the term "foundation" is an important one for as just with a building, unless the foundation is well prepared, the rest of the structure, no matter how well or how sophisticated it is, will fail without that strong foundation.

My argument is with people that feel that is all that is required to create a strong image and who spend time tweaking the global adjustments more and more results in diminishing returns; one problem can sometimes be solved, but others can and do crop up. If I look at the print processing in days of old; global adjustments are what we saw in the prints that came back from the corner drug store (or for those in the UK, the High Street shops). This is one of the primary reasons that I started in the wet darkroom back some 45 years ago; I was not satisfied with the quality of the prints I was getting.

Area adjustments are the next piece I will work on; skies, foregrounds, sides of buildings. This tends to take more time than the global adjustments and often, when it comes to images that I post on social media, these first two steps are often good enough.

If you look at the way that the "masters" have always worked, the detailed dodging and burning is where they spend most of their time and it shows in their work. The custom printers in the "old days" worked that way. It took the image from being okay to being outstanding.

[xpatUSA]

First of all, I can't recall ever saying that there should be NO global adjustments.

Quite true, Manfred. In fact, what you said to me was:

"I would suggest that I tend to suggest that global adjustments can be the place to start, but rarely give great final results" (my bold).

Could you possibly define "rarely" so as to give us a better understanding of the statement?

[DanK]

We are on the same page.

If I look at the print processing in days of old; global adjustments are what we saw in the prints that came back from the corner drug store (or for those in the UK, the High Street shops).

Exactly. Or, for that matter, SOOC images that use whatever global processing parameters are set in a particular picture style.

[Manfred M]

Could you possibly define "rarely" so as to give us a better understanding of the statement?

In my personal experience, the only time I come close to getting an image that just needs a bit of minor global tweaking is when I shoot in the studio where I can control my light very precisely. Often a bit of sharpening, a bit of contrast and a touch of work on the WB is all it needs.

While not a studio shot, this on location with a single studio flash. This is a SOOC JPEG and all I did was rotate it. I'd probably brighten it up just a touch.