pretty darn new 'Jump!: The Playground' (Part II) (B&W 'Ed.)

'Jump!' is the second posting from my new series on 'The Playground', a

place seldom photographed these modern days. Your critiques, ratings

and remarks are invited and most welcome. If you rate or critique

harshly or very critically or merely wish to make an observation, please

submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! John

Don't post any longer with that salvation army monitor, or you must have been fallen (a sleep). :) It's terrible..!

I got what I got.

It's my laptop monitor, and I'm traveling.

It looks pretty good on the laptop, which shows contrasts very well.

I haven't seen it otherwise.

I do take you at your word, but it's new and Lenovo. Still, with color the reds are deficient, and it's pretty contrasty for color compared to my three Samsungs (two in Europe and one in USA but the USA one is not available right now - maybe later, 1,000 miles away, but possibly I'll be near it later today.

Thank you for the warning.

'Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.'

[salvation Army anthem?]

[i was tempted to embed the song's MP3 here, but feared my Islamic brothers would be offended - as rightly they should -- the Crusades were an abomination against Jews, Islamists and anyone not Christian and frankly to most thinking people.  I grew up with that song in church and now reject it entirely, but it's part of my heritage nonetheless.  (forgive me please my Islamist brothers and sisters)]

You make do with what you have.

When I get a good monitor I'll have a re-look, and if I can improve it I will.

But beware (see the shadow), this was taken in the middle of the day, near summertime in bright sunlight, in case the shadows and highlights are bothersome . . . . but then I can't see how it looks to others, so I can only guess that it looks pretty horrible in the workup to you. 

It may be this way for a while as I'm pretty much getting stuck, unless I can spring my third Samsung monitor . . . we'll see this evening when I get near where it was stored.

Sorry; as I do not tolerate crappy reproduction quality if I can spot it.

Thanks again for the well-spoken 'heads up' (warning). Praise is not necesssary to get a positive response from me; yours was very helpful.

john

John (Crosley)

As with almost all (nearly 100%) of my captures, this was processed from 'raw' using first Adobe Capture Raw with its blowout and darkness warning indicators 'on'.

In addition in more detailed processing after it left raw processing in the main  part of Photoshop, the histogram was left on.  There should be NO area of this capture that is blown out, or any shadow area that lacks information.

When a capture has all the information, even if I have to convert to Pro Photo gamut to preserve the information since it has the widest gamut, I preserve the widest gamut.  If Srgb does not have a big enough gamut, and I am using that, and a blowout is still indicated, I will switch gamuts to Adobe rgb with its broader gamut and oft times a blowout will disappear if one uses the proper slider. In extreme cases, conversion to Pro Photo gamut is required.  In a few photos a pinpoint blowout is permissible such as the filament of a light bulb, certain specular highlights that are not large, etc., though otherwise blowouts (and shadow areas that are entirely black and have NO information at all, are conditions I avoid entirely whenever I can (including this photo).

This photo does not 'spike' at either end of the histogram -- all captured data fits within the chosen gamut.

So, without being able to see anybody else's monitor or even another monitor, I am unable to envision how this appears processed on a 'Salvation Army' monitor as suggested somewhat humorously above.  It all looks nice on the histogram -- admittedly the background is somewhat cluttered and of substantial size, but the girl appears clear to me, and the sand to me has appropriate texture. 

Can you tell me any defect in reproduction you see, considering this is a noon, broad daylight, almost longest day of year, full sunlight shot (again, see her shadow)?

john

John (Crosley)

Very nice moment of jump!

Thank you very much.

Does the scene look familiar, for you a Kyiv resident?

john

John (Crosley)

Olaf is correct. What more can be said.

What is all this stuff "Srgb, widest gamut, switch gamuts, Pro PHoto gamut, rgb...?? (except to impress). I am coming to learn the meaning of "photoshop is to photography as masturbation is to sex". Attaching three histograms. No. 1 is a histogram of the "gray scale". No. 2 is an excellent histogram of an image used to calibrate a monitor. All of our images should look like this one. No. 3 is the histogram of your image. Jesus Christ with PhotoShop Version "Divine Intervention" could not fix that histogram and "alla akbar" won't help either (humor intended). High noon and bright sunlight is the time of day to leave the camera at home -as a critic once told us.

There is no 'correct' looking histogram, unless one is bunched up against either or both ends.  They are a mere graphic representation that changes as adjustments are made to an image.

Some representations are more desirable than others, of course.

I take photos, and i take them in the morning, the evening, at night, indoors, outdoors, and in side lighting.

I take them in near total darkness.

I understand there may be reproductive reasons to leave a camera at home for you but not for me.

I have taken some darn (damn!) good photos at noon in strongest sunlight including two of my finest landscapes/seascapes including one over a super bright sea looking directly at the sun but with the sun o0ut of frame (I just stopped down a lot, and discovered something . . . . the atmospherics of the water then were visible as they wafted over headland mountains at a beautiful mountain/ocean seaside (Heceta Head, Oregon)  You may leave your camera at home, but I almost NEVER leave my camera anywhere but in or near my hand.

I take it when riding a bus (hence this week's Photo of the Week).,

The subject of this photo may not be reproduced to your standard and it may or may not be a result of my laptop monitor as opposed to my three Samsung monitors, (two in Europe and one in the USA with the best being in Europe, far from me -- over 8,000 miles away, possibly north and east of you, and who knows when I will see it next and be able to view this photo properly.

Until then I'll withhold judgment.

(My source for he paraphrase on the shape of a histogram -- a lecture on Lynda.com on the use of the histogram in processing 'raw' and/or 'NEF captures, where the instructor/tutor, in teaching 'landscape' also taught a great deal about Photoshop and especially No. 2 (CS5))

So, with or without your permission, Mr. Samel, I will take my camera out at noon, and use it when some small girl jumps off a turtle -- the only time I have seen her (or anyone) do so.

You may or may not like the photo, but in waning light there would be NO photo at all.

'You takes 'em when you can and get 'em with what you have'.

Kind of like chasing women perhaps when you've had one too many?

john

John (Crosley)

Your newly posted photo of mine with histogram reveals a photo taken in very waning light and also in shadow.

Circumstances were pretty good for taking a camera with me, but then they ALWAYS ARE.

I am NOT ashamed of the left spike in the histogram though I might process it a little differently today, since sometimes there should be pure (or nearly pure) blacks.

Dark should be dark and black should be black but spiking blacks often represent something unhappy with a photo that can be fixed to improve the photo.

But in and of itself, there is no 'correct' histogram.

A silhouette may yield one histogram, a landscape another, and a noon photo quite another.  However, I've only seen this on my laptop monitor which is good for contrast and seems so far OK to me for black and white

For me the reason for posting was the 'geometrie' as HCB would have stated it, and the 'moment' rather than the reproduction quality, and if I went to exhibit it as a print and it failed to print well, then into the mooser (Russkij for rubbish).

I've got enough photos not to have to rely on any one . . . . . anymore.

john

John (Crosley)

You did not understand John. I posted this photo, your photo, girl running, because it is a fine example of what luminosity should be -in the Ansel Adams style. There is nothing wrong with the presences of the spike on the left. I presume that would be Zone 0. Not until Zone II does a hint of texture/detail begin to emerge -that is to say, depending on the sort of image, that something mysterious might be hiding in there. You don't need a histogram to recognize a fine print. The histogram  simply depicts for you in a quantitative way, what you already know from the qualitative.

Meir, actually I did understand your point exactly, though I may not have conveyed it well.

I just looked at the color version and perhaps should have posted that, as all that sand has color - you might not find the photo so 'empty' or 'bleak' in what you may think is 'washed out' areas, but which in fact are full of details.

Interesting exercise.

john

John (Crosely)