marc_rochkind

Suggestion: The strong part of this image is the pattern of the sunlight. To emphasize this, experimentally see if cropping the top makes a stronger image. I experimented by holding up a card and it did.

Suggestions:

The house isn't part of the main composition and, being very bright, is distracting. I'd crop at the top just above the bench. I experimented with this holding up a card and it was a MUCH stronger image.

Tone down the bright leaves at the bottom, especially at the lower left.

Increase the contrast and maybe the texture of the patio, to really emphasize the curves.

A few suggestions:

1. This may be due to the limited reproduction here, but perhaps there could be some more definition in the upper-left part of the spiral. The bands are merging together.

2. The partial oval at the left isn't part of the main subject and is distracting. I'd crop it away.

3. Increase the contrast. This may also address #1.

I've been away from photo.net for a long time, so I don't know to what extent this has already been discussed. Some obvious problems:

(1) Technology has shifted so that nearly all the new cameras (e.g., Nikon Z) are mirrorless. Yet, the equipment discussion seem to be in the DSLR and Film area rather than the Mirrorless area.

(2) The Mirrorless area seems to have been set up long ago, when mirrorless first began. There's no reason, for example, for Panasonic and Fuji to be the same forum.

I'd be happy to propose a new alignment of the Gear & Equipment forums if the forum operators are interested.

Here I think the color works well. Suggestions:

1. Crop a strip off of the top. What's there doesn't add anything.

2. Saturate the colors a bit, without going overboard.

3. Experiment with cropping a strip from the bottom.

4. The strong visual elements are the curve of the branch and the large rock. The stuff at the right doesn't support this, so experiment with cropping if off.

The door is OK, but with no context it looks too much like a catalog shot.

Didn't see the link to the Schewe video.. can you repost it?

digitaldog: I did see that thread, but it is about a different question. My question is about B&W in LR alone vs LR + Silver Efex Pro. The question in that other thread is about processing in color prior to B&&W conversion vs. conversion right away.

I've been trying out Silver Efex Pro for B&W processing. I do some initial processing in color in LR (e.g., cropping, color balance, whites/blacks) and then I go into Silver Efex Pro for the rest.

Some advantages of Silver Efex Pro: Lots of presets. More powerful brightness and contrast controls (e.g., Dynamic Brightness, Soft Contrast). Control points.

Disadvantages: A separate TIFF with LR editing baked in. (Silver Efex Pro edits are nondestructive, but they apply only to the TIFF.) Control points much less precise than LR selections in the newest versions. (The brush is greatly improved, and select sky is remarkably good.)

While I appreciate the power of Silver Efex Pro, I'm not sure that whatever it offers can't also be achieved fairly easily in LR, with seamless non-destructive editing.

I'd appreciate any comments about this trade off from those who use the newest LR version along with Silver Efex Pro 3.

 

Different photographers sell different prints to different people for different purposes. For me, I sell only at art shows, and nobody is interested in buying as a collector. Only as a gift, or to hang on the wall to enjoy. Metal sells much better than a matted print, and to sell framed prints is much too difficult, considering the logistical problems of transport without damage, setting up, breaking down, packing, etc. Metal is extremely easy to transport from show to show.

I've gone to all metal. No frame, and they sell better than matted prints. Look better, too. I use Adoramapix.

Since this is your second level of backup, Glacier is perfect. But getting the images there with certainty involves some work. Read this:

 

Verifying and Uploading Large Archives of Photos with ZipVerifier and S3BigUpload

Agree with Ed. Most photographers here spend $$$ on equipment, and pay a lot of attention to sensor and lens quality. To then post-process with anything but the best makes no sense at all to me. And, you want parameterized (a.k.a. non-destructive) editing, not just the original and the results (TIFF or PSD). $10/month for Lightroom + Photoshop + all updates is ridiculously cheap. ESPECIALLY if you invest thousands in cameras and lenses, as I have done.

Adoramapix. They will adjust your file, or you can download a printer profile for color management, with soft proofing. And, great service. Read this:

 

Incredibly good service from Adoramapix.com

In early May I ordered metal prints (the largest 20x30) from Adormapix for an upcoming art show. One of the three arrived a little early, last Friday. The other two, including the big one, wasn't delivered, even though UPS showed that it was in their distribution center. But not out for delivery. Desperate to get UPS to do something, I filed a lost-package claim on Monday, even though it wasn't lost. UPS had it, but wasn't delivering it. Not on Monday, not on Tuesday, not on Wednesday.

 

On Thursday I finally heard from UPS: The package had been damaged, and was being sent back. The show is tomorrow (Saturday), so no big metal for my booth.

 

Well, I have another show in a few weeks, so I called Adoramapix to tell them to just cancel that order, intending to place a new order. Not necessary, they said. We'll just print and send this one again. Are you sure it will arrive in two weeks, I asked? Yes, they said. We'll put a rush on it.

 

That was yesterday, Thursday. They made the two metal prints, and SENT THEM OVERNIGHT, at their expense. They arrived a few hours ago. And I will have all three for my show tomorrow!

 

Truly outstanding service from Adoramapix, especially as the damage wasn't even their fault. I'll never print with anyone else.

I think you should put more effort into post-processing. With my photos, that's where the image comes alive. With the right tool, by which I mean Lightroom, it's actually fun. And, because the changes are parameterized, you can do a little when you feel like it, and then come back and continue or redo when you have more time and think more highly of the image.

There are two basic approaches: Use the file system's structure to organize images, or put references to them (not the image themselves) in a database and have multiple, overlapping organization methods (keywords, collections, etc.). Lightroom allows you do both, since when you import an image it can stay in its file system location.

 

The Lightroom approach is vastly superior to using the file system only. It is often misunderstood by people who don't use it. The most common misconception is that it puts images into the database.

In 1914 Kodak introduced its Autographic system that allowed you to take notes directly on the film, including the date.

Unified view seems to have been replaced by New Posts, but I can't find a way to filter out the forums I don't care about. Right now, it's dominated by posts about the new forum. No fun to read photo.net at all any more. I know that Unified View was one of the popular features before. Odd that the new design didn't incorporate the best of what had come before.

<p>@Brad: I think you are agreeing with my point. I said that having the best equipment and software was equally important, and that seems to be exactly what you said. (I'm taking "adequate" and "just fine" as more or less the same degree of "best".)</p>

<p>Impossible to know if this shot was creative. I have discovered shots in my camera that I took my accident, such as when the shutter trips while I'm making an adjustment, or putting the camera away. Perhaps that's what this is? Equally, it may be the result of hours of planning, including hiking to the right spot when the light would be just right.</p>

<p>On the other hand, any shot can be evaluated based on its qualities as a photograph, regardless of the context in which it was taken.</p>

<p>To say it another way, without some explanation apart from the photograph, it's unknowable what, if anything, was in the photographer's mind.</p>

<p>$10 a month for Lightroom isn't really the whole truth. For that, you get Photoshop, too. I do nearly all my processing in Lightroom, but, when I do go into Photoshop, what I'm doing there is very critical. It's as important to have the best software tools as it is to have the best camera and lenses. I acknowledge that "best" is a matter of opinion; for my purposes, my opinion is the only one that matters.</p>

<p>Anyway, if, for you, LR5 is "best", then you should stay with what you have.</p>

<p>Not that this applies to you -- I don't know anything about your equipment -- but I know lots of people who spend thousands on cameras and lenses, but would never pay $120/year for software. Seems silly to me.</p>

<p>@Edward: Is this angle problem still there with IPS screens?</p>

<p>To add a bit more to my needs: For 99% of my work, even work with photos, screen accuracy is irrelevant. (For example, when entering captions, or ordering prints). Only when I'm soft-proofing does the screen really matter and, as I'm a fine-art photographer, my volume is very low. (Maybe 30 - 40 shots per year will get printed.)</p>

<p>And, the work will be done in my own trailer, not in motel rooms, coffee shops, or friends' houses. So, I'm seriously thinking of taking along my desktop monitor.</p>