Recycling (In at the Left, Out at the Right)

This extravagant garbage container in Vienna, Austria is acting as a

de facto recycling center. The woman, left, empties her garbage into

the giant bin; the well-dressed man at the right is reading a

newspaper and maybe retrieving an article or two he apparently

believes should have a second life -- he's 'recycling', not only the

news but maybe other things as well. Your ratings and critiques are

invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically,

please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your

superior photographic knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! John

Great photo, great moment to capture. I like the b&w conversion. Without seeing the original I'd guess this is mostly the green and blue channel. My one suggestion would be maybe to split the b&w conversion into multiple masked layers, if you already didn't. I always find in scenes with alot of variation; clothing, people, sidewalk, trashcans, walls, there usually isn't one mix of the channels that best suits everything. But that's a matter of taste, and style, and this looks pretty good already.

 

I noticed it looks like you lost a little shadow detail on the front of the mans coat. I don't think it takes away from the photo, and if the original photo doesn't have the detail nothing can really be done about it. But maybe it's just the channel mix and a seperate b&w adjustment layer with more red and green, and a soft brushed mask, will return the detail.

 

I only say that because the darkness of the woman's jeans, and the nice detail in the sidewalk make me think there's alot of blue channel here, and in my experince the blue channel doesn't hold detail in shadows that well.

[VIEWERS: PLEASE REFRESH YOUR BROWSER TO SEE REPLACED AND ENHANCED IMAGE IF YOU HAVE VIEWED THIS IMAGE BEFORE.]

 

And helpful beyond expectations -- one of the best technical critiques I've received on Photo.net in my four years here.

 

Now I have to do what George Bush does so well, (better than Clinton), and parse words -- your technical words so I can follow your suggestions as good as my limited ability with Photoshop will allow.

 

My one regret was the woman dumping trash was not dumping when the man had the newspaper spread out and it was more clear he was reading a newspaper; here you have to rely a little on the caption.

 

I was a little disappointed with reproduction - there as too much shadow because of backlighting, and I had not tried your 'channels' method -- I'll read up on it before giving it a try and experiment a little (and consult with my Photoshop expert, but he only speaks limited English -- he's a Ukrainian Russian speaker.).

 

Thanks for taking the time and effort to give me some technical/reproduction pointers -- they're very much appreciated.

 

John (Crosley)

 

This image is copyright 2008, John Crosley, all rights reserved.

This one's not perfect, but as right as I could get it under the circumstances. The absolutely perfect combination of elements occurred separately for the woman, left and the man, right, but not simultaneously (sad to say).

 

First I saw the man, reading a newspaper, on the bins' right side.

 

I took photos and zeroed in on focus that way (distracting things for focus in the background) and adjusted my 'easy exposure' a little to try to raise the exposure of the dark figures, and colored trash bins.

 

The the woman came along.

 

Regrettably the man was no longer holding the newspaper up and in front of him so clearly as before, though he clearly has it in his hand here. He was treating this like a library reading room (stale news unread is fresh news to those who read it, I suppose he reasons).

 

So, the woman dumped her trash for only a second and of course I got more excited, knowing that I'd have a mirror' and a 'story' -- not just a dumpster diver photo.

 

That's how such photos are made. It's not always just seeing something and raising a camera/lens combination to capture it.

 

It's watching something that has 'potential', and if one is a careful observer, things are normally 'busy' in the neighborhood, as they were on this busy street in Vienna, things happen. It's up to the photographer to press the shutter when he sees something happening that might have potential -- here 'in and out' or 'recycling' encapsulated in one photo.

 

That's the story behind this photo.

 

If you're interested in how one 'makes' or 'captures' such an event.

 

Sometimes (as in last October's Photo of the Week) I had a sixth of a second to capture the event, but longer to think about it . . . as I raced ahead for the juxtaposition.)

 

Here, I saw something that was less spectacular -- a dumpster diver, but a interesting one -- a well-dressed man reading his daily (who knows what day) from a dumpster -- like a reading room, one foot in front ofthe other -(mirrored in the rubbish-throwing woman's stance.)

 

And along came the complement to this man.

 

It was a photo that had to be taken.

 

;~)

 

John (Crosley)

sorry, I wasn't sure how familar you where with photoshop. Or how exactly you did the conversion. Let me explain.

 

I use cs3 not sure what you're using but most will apply to earlier versions too. First open in raw, and adjust for white balance and exposure if you want. Alot of times when I plan to convert to black and white I just leave those settings alone, either way it won't matter.

 

From raw you want to open it as 16-bit smart object. The settings for this are in the blue hyperlink looking text at the bottom of the raw screen, click that, change to 16-bit and smart object. It will save. And now every time you open from raw, it'll be as 16-bit smart object.

 

As a smart object you can now double click on the thumbnail in your layers menu and readjust the raw settings through out editing now, makes things much easier.

 

Now to turn it black and white add an adjustment layer. Best way to start is by looking at the individual channels. On the top of your layers palette there should be a series of tabs, click on the one that says channels. Now don't click on the eyes that turn off aperance, but the thumnails or labels themselves (red, green, blue) this will only show you that channel as a monochrome. Skin tones look good in red typically, green too. Red has a softer more glamorous look, green more detail, and blue will bring out the crags in a face. Green is usually best with plants and anything green, blue is good for concrete, rocks, and buildings. Usually, none of this is set in stone. It's similar to the old colored filters people used with black and white film.

 

Take a look at your photo through each of these filters and makes some mental notes about which areas look best in each channel. Then switch back to your layers on the pallete.

 

Now on a pc you hold down control and click on the circle that's half light and half dark on the bottom of the layers pallete. This will bring up a list, if you have cs3 click black and white, if not channel mixer. If you use the channel mixer click monochrome, either way don't mess with the settings yet, just create the adjustment layer, turn your image monochrome and click okay.

 

Now with your adjustment layer selected, chose the brush tool and the color black. Make the brush big and with zero hardness, right clicking anywhere on the photo with the brush tool will give the settings for this. Not being to careful paint over the two people in the photo, if you've done everything right they should become colored as you paint them.

 

Once your happy with that, invert the mask you made, now everything is color except what you just painted. double click on your adjustment layers thumbnail. Now play with the settings in channel mixer or black and white. If it's black and white select some presets in the pulldown menu, till you find something you like, in channel mixer try to equal a hundred percent with a mixture of the three channels, 60 green, 30 red , 10 blue. Play with it till find something you like.

 

Now create another black and white adjustment layer, this one should be on top of the other layer you created. Now when you adjust the settings here it will only adjust what isn't already black white. If you want a third adjustment layer, paint a little black on the second, and add another.

 

Finally, add a curves adjustemnt layer, and from the preset menu select add contrast. If want to add sharpening select the smart object at the bottom of your layers, and add the smart sharpen filter. The smart object is great here because it's nondestructive, the sharpening filter becomes a layer within the smart object that can be readjusted. Save this as a psd and you have something you can come back to at any time and still adjust any setting, the raw, your black and white layers, your contrast or your sharpening.

 

That was more then I planned on typing but what the hell, if you any questions just send me an message.

that's it so many times. You have to feel the photo coming.

 

Once I saw a group of guys having a beer below my balcony. I thought it might be a good photo but was tired and decided not to bother with my camera. A minute later they formed a circle and toasted, from my perspective above I would gotten a perfect circle of there arms and drinks coming together, just as this happened a car came by. The headlights created great shadows, the street light keeping it from being to harsh, I immediatly regretted not following my instincts and having a camera ready.

I guess it's time to teach myself 'layers'; something I've astutely avoided for four years, though i think I get the idea. I just never had such wonderful instructions with the detail I needed, and those Photoshop self-help books usually leave much to be desired -- they assume too much or don't say enough about the minutiae of what it is they're supposedly teaching -- like they forgot (unlike you), what it's like to be faced with a blank screen or one with an image and no idea of how to use this powerful piece of software.

 

I actually can do some pretty wonderful and sophisticated editing without using layers, but it is clear that what you are seeking to teach me to do best is accomplished by use of 'layers', though I probably can think of one other way to do so, and one that doesn't involved 'masking', which always has confounded me.

 

I prefer having at my disposal (as I do now briefly for work I will present to galleries) a personal photoshopper (who does not edit my images on this service -- they're all self-edited in PS, CS, CS2, or CS3, and in some rare cases in Elements *pick your edition* or even PS 7, which I always carry as a backup in case a 'crash' prevents re-activating software while I'm in Ukraine and unable to connect to the Internet.

 

This 'activation' business has happened; a computer crash has deactivated my software and i cannot get it re-installed because the disks are not with me, there is no backup nearby, and if backed up, there is no gateway to the Internet and (formerly at least) one had to call an 800 number to activate or a local us area code, which was something you could not do with most foreign phones where I was traveling/staying.

 

So, when I bought CS (student edition) in Ukraine once it became deactivated, I had to struggle for over a month before I could get to the disks and get re-installed and re-activated in the US.

 

That created great selling points for the pirates, since their software usually comes with 'activation' of one sort of another, (or so i am told).

 

This photo is just another 'Crosley', and I hardly thought it was as wonderful as the ratings it's getting, but I did like the scene and am always intrigued when I can work symmetry into a scene of what may seem depravity, poverty, street life, and/or scraping by, to add an additional dimension to the capture

 

Also see, the two bums sleeping under the Paris Metro sign, 'Saint-Germain-des-Pres' -- looking for all the world like two twins, in identical but opposing positions on a passenger Metro bench.

 

It wasn't the two bums sleeping in that photo that carry it'; it's that they're in analogous positions, end to end (feet first).

 

In a way, this is a cousin to that shot. It's in this folder; have you seen it?

 

I make no specialty or subspecialty of bums -- just whatever is on the street, and unlike Cartier-Bresson have no news agency or photo agency to get me entree into the more plush places - so i go where the people are (and most often without itinerary) just pick up my cameras at whatever hour and go out and start pointing and clicking.

 

This was on or near the same download of the B&W photo that caught the older man turning the corner with a sign's finger pointing almost at him just a few photos removed (inward) from the start of my 'Black and White, Then to Now' folder -- even on the same arterial, just down a few blocks.

 

I could have done like the tourists and taken the U-Bahn (underground) to downtown which was all glitzy, but decided it more instructive to try to watch the people who were NOT downtown, with all the downtown wealth and finery.

 

But look at this old guy; he's dressed pretty nicely; people in Vienna are pretty well off it seems to me.

 

If I had done that other trip, I would have missed this shot, and the world never would have seen it or probably anything like it; at least for some time, and certainly not from my camera(s).

 

However, downtown there may have been a world class photo I might have taken, and didn't because I was taking this photo . . . .

 

;~)

 

Which, as Roseanne Roseannadana said; 'it's always something . . . . '

 

Thank you for so much intelligent help and sharing your kind reflections, technical and otherwise.

 

John (Crosley)

I know what you mean about being wary of masking.

 

There is something instinctive about working on an actual layer with your image, rather then a serious of masks that adjust different areas of your image. But well worth the effort to learn. Just to make things easier, to go back and fine tune. Easier to switch on and off the appereance of your adjustments, to decide if you like them or not, maybe fade them a touch.

 

It's one of the great advantages of digital b&w, b&w film has a dynamic range that digital sensors will not touch for a long time, if ever, but being able to selectively interpret that color information in a multitude of manners, brings something new to black and white photography.

 

I've always been more intrested in printing than shooting. Even with film, I'd rather work with a negative and enlarger than a camera. So now with digital I get a little too into photoshop, of course.

I have (as I've said) a resident Photoshopper in Ukraine, but he is so head and shoulders above me that he just cannot relate (in English or Russian, yet) with someone as dunderheaded as I; or he just lacks the communication skills.

 

You obviously have those communication skills.

 

First I'm going to reread the 'help' from my edition of Photoshop 7, and re-read it, to learn the fundamentsls of layers (as it was then, because you never know when my current copy of CS3 will become unactivated and I may have to wait a month or more to activate it.)

 

Then I'll move on to the improvements since PS7 was introduced, and maybe get my Photoshop books (there are a lot of them) out of storage). I found them mostly useless in describing what it is that I must do, but actually working on things with very precise, step by step instructions I have found is the best way for me to learn. It's one thing to learn a little theory, but most of the books are unclear about exactly, precisely how to go about doing steps (a) through (zz) and somewhere in the middle they write something sloppily or ambiguously, and the I cannot follow, and get lost.

 

But your writin is exceedingly clear, and I agree (because I do 'layers' in a slightly different way anyway) that the latitude to select and adjust color channels on converting a photo to black and white can make the (sometimes subtle) difference between a winner and and an also-ran. If a photo is good, it's good, but sometimes proper color channel maagement can propel something good into 'very good' or hide certain distractions that arise from distracting effects of objects or color becoming into the wrong shade of white, black, or gray. Managing color channels is absolutely essential, as you point out, but one can do almost the same thing as 'masking' by selecting . . . although that's not the approved or touted method.

 

I subscribe to the theory that if it works and gets you there and is not overly burdensome, do it.

 

I did that in law, and while I invented and re-invented the wheel several times, I also found new, inventive and ingenious ways to get to results that others sometimes could not get to. I'm a rather innovative thinker -- I guess that is reflected in my photography in the way I 'see' things.

 

I say 'master the fundamentals', and then just as Photoshop often gives you two to seven ways to do essentially the same task, chose the one that is right for you.

 

For instance, I HATE curves, but I love shadow/highlight filter coupled with contrast/brightness and even will 'select' an area to work on with those -- but keep me away from 'curves'.

 

My main grievance with reliance on curves is that they're not replicable unless you save every action (cumbersome and data intensive) whereas with shadow/highlight and brightness/contrast (and levels, etc.) one can exactly replicate what one has done before -- no room for error. I like that -- replicability -- because if someone achieves a result, they can write the formula down and I can replicate it (or vice versa).

 

And I like your method of teaching - you are a natural born teacher -- you understand naturally what it is like to start from a position of NO knowledge and what impediments keep people from moving through some rather complicated steps, and can show step-by-step how to keep from getting stuck.

 

My immense thanks to you.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

 

Wow, I never heard of the shadow/highlight filter, it even took me a while to find, but I just played with it a little. I see how it can do the same adjustments as a curve just with a different controls. Very interesting. Unfortunitly it seems photoshop, doesn't offer this filter as an adjustment layer.

 

From what you've told me of your photoshop stlye I can see why you preffer it. The adjustments your accomplishing with one go at that filter, i'm doing with three or four curves adjustment layers.

 

Your right about the curves, every photo needs a unique and subtely different curve, some of my photos have as many as eight. A process that forces constant experimintation. I think what I like most about is, how it relates to the histogram. I'm addicted to the histogram these days, even on my camera, instead of reviewing photos I take, I review their histograms.

 

But like you said, however it get's done it's done. I think you'll like the black and white filter though, it's controls are very similar to the filters you like (slide bars, and easy to save settings). Instead of doing the masking I described just stick with selecting.

Be careful of shadow/highlight filter, and be sure to check the box for the full version, not the abbreviated version (which I am sure you did, as you're very thorough.

 

With shadow/highlight, once you set the upper limit for how to brighten the shadows (in color mode) and how to darken the highlights (also in color mode), then the rest of the controls work only on what's left. That can be a disadvantage.

 

Sometimes it's necessary to revert to the main view and adjust contrast and brightness overall, without regard to the adjustments you've made with shadow/highlight filter. For my money, by the way, it's the single best recent tool added by Photoshop -- it came with PS CS2, but appeared earlier in Elements, in some version or another, if I have my PS history correct.

 

But you can do some strange and unhappy things with shadow/highlight filter, if you're not careful and it requires constant watchfulness -- it's almost all done 'by the eye' as opposed to the histogram (of course the histogram is available, but shadow/highlight to me is all about the eye.)

 

Well used it can be used also on 'selections', and that is one of the real boons.

 

One can 'select' eyes, but using shadow/highlight filter, one is not left working on the lights and blacks of the eyes when one only wants to bring down the brightness of the whites, or up the darkness of eyes in shadow - one just applies the filter, and if selection is NOT perfect, generally it disregards those parts that were over selected because they're the wrong tones.

 

When shadow/highlight is used on a photo that has been converted to B&W through one (or maybe more) of Photoshop's B&W conversion methods (there's one in Adobe Camera Raw (monochrome), one in CS3 called B&W filter in regular PS (CS3) and another simply for 'desaturate'.

 

One book also espoused using this method:

 

Go to 'image adjust' then go to Variations (did you know that existed, select 'saturation' then keep selecting the most desaturated image as many times as it takes to get rid of the color.

 

They text I relied on said in variations 'clicking three times on the least saturated photo version should desaturate a photo' but my experience was that it left some color in, so it's unreliable.

 

I greatly prefer (when not desaturating in Adobe Camera Raw) wanting especially to desaturate portions I've selected using the tools, then for each 'selection' to apply the B&W tool/adjustment separately. It works rather well, but I didn't use it on this photo, and I think that may be quicker than your method. (Adobe is so wonderful in that I can be a complete dunderhead about things like layers/adjustment layers and 'masks' yet still accomplish much of the same thing another way).

 

Also, one can use adjustment layers to desaturate or adjust color, just by putting color channel versions in adjustment layers and adjusting opacity (is that correct -- that's how one photographer I know does it, or that's how he explained what he was doing).

 

Finally, when shadow/highlight filter recognizes a photo as having been desaturated through Adobe Camera Raw into monochrome, (but not desaturation or B&W filter tool, it then changes and eliminates the shadow/highlight color adjustment slider, and the color adjustment slider transforms into another sort of slider more specific to B&W photos.

 

One can also change to B&W through running the 'saturation slider' all the way to the left, effectively desaturating, and I am sure you can think of other ways as well.

 

I do very much like the new B&W tool which is in CS3 after one processes in Adobe Camera Raw, but if you do process to monochrome in Adobe Camera Raw (on NEF - raw files), the the shadow/highlight filter gives you more control, as the color slider disappears and transforms into an additional control for B&W which it does not do after applying the B&W filter (in my version at least) or in any other method that I've been experimenting with as I write this.

 

So, that is one thing to be said for making an adjustment to monochrome in Adobe Camera Raw.

 

Also, I have noted a box in windows that allows ALL (JPEG, TIFF and JPEGs) to be opened in Adobe Camera Raw, when one right-clicks on opening a file, and I'm going to try experimenting opening all my JPEGS in Adobe Camera Raw.

 

The one most vital adjustment I have found aside from contrast/brightness adjustments overall is the 'selection of the eyes' or sometimes separately the 'whites' and the 'darks' of the eyes.

 

In 'street' shooting, particularly as dusk approaches or indoors, often eyes are hooded by the brow and indistinct -- our eyes are funny (peculiar sense) in that if we see eyes that are clear or distinct, we are fooled into thinking the entire capture is clear or distinct, or one assumes that focus was on the eyes, where it is most pleasing, generally.

 

So, occasionally, if eyes are dark and/or indistinct, I'll hand select them (never using the magnetic selection tool and instead using the 'freehand' selection tool) and the begin by working on the whites until they are agreeable, and if that means selecting the whites only, I'll do that, but usually one can select the whole open part of the eye to work on.

 

Often shadow/highlight tool does not do good work on the whites, although it will on the darks in lightening them, so one actually has to use the brightness/contrast tool instead.

 

It's amazing how a pair of eyes with a little work can make a photo sparkle -- we as humans place so much emphasis on eyes and their clarity. And good photographers usually know to focus on eyeballs if they have an opportunity -- again, sparkling eyeballs are taken as a sign of a well-focused and well-exposed photo.

 

So, if you see a photo of mine taken in darkness and/or indoors with eyes in shadow, especially from now on, it may very well be that I might have worked on the eyes, just a little bit, after selecting them (never using the magnetic selection tool, as it is too hard to control but actually 'drawing' using the selection tool freehand after filling the screen with an eyeball or two.

 

In the end, I look for an acceptable final result, keeping in mind that the message of my photos is not to accomplish great portraits in general but to accomplish great photos that do not call attention to manipulations. In fact, I generally do NOT manipulate at all other than normal adjustments for contrast/brightness which are NOT manipulations under the rules.

 

And many of those I post use less than the maximum attention I might give; I'm looking for an overall evaluation, and if in the future a museum or gallery says 'that one' it'll get a huge going over (as my Ukrainian photoshopper is doing to about 115 of my photos right now, all at a very low price. He sends them to me FTP, as compressed TIFFS, which take forever to download, because TIFFS are data intensive -- very, very large files.

 

But he does magazine covers and advertisements and he works with TIFFS generally, so why not have the best -- no compromises from compression?

 

When I post a shot, I'm looking to post an 'acceptable shot' not the world's best -- and not worked to death, as many who deal in, say, digital alterations, or fine art nudes, portraits or landscapes might want to do. I'm out there in the 'real world' where focus might not be perfect, and there may be blurs in my photos, but if they're really good, those things hardly matter.

 

In my photography, a blur may be a good thing and indistinctness may be an attribute, and I remember the words of my mentor, Michel Karman - some people use photoshop, 'just because they can' not because it's necessary.'

 

I deal in the stories within photos as well as expressions, and it is the integrity of those things that are important to my photos (facial expressions/stories, etc.), so I can be a little less picky about making my photos 'perfect', at least at this stage, when I'm not selling them.

 

Photos for sale require a whole different amount of attention, I believe, and I'm paying for that in gallery preparation.

 

Since I'm such a prolific shooter, I an hardly afford to spend my time Photoshopping, since I scarcely enjoy it, when I can make acceptable results generally without much work, and for 'sales' I can turn it over to a 'master' who works pretty cheaply and loves his work -- a true perfectionist. I generally do not enjoy tedious work.

 

I've enjoyed this colloquy very much, as it's caused me to think and rethink the use of Photoshop within the context of my shooting, and has taught me a few things.

 

Thank you for that.

 

John (Crosley)

I have substituted a slightly refined version of my photo, above.

 

This version was NOT desaturated in Photoshop Adobe Camera Raw (CS3), but instead was taken from a NEF, then it was developed as a color capture and put into the regular Adobe image editor.

 

Then, the man's coat was selected and (as suggested), the blue channel was used for desaturating only his coat, and then shadow/highlight filter was applied to his coat to bring out some of the details (it would have brought out many more, at the expense of pixellation/noise issues, and also turned the coat an unacceptable gray). I used shadow/highlight sparingly on his coat.

 

Then I inverse selected and used B&W tool/filter to desaturate the rest of the image, and this is how it looks.

 

I might have (but did not) worked greatly on the image, selection (or mask) by selection, the waste barrels were green with blue lids, the woman's and man's pants both were blue, and the concrete was gray, as you would guess -- the only other color was the window frame, top rear, which was blue.

 

So, using shadow/highlight filter and B&W tool/filter from CS3, this is how it looks now.

 

I think it looks better, but not greatly so.

 

I had used shadow/highlight filter previously, and the results were not good on the tones of the woman -- here her body, clothes and face are much sharper and have better tonal gradations. (the splash of light on her hair is just 'street' - nothing more, and it's foolish to try to 'fix' the natural things in 'street'.

 

I did a slight counterclockwise rotate, as before, but you notice that the rubbish bins are not upright -- throwing the photo into a sense of 'out-of-kilter'.

 

My rotating helped nullify that a little, and kept the curb-line straight, which is the true reference, since I was at a 90-degree angle to the curb.

 

I did have an interesting workout on this, and was not forced to open it as a 'smart object' -- there really was no need (at least with my skills), to do so, and to engage in some of the other things you suggested.

 

I doubt that it would be any better with all sorts of sets of curves applied -- sure someone who's an absolute Photoshop and image guru might somehow spot a difference, but the key is whether the changes enhance the scene or not, and whether the scene is as good as before or better.

 

No matter what, there is an 'issue' because it's a backlit scene. Opening the image in NEF but NOT converting it to B&W until in the regular image editor I think helped it greatly for the woman's tones and for the ability to selectively desaturate using different color channels for the two desaturations. I might have gotten carried away and done multiple 'selections' but that would have been overkill for a photo such as this, not yet bound for a museum or a gallery.

 

I think it's better now, but who knows?

 

I know it is better as to the old guy's coat, and also to the rendition of grays in the woman's figure, but overall, otherwise, there's little to tell it's much different.

 

However even marginal differences in a photo with no rating less than a six are not to be sneezed at (I do not have any of those in my portfolio with as many ratings as this -- a cause of immense surprise to me, as I did not suppose this image so worthy.)

 

Live and learn.

 

Thank you so much, Andrew.

 

John (Crosley)

If one looks in the second pane of glass, top, look for the outline of a head/shoulders and the roundness of a large camera lens pointed in the direction of the photo.

 

Is that I?

 

I think so.

 

I could easily change the saturation/contrast of that glass pane to eliminate such a reflection, but for what purpose on Photo.net?

 

Photographers have to use great care when photographing reflective surfacess so that they are not taking photos of themselves that distract from the image. However, I think this (if it is I) does not detract appreciably.

 

John (Crosley)

Is that it only happens once -- one could be stuck in Vienna for months, maybe years, and never see this exact capture again.

 

One can easily take a camera to the Schoenbrunn Palace or other sights in Vienna and come away with something quintessentially 'Viennese', but with my camera I was able to come out with something from Vienna that was far more universal (and a little droll at that).

 

I like drollness; I hope you can see that from time to time in my images.

 

John (Crosley)

Interesting new adjustments you've made. You've definetly brought some detail back to the man's coat. And from what I remember of the old photo, this one seems smother and more crisp. The woman, espicially her face, has come out better.

 

The variations menu you told me about is very interesting, you're right I've never used it before.

 

Half the time I open as a smart object I don't really use any features that come along with it. It's just something I do for the sake of being able to return and alter decisions I've made without starting over from scratch. In fact, for you, it would probably limit your work. Their are many filters that won't work for smart objects. Variations, is one of them. The only menu option avaible in image adjustments for a 16bit smart object is shadow/highlights, and even that will be applied as a layer within the smart object.

 

I've been experiencing alot of blur myself lately. My sensor desperately needs a cleaning and I've been forced to shot at very low f-stops to limit dirt showing up in my shots. Unfortunitly I'm living in Brazil at the moment and even in it's largest city I'm having trouble tracking down the fluid I need to clean my sensor without damaging my IR blockers coating. I'd have it sent to me from the US but ever since 9/11 it's been illegal to send this cleaning fluid through the mail. So it looks like I'll be waiting three months for some family coming to visit for it to be brought to me. But I've been learning to shot with this restriction, and along with this cleaning fluid, three hand me down lenses will be coming my way. Two nikon VR zooms and a 50mm prime, so I'm pretty excited. The cheap tamron lenses I've been using have ridiculous CA problems, which is only made worse by having to shot with a fully open f-stop.

 

Your completely right. Alot of photos will be helped by photoshop. But if you get the lighting right, all those same adjustemnts I make feel more damaging than helpfull.

 

 

 

if I am not mistaken it's already cropped so there is no harm to say that I would like a different crop from the left removing the left trashcan and from below where is the visible line below her feet. Besides you'd have a more 3:2 feeling ;-)

Billy,

 

Your suggestion is a good one. The present crop allows for more space behind the man's rearmost foot, so I felt a complementary area needed to be left behind the woman's rearmost foot also, to make this somewhat symmetrical.

 

There was already some trim, left, for the trash bin, left, and a complementary trim behind the man'a rearmost foot. This photo also was trimmed because it was slightly out of rotation -- not much, just a little, which necessitated a trim.

 

Leaving the curb line there was a judgment call -- it might have been lightened, per suggestios above, by selecting and applying the 'blue' channel in the black and white adjustment.

 

One learns through these critiques, which is part of the reason I don't work my photos 'to death' before throwing them up for critique.

 

Each posted photo, (almost) is a product of prior critiques from the preceding ones.

 

And I've learned a lot from this one.

 

If one trimmed the left trash cannister, one would still be left with a shadow from the cannister, then it would be ixplicable, though . . . I preferred to leave it in because I felt it was necessary; also it gives 'ambiance' to the shot. . . . if you get a whiff of what I mean.

 

Best to you, Billy.

 

John (Crosley)

Very well seen and captured. The crop is definitely fine with me.

Thanks (slap in face).

 

I needed that.

 

One never knows for sure, and I only have my (ample) gut to trust until I get feedback.

 

John (Crosley)

This is a wonderful photo--I think the detail of the bins is an important element.

I also appreciate the opportunity to eavesdrop on the pp discussion. Thank you both!

 

One ever knows until one gets feedback, whether a photo truly is successful and for what reasons.

 

You probably are right, the detail of the rubbish (garbage) bins, does help the composition -- it provides it with many lines which may aid in making it slightly more 'rich' or complex.

 

I have found on this service, that the slightly more complex photos seem to do better with members than the ones that rely on a mood but are fairly simple; I don't know if it's a pecularity of this service or not. There are exceptions of course, especially in photographing women or nude women and some faces with exceptional 'looks'.

 

I am delighted to get your feedback; it is very helpful.

 

Somehow, I don't count this as high as my critics and raters have; to me it is a very interesting photo, but doesn't live up as much to its potential as it might; that may be because before the woman dumped her trash, the old man had his newspaper up and he was more clearly reading it.

 

Did you notice the old man, at his left towards us, has a cloth bag for his 'treasures'. It's plaid or multi-colored, and shows well in the color version?

 

But, no matter what, I did capture a 'moment' I think, and I thank you for noting your opinion.

 

And one wonders if the intense colloquy between myself and another member ever gets read; but I find many read these things and are heartened by them - or rather those who do, generally learn something (I know I did, and surprisingly, my correspondent did also, which I find interesting since he knows ten times more about Photoshop than I. But I get into nooks and crannies sometimes that others don't get into -- part of my special way of seeing things -- not always of the mainstream.)

 

Best to you and thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

As noted above, this photo is copyrighted 2008, all rights reserved, John Crosley. This did show under the proper tab above, but apparently was caught by a software glitch. It also is shown as part of a comment, above, and therefore, probably this post is redundant.

 

John (Crosley)

Unload and upload, what a great shot. I am not convinced about the B&W, you seem to loose a lot of detail in the darker areas. Probably due to the fact that the light behind the subject was very bright, in which case you did a great job at balancing the exposition.

PS: I cannot believe what a long and great conversation you two had on this shot!

I'll accept that I did a 'great job' in balancing the brightness and darkness in this shot.

 

It was indeed thrown off in metering by the brightness from the wall and window reflection of the sun/sky in the back.

 

Even Nikon Matrix Metering cannot make every photo be exposed perfectly.

 

However, the advice from above, about separating the channels into colors and using the 'blue channel' for concrete/cement' etc., has proved most helpful and I have incorporated it into my day-to-day processing when I convert from raw to gray scale using a raw converter that provides color channels before making the Black and White conversion from color.

 

It's proved to be invaluable advice.

 

You've shown pretty good taste in going through my portfolio -- I hope you've been enjoying yourself. You've picked some pretty good (and interesting) photos to comment on.

 

Which has earned my respect.

 

Best wishes.

 

John (Crosley)

Thank you for the compliment John, I had a great time going through your portfolio. Many people photograph scenes like yours but it's how you photograph them that makes all the difference!

All the best