william_m._carson Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Taken on the Beach w/ M-6 Classic, 50mm Summilux-M and Ektachrome 200. A little work w/PhotoShop. Do you like it?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles barcellona www.bl Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 The in focus horizon makes the manipulation quite obvious. Fix that and it will work better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 William, As long as you are manipulating it, could you make it a bit smaller? There is no way to take it in as a single image when it is this big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gulley_jimson Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dzeanah Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Resized it and saved at 30 quality. Makes it easier for all to read.<p> (No offense intended, William. Trying to increase the # of eyeballs that see your work. ;) <p> <p align="center"><img src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/photos/wmc-image.jpg" width="500" height="387"></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dzeanah Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Now, after resizing and re-posting and what-not, I don't think I like it. It looks like sunset on the east coast, with a west-coast sunset chopped in later. The lighting just seems a little contrived (look at how blue the light on the sand and people is -- doesn't work with the orange background.) Maybe I'm being too critical though; it's got much more interest than the standard sunset picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 After seeing a thousand of them, it is trite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles barcellona www.bl Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Easy easy fellow critiquers. The problem with this image is the colors. Orange sky, blue water with no hint of orange from the sky reflecting in it. Bill... just for kicks, try this... take the shot and reduce it to monochrome, then back to color (it will still be black and white). Then just colorize it to a suitable sunset looking shade and see how that works. (fix the sharp horizon too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Why not just use your Leica for what it was designed: taking great photographs. Leave Photoshop to the advertising guys and art directors. This photo doesn't work in color. It wouldn't work in B&W. Jerry Uelsmann spent great effort creating photographs that we knew weren't real but looked like they could, even should be real.And he did it the hard way, with an enlarger on silver gelatin photgraphic paper. Most Photoshop work sings "PHOTOSHOP" too loudly. This one screams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_travis Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Actually, I'd like to see the orginal, before you butchered it, to make my judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Bill...If you are even reading this: 1. You have no photos in the gallery. 2. You have not ever presented one of your photos that I can find. 3. I don't even know if you own a Leica (or any camera). 4. If you do, then show us one of your finest images, or, shut up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_travis Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Also, forgot to add something positive. For adding a little color to those sunsets, try a Heliopan FL-D. This filter has a unique color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Regarding this image...This is my problem with it and digital manipulation: first, I photographed a wedding yesterday. The Mom hired a videographer at the last minute...like the same day! He did side shooting on every pose I set up with his Nikon D1. He said he was going to put them into the video as a montage. I'll bet you bonnets to buggy whips he'll try to sell the bride's mom prints or CDs tomorrow. Second, photoshop (or whatever) is only a tool to help make an image that will produce a faithful rendering of the original scene or to transmit it to a forum, website, or through e-mail. If it is distorted it is no longer a photograph, but some form of distorted graphic art. I think the photogrph presented here, though not original, is a very pleasing scenic image for decorative purposes...as presented in the revised version. Don't screw it up with over digitizing. I don't think this was the use of a "little" photoshop! I don't like it the was you presented it...too large and overcorrected. Show us a good rendition of the original Leica image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 I think the original image in BW would be more interesting.Maybe a crop to bring out the riders a bit more.The photoshop work looks false and does little to enhance.Just my thoughs..thanks for the posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 as a digital novice I'd like to know what (not) to do so I can avoid posting oversize images here myself. What causes this? Is it the result of using too high a scan resolution/too many pixels/too high a ___ x ___ setting on the scanner? Or is there more to know? Bob Fleischman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 Bob F,<P> I am no expert, but I have figured some things out in this area. Regardless of what you do at the scanning phase, more important to the presentation here is the <B>final</B> size of the image. After I do all of the adjusting (using the basic software that came with my scanner) for saturation, contrast, etc... I re-size the image to a dimension that is dependant to the orientation.<P> For vertical compositions, I try to stay at about 550 on the long side, and for horizontal shots, I go to 600. The short sides are automatically adjusted depending on the cropping and aspect ratio.<P> This sizing allows for a full view on most monitors, taking into consideration the actual working space that some internet server's masking allows... many don't allow you to view the full screen.<P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_m._carson Posted September 3, 2002 Author Share Posted September 3, 2002 WOW! What a response to my posting! Many thanks to those submitting thoughtful and constructive comments regarding my image. I am sorry about the apparent size of the posting: I believed that it would be OK being in 'jpg' format and sized to 4 X 6 with 72 dpi resolution. But, something obviously went wrong? I felt that something was wrong when it took quite a bit of time to download. I fully agree that this projects less than a positive example of the use of PhotoShop and again, I fully agree that such corective programs are used entirely too much and often without appropriate skills. I really did use very little PS on this print: I selected the sky area, which was a perfect rectangle, and moved the 'cloudy sky' into place and those two steps were IT! Sorry about the imposition and to reply to Mr. Todd Frederick's question regarding my ownership of a Leica camera: Yes, I do have a Leica -- My first one was acquired in 1936 and was a IIIa w/F.2.0 Summar and presently I own several with a few current lenses. Regards to all respondants, Bill Carson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
film rules Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tennyson Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 William Carson... I believe Todd was refering to the rude comment by Bill Mitchell.. not to you.... ;) got our Bill's all mixed up here! as for your image.. I think it has pretty much been said all ready.. I dont have a problem with digital manipulation.. but i feel they should either be so subtle that you dont notice... or very dramatic... i think this one falls in between.. it is obvious that you used it.. but it didnt really help the image because it didnt fit well together... I too would like to see this in monochrome... try desaturating it.. and i am interested to see what the origional looks like as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wind.dk Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Which part is taken on Acapulco Beach, the sea and beach or the sky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 In response to my "rude comment." Anyone who has been involved in photography for any significant length of time has seen variations of this image (horses and/or couples on the beach at sunset) hundreds of times, particularly in photograpy clubs (which no one on photo.net seems to belong to). The genre is trite from gross overuse, and this is a particularly poor example. Vivid colors do not, by themselves, make a great picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 William, My comment was for Bill Mitchell, not you. I don't know why Bill Mitchell is so verbally flippant at times...like: "who f****** cares!," which has come up more than once. That kind of remark is not an answer to a question. I do appreciate his comment above however. That gives information that is useful and explains what he means by trite. I am participating in this forum to learn, and make comparisons, and, I admit, I'm not very diplomatic at times either. I think that there are many here who are new to Leica (as I am), or who are thinking about getting into it. I am asking questions, and when I make a comparison of Leica with this or that lens or whatever, I am not being critical of Leica or Leica quality. Just getting information. I hope I can feel free to ask pointed questions and make comparisons in order to learn more about this wonderful system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now