Norma Desmond

Here's a bit of personal nostalgia, me on the porch of my house in college, about 42 years ago, at a pre-graduation party. Who could have predicted the life I would go on to lead? Certainly not me.

Bookmarking the page will still only get you to the thumbnails, where you will then still have to know to hover over thumbnail, find the tiny VIEW link, and click that, because if you just click on the thumbnail itself, which would be the logical thing to do, you'll be taken just to a large version of the picture and not the Photo of the Week discussion.

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." --Nils Bohr, Nobel laureate in Physics

Go up to the top of this page. Hover your cursor over the blue EXPLORE tab. A drop down menu will appear. Click on Photo of the Week. Here's a link: Photos of the Week @ Photo.net - Where Photographers Inspire Each Other When you hover over the thumbnail, you will see a very small link called VIEW in white type. Click on that and you'll see the photo and the discussion. This is a very cumbersome way to access a feature of PN, but it's the best they've been able to do so far. Quite a hassle and not very intuitive, but it is what it is.

Glad it worked out for you, Michael!

If you did want to salvage the photo and the blown highlights bother you, you could consider cropping in from the right, to get rid of the troublesome whites. I did a crop and raised the lighting level a bit on the beach and under the pier, just for your consideration. The negative to cropping is that the pier gets cropped and I prefer the way it completes itself in your original. But photography is often just this kind of trade-off.

Ok. So there's no reason why banding should have been introduced. If I were you, I'd simply redo your conversion to b/w. I don't know how you convert, but I'd start with the default settings of your program and slowly tweak from there if you want. As you tweak, simply notice if and when the banding begins to occur and that's when you'll know you've tweaked too much. Notice, for example, your tree area at the left of the pier. The edges of your trees are highlighted to an unnatural degree making that area of the photo look inorganic. Here's a very quick conversion to black and white. The problem with the photo, as I see it, is blown highlights in the water and the sky which, for me, would make the photo unusable. I'd consider it a nice shot but a loss for quality reasons. [i'm not presenting this black and white as a finished example of where I might go with it, just as a quick, one-step, non-banded conversion.]

Michael, once you've introduced the banding, it's going to be hard if not impossible to get rid of it satisfactorily, especially without sacrificing something else. If you want to get rid of it, you'll need to go back to your original file, before any conversion or post processing was done, and convert and post process carefully, so as not to introduce it in the first place. If done well, no conversion or post processing needs to introduce banding. If banding is getting introduced, you need to check your settings for conversion and/or check what you do in post processing to see where it's getting introduced and change those settings or lighten up on the post processing effects. It looks to me like something was done to the entire photo, some kind of gradient, filter, vignetting, contrast adjustment, that caused the banding. It would be very helpful if you could post the original shot as it came out of the camera, if you still have it. That way, you could get some advice on what to do or not do to avoid what's happened.

I don't mean it can be pulled back once the banding has occurred, after the fact. I mean you'd have to start over and not go so far with the levels, curves, or contrast adjustments.

Did the banding occur when you converted to black and white or when you did some post processing? Presumably, it was not in the original file unless you have your camera set to do some automatic pump ups or manipulations. I'm always on the lookout for such banding, especially in the skies, when I'm post processing. It's often simply a sign that I've gone too far and then I just pull back my levels or curves or contrast adjustment. It looks like there's some vignetting going on in that part of the sky, particularly the upper left corner, and the file may just not be able to handle what you're doing in post. It looks like a lot of highlights in the very foreground and in the background water are blown. If that's something that got done in post processing, whatever caused it could be aiding the banding effect in the sky. Best thing to do is go back to your original file, which is likely free of the banding, and go slow on the post work, noticing when the banding gets introduced. Interestingly, with some banding, I've noticed even when I see it on screen, it does not always translate to prints. So, depending on your ultimate presentation format, it might not matter. Some banding, of course, does show up in print, but some flaws are more prominent in screen viewing than print viewing. The opposite is true as well, some flaws are more obvious in print than on screen.

My guess is that the quality (and temperature) of light coming from the phone was, indeed, different from the quality (and temperature) of light coming from the ambient surroundings. Here's a place where post processing, rather than manipulating a situation might actually help communicate a situation which was not necessarily picked up by the camera. While some tend to think of post processing as a "false" or "inaccurate" manipulation of original events, very often, in fact, post processing is a way to get more truth and accuracy than the camera may have picked up.

I'm not sure how the addictive nature of either relates to street photography, but whatever . . .

Probably. The thing about smokers, though, was that there was more photographic interest to cigarette-smoking than to cell phone usage. The smoke itself often created patterns and captured light in very photogenic ways. The way people gestured when smoking cigarettes had a distinct visual flavor and often made for interesting intentional and non-intentional "poses." Cell phones have some of that potential, but it's often not realized. I've seen people adopt interesting gestures with their cell phones, but that's rarely captured in most street photos with cell phone that I see. The light from a cell phone, especially in a dimmer atmosphere, can be very moody and photogenic, but is also rarely captured by today's photographers. What I see with most cigarette photos is an acceptance of the cigarette back then as an accoutrement of taste, fashion, and part of the texture of life, often visually interesting. What I see with most cell phone photos is a desire to document the obsession with them or their infiltration into every day life or the boredom they seem to elicit from their users. The latter generally make for much less interesting photos than the former.

I think Meyerowitz was right to the extent that most photos of people on their cell phones are boring. What he likely is forgetting is that, in the past, most photos of guys on the bench reading a newspaper were boring, too. The ones that piqued our interest or had staying power were the ones that showed something more about human life, that captured the significance of street life or expressed something personal, political, social, or otherwise important about life on the street. I think street photography only loses its "savour" when boring pictures of people on their cell phones become something photographers think is worthy of doing. What the quote doesn't recognize is how much non-cell-phone activity still remains on the street and how many interesting shots of people even on their cell phones there can be. Simply recording the boredom of a person glued to their cell phone, unless done with great insight and aplomb, will make a non-savourous photo, for sure. But no one has to do that. More photos are being taken today so it stands to reason more bad photos of the street will be taken. But there's still plenty out their that ought to get a street photographer's juices flowing and ought to inspire and stimulate viewers. Most often, it won't be found in the gesture of someone sitting and staring at their cell phone.

It's funny. In a discussion like this with a fellow photographer, I likely would have done what you did with Supriyo. In real life, though, I'll often not "correct" people when they make certain assumptions about photos. I generally feel it's not my place to keep people accurate as far as what occurred when the photo was taken. I'd much rather have them project certain things onto me rather than be too concerned with their accuracy. Their projections often tell the genuine story of what the photo itself is saying to them or making them feel. That's as important and often more important than whether they get my motivations right or assume correctly the circumstances of the photo.

Sometimes, what a photo looks like is more important than what it represents. The mistake may be in someone attributing factually to you an accidental way of working when, in fact, you were more deliberate. That doesn't mean the deliberate photo you made can't or doesn't show "accident" to a viewer. Once a viewer is within the four walls of the frame, he's entitled to enter a different reality from the one that existed outside the frame. I think all viewers do that to varying degrees and with different types of photos. We enter the visual world the photo presents. The framed reality in front of us, sometimes void of context, has its own story to tell. How accurate that is may or may not matter. Obviously, in journalism, it matters a great deal and you don't want the viewer separating himself too much from reality. In other types of photos, there's a lot more leeway for "inaccuracy." If a photo of lightning leads a viewer toward, let's say, "sadness" or "melancholy," it may matter only slightly that the photographer took it under the happiest of circumstances. If something about a photo brings forth serendipity, even though the photo didn't come about serendipitously, more power to the photo for doing so. That's why separating actual reality from the virtual reality of the photo, and separating the photographer's intent (to some extent) from the photo's accomplishments can be helpful. I don't necessarily think Tchaikovsky was in a particularly tumultuous mood when he wrote the tumultuous opening chords of his first piano concerto or that Mapplethorpe was necessarily feeling sexy when making his more provocative sexual photos. They were each able to call forth these emotions in a very real way through their art though not necessarily needing to be directly experiencing those emotions at the moment of creation.

None of the lightning photos strike me in such a way that I would use the word “serendipity” to describe them. Same with the wildlife photo that began this discussion. Since you’re an architect, if a lightning strike you captured had the distinct look of a Frank Lloyd Wright tower or if I captured a bolt of lighting that looked like the head of Aristotle, I’d use “serendipity” in describing them. ______________________________ I don’t think serendipity is any more a factor in photography than in other walks of life. I’m happy to analyze photos in light of any such quality, like serendipity, someone brings up for the purposes of discussion and sharing ideas. That doesn’t necessarily carry over to the rest of my photographic life. I am able to separate interesting, analytical discussions, which I think serve a good purpose, from the making and viewing of photos, which oftentime use very different brain cells.

I'd say that ape has his tongue so firmly planted in his cheek that it's rare that you want to take her one-liners too seriously! They can. But they can also ask questions and it's good to get a discussion going. People seem to have genuine desires to know what others think. Now, the OP may have been a little misleading by using the term "should." But it ought to be easy to get past that and figure the OP was not thinking about some imposed rule that demands photographers imitate painters, but rather was just wanting to talk about reasons for making a photograph look like a painting and opinions and personal experiences about doing so or not doing so.

David, I posted the link to "Imagination" because that's the key for the kind of photography that most suits me. Serendipitous events will often pique my imagination, so their portrayal in a photo can be important. But any of these things—serendipity, confluence, synchronicity, wisdom, luck, accident, etc.—are best accompanied by imagination in the making of a photo, IMO. It's what a photographer's imagination leads her to that's important to me, how the scene or events get framed through the lens, exposed for a particular kind of feeling, post processed expressively. Serendipity simply recorded is sometimes good enough, but often requires more from the photographer if I am looking for a creative edge, which I often am (though not necessarily in journalism or forensics). As a matter of fact, there could be some danger in a photographer's waiting for serendipity, putting oneself into a passive rather than active mode. Nothing wrong, and sometimes everything right, with actually making things happen, and making them happen the way you want. That would hold true to various degrees in nature photography vs. street photography, of course. But in most photography, I'd say a proactive vision is what often jumps off the page at me. You've probably said something similar here. Serendipity is often just the start. Yes, but this is true of almost everything, so it's not something special about serendipity. If I don't recognize someone's love for me, it's meaningless to me (though not to them). If I don't hear the sound of the tree falling, etc. . . . Awareness is a key to life, most aspects of it and most things that occur. By the way, if I don't hear the sound of the tree, someone might later describe it to me who did hear it, at which point it can take on meaning for me without my ever having heard it. Sometimes we can see serendipity and sometimes we can't. I've seen street shots, for example, where events seemed to randomly occur in a happy way. I've also seen street shots that look a lot more staged and planned that could be cleverly hiding something very serendipitous that only the photographer will know about. And we can be fooled, intentionally or not. The famous WWII Kiss photo likely had at least a bit less serendipity than most viewers at first supposed. What's interesting to me, though, is that the image, itself, still tells a story of serendipity even if the real events didn't unfold so serendipitously. In that sense, some photos act as theater or fiction. They're not necessarily true to the FACTS AS THEY OCCURRED, but they portray very real things nevertheless. There may never have existed a Romeo and Juliet who were star-crossed lovers, but that fiction conveys in such real and true ways two young lovers doomed by fate and all the ramifications of it.

A RAW converter won't likely accomplish what the OP is asking about. I use Photoshop for post processing and haven't bothered with other software specifically for portraits. I use color channels, levels adjustments, dodge and burn tools, and lighting effects which can often positively affect skin texture and I'll use the clone or healing tool with a soft brush, often at 50%, for blemishes I want to modify. I rarely get rid of them completely. What may seem like flaws, when removed too severely which a lot of photographers do, unfortunately, can lead to disastrous results that look unnatural and sci-fi-ish. Blemishes are not merely flaws. They are also part of the physical and individual character of a face. So, achieving a good, realistic balance is key. Remove too much, and you might as well have shot a barbie doll. Leave too much, and your subject isn't going to like the picture. A lot of portraits, many of mine included, aren't meant for the subject or the subject's family, but rather is the photographer using a face for his own creation/expression. In that case, flattery is often not an issue and one is as likely to create a monstrous effect as a pleasing one. So context will often dictate the choices the photographer will make.

Where are the chefs?

"There is geometry in the humming of the strings, there is music in the spacing of the spheres." —Pythagoras “There is one thing the photograph must contain, the humanity of the moment.” —Robert Frank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgZDqv0xC20

Selife with cell phone, taken on a balcony at SFMOMA. My cell phone is a constant artificially intelligent companion, of sorts. I know it's not "really" an example of AI, but the fact that it knows the names of actors I can't think of is enormously helpful to my day to day existence, not to mention giving me directions when I'm lost and catching slices of life with such ease . . .