mikemorrell

Great photo, Tom! More than 50 years ago, I was quite good at 'technical drawing' at school and I had ambitions of someday becoming an architect (though at 15, I had very little understanding of what that really meant! Luckily, I failed miserably at my first 'apprenticeship' interview and my schooling and work career took a very different path. But when I looked at this photo, I imagined (very unrealistically) one architect designing these buildings from a rough sketch. So this is what I came up with. Mainly with Photoshop filter Sketch (notepaper) with 'architectural lines on a separate layer.

Great composition! For me, it has a strong ínside (darker) looking out feel. The precision and 'centeredness' of the columns and 'lego blocks is wonderful. Initially, I wondered whether the buildings could use just a bit more contrast to improve the definition. But I changed my mind. I really like the contrast between the dark, solid-looking foreground and the brighter more ethereal-looking buildings.

I've never heard about it or noticed it either. FWIW, I think that it's wise to take photos - where possible - with a 'margin of error' that can be corrected. So digital photos and film photos that are (or can be) digitized prior to or after development,

Watch this video (4-5 mins) for a demo on 4 lenses.

What's wrong with Windows Photos? Windows Photo Viewer can print too but then you'd have to open the photo in 'Paint' to crop. IHMO, native W10 apps are often the easiest to get up and running, Mike

+! for @dcstep's comment.

My first impression was pretty much like @Glenn McCreery's (though I did spot the mic). It's an interesting double exposure and I think a lot of thought (and skill) went into its composition. For example, the way the singer's head 'leans' against the right block. But I struggled a bit to find a connection (or story) between the background photo and the superimposed singer. This is my (entirely made up) story which gives the photo some meaning to me. The bottom of the photo starting from the right shows trees, shrubs and probably weeds. It looks uncultivated. To the left of the tower blocks, I see countryside stretching away into the distance. Right at the bottom left I see one or two older, smaller houses with A-shaped roofs and chimneys. This background stands in stark contrast to the 4 tower blocks and a couple of flat-roofed houses which look to be a relatively recent development. So what might the singer be singing about? I imagine (in the photo) something to do with the tower blocks. Just on a purely technical point, the singer looks to have been 'brushed in' on a semi-transparent layer in post-processing. Personally, I would prefer to see a more even transparency and edges around, for example, singer's right shoulder, elbow and underarm. To a lesser extent, the same applies on the right too. With my (made-up) story, I like the photo! Congrats to the photographer for the composition, creativity and PP skills!

Info from the Adobe community (posted 2017): Look up the support tel. nr. at https://helpx.adobe.com/contact/phone.html Alternatively: Go to Adobe.Com In top right of screen click Sign In User your Adobe ID and password that is registered against your Acrobat Pro membership/license At top of screen click Support link, and select Contact Adobe Mike

Haha, no this was just at an event that I took photos of earlier last week. I was there as an 'official' amateur photographer at an (official) event that celebrates the fact that some 100+ ex-refugees (all with a residency status) have successfully completed their 2-year 'integration period': learning the Dutch language, learning about Dutch society and completing an exam. I keep saying that the organizers should hire a professional photographer and they keep saying that they can't afford one and that they like my photos anyway. There's a fairly 'fixed format' for these events: introductions, music, and then participants are individually congratulated and then sign an agreement in which they promise to continue their studies, look for jobs en generally contribute to Dutch Society. This photo was one of the 'music' photos in which a dancer joined in with the music. I won't publish any other photos but - for me - it's always a real delight to see (and photograph) the joyous faces of ex-refugees from usually horrific backgrounds who have finally and truly been accepted into their new and safe city of residence. And can - after many years - begin to start a new life. FWIW, I've worked closely with - and interviewed - a number of ex-refugees. Their backstories are horrific! It always amazes me that the people I've met are so highly motivated and dedicated to building their new lives in NL. And how many well-educated people in highly respected jobs were forced to flee their countries (and give up everything!) due to war. Forgive this rant but so many negative stories about refugees are in the news these days.,

Agreed, I just posted a rough version to illustrate the 'hidden detail' in the shadows. I also missed some of the details at the top and bottom. The 'glare' is just parts of the window that I (roughly) selected along with the details. If the photographer wanted to go down this route, a more precise selection of the details would avoid the glare. I also think a much 'toned-down' highlighting would 'suggest' the detail rather than my fluorescent version!

As always, there are no rules as to how you apply your post-processing to this image; but, please let us know what you have done so we can all learn. If you would like to post a candidate image next week, please ensure it is of sufficiently high resolution for manipulation by the participants (3000px on the long side, 300dpi for example). Most of all, let's have fun while we are learning or demonstrating how we use our post-processing software, imaginations and interpretations. Taken earlier in the week with low light and ISO 10.000 (without any adjustments) Mike

Hi @jc1305us, I completely respect your choice w,r,t, to how you want to present this photo. As I said previously, it's great as it is! But I still feel that there are some really interesting details 'lurking in the shadows'. I very rarely post any 'alternative versions' to illustrate my comments but I think this version might be helpful. I'm not in any suggesting that it's any 'better' but I'm just posting to illustrate my point, Mike

It's a great photo of an interesting subject. Congrats! How you present the photo is of course a matter of personal taste and 'artistic license'. I really like it as it is. Although I sometimes come across as a 'post-processing nerd', I truly believe that this photo might benefit from a bit more post-processing without sacrificing the 'character' and style of the photo. Entirely up to you! I hope you don't mind, but I downloaded a copy, simply because I was interested enough to 'explore' your photo. I have already deleted this copy! What I found (in Photoshop) was that are fascinating ornate details around the clockface that are hidden in the deep shadows. I don't suggest that you just 'brighten up' the whole photo' which would detract from the intention and style of the photo. But just brightening the shadows a bit, specifically on the 'ornate details' would just suggest that these details exist. IHMO, this would make the photo more intriguing and interesting than the 'deep black shadows' around the clock. I repeat: as a viewer, I don't need to see all the details but seeing (by suggestion) that there's something else outside the clockface expands the 'area of interest' and would IMHO make the photo more intriguing. Again, how you want to present this photo is your decision, which I entirely respect! Should you require any further help or tips on how to subtly PP your photo, post in the Digital Darkroom forum. Hope this helps, Mike

Saved by the Phone! Last Monday, I (voluntarily) took photos at an event for the first time since Covid hit. Before then I'd taken photos at the same kind of event, so I knew (roughly) the drill. This time, it was at a different location (a re-purposed Church) with significantly less light than the previous events. I asked whether there was any way of 'turning up' the overhead lighting high up on the ceiling but there wasn't. So the only way I could get shots of 'moving people' without using a distracting flash was to bump up the ISO to about 100.000 on my old FF camera. Most shots came out OK (with noise reduction, WB correction, etc.). Until ... an Alderman - who was the 'guest speaker' at the event - suggested to the participants that the traditional 'group photo' at the end of the event be taken outside instead of inside. 'Great idea', I thought. I managed to drag 'the crowd' (who had followed the Alderman outside) from an open space in the car park to an adjacent grass field, explaining that grass, trees, and the ex-Church would make a better background look than brightly colored parked cars. I did notice that half of the group was in shadow and the other half in bright sunlight and I thought "Well, I'll balance out the lighting in post-processing". So I got everyone lined up and smiling and I took multiple shots. When I uploaded my photos to my PC, I discovered to my horror that I'd forgotten to reset my 'inside' 100.000 ISO to something more appropriate for a photo in bright sunlight! You can imagine the result: the most brightly lit half of the photo was completely blown out:(. When my 'client' asked for the group photo to print on a card to be sent to all participants with a link to an online Album, I had to apologize profusely for the fact that I didn't have one. All my attempts to recover any details in the blown-out part weren't at all successful. I did send a couple of alternative photos and I promised to keep trying. But cutting and pasting texture and color onto individual people in a photo is painstaking and time-consuming work. Her response was "No worries, my colleague took a group photo too on her phone" and she sent me the photo. It was of high quality, sharp, and almost as large as my DSLR photos. Boy was I relieved that she had a good 'group photo'! I did some minor adjustments in Photoshop just to balance out the lighting a bit but the 'phone' photo was infinitely better than my blown-out ones! In the past, I've sometimes taken 'back-up photos' with my phone just in case my DSLR photos didn't turn out right. I regret not doing this for this 'group photo' and I'm relieved that someone else did! My DSLR with a longer (70mm-200mm) lens is certainly good for 'close-ups' taken from a distance. At the event, I took 'crowd' and short-range photos' with my 24mm-70mm lens. Given that Phone cameras often work better in low light, I wonder whether my Phone might have been a better option for these photos too. Anyway, I truly felt 'saved' by (someone else's) phone! Mike

(Mods: my response below is purely personal and is in no way influenced by any political party or 'movement'.) Hmm, not too sure about this video. I'm a digital photographer and I have no idea of the wear and tear that an 'analog darkroom counter' goes through in 20 years. Still - in principle - I'm much more in favor of 'refurbishment' rather than 'replacement'. I'm not sure whether this was possible. What I saw in the video was an old counter being dumped (waste) and replaced by a new counter (extra resources). From the video, the 'old counter' looked to me as if hadn't been cleaned or maintained for many years. I may be quite wrong about this. So 3 questions are: - how did the old counter get into its current state? - what 'refurbishment' options were available? - what was the motivation to replace it completely? I fully realize that I'm nit-picking here and I truly don't intend any personal criticism! It's just that whenever I encounter 'refurbish/replace'' decisions, I'm tempted to question them. I fully accept that people make the right decisions for them! Mike

Oh dear, I had hoped that my exposure to 'cat photos' would have been limited to Facebook and Twitter;)

@digitaldog, is as always, wise in all things digital. Just to add my 2 cts to his comment: - it depends IMHO on your market and on the period of time you want to continue to serve this - most internet (web) users and providers still work with SRGB and are likely to do so for the next few years; most global users don't have the latest tech displays! - I don't know much about this topic, but I read that the provided and displayed 'color gamuts' are gradually expanding; primarily through' Ultra High Definition' - 4K and 8K) TV but also through Apple's devices (smartphones, tablets); it's almost a given that this trend will continue; there's still some debate whether an 'expanded gamut' will actually change the viewing experience - the latest 'gamut'' standard I've come across is REC 2000 - worth checking out My guess is that if you're providing web content for the next few years, SRGB should be fine. If you want to be 'ahead of the curve' and 'future-proof', investing in a Wide Gamut RGB might be wise. Bottom line: it's a business decision. One more thought: you could consider buying an 'SRGB' monitor now and upgrading (should you get any demand for it) to a wider gamut monitor later. Mike In any case, it's worth researching 'gamut' + TVs and 'devices' via Google

This is definitely my kind of photo! First and foremost, it's a wonderfully (and unusual) intimate portrait of the relationship between the girl and the man. The image (stereotypically) suggests the relationship between a daughter and her father. But it may of course be different. For me, the girl's expression and the way she holds on to the man are captivating! They draw me into the photo and hold my attention. Whatever their relationship might be, the photo tells a story about the relationship. The fact the girl's face is in the photo while the man is shot from the back makes the photo (for me) intruiging. I occasionally look up any Exif info that might be available in a photo. So too, for this one. I see no ''exposure data' that suggest that the original photo might have been 'overblown'. So I assume that the presentation is a question of (post-processing) 'style' preference, which you might like or not. FWIW, I've deliberately created a few 'overblown' photos myself just because I liked the effect :). I like the sharp texture of both the girl's and man's hair and of the man's jacket but to my taste, these might have been 'overly sharpened' during post-processing. Again, just a personal preference. Whatever views I might have on the post-processing, the one thing that I really love about this photo is that the girl's eyes are pretty much perfect (including catchlights)! I would personally have been proud to have captured this image! Post-processing styles and preferences are personal and can change over time. Congrats to the photographer, Mike

Curious fact: The now traditional Christmas song 'Let it snow!' was in fact written by lyricist Sammy Cahn and composer Jule Styne in July 1945. It was written in Hollywood, California during a heat wave as Cahn and Styne imagined cooler conditions. :) As parts of the US and Europe continue to experience heat waves this summer, a few 'visually cooling' winter photos might be very welcome!

As always, there are no rules as to how you apply your post-processing to this image; but, please let us know what you have done so we can all learn. If you would like to post a candidate image next week, please ensure it is of sufficiently high resolution for manipulation by the participants (3000px on the long side, 300dpi for example). Most of all, let's have fun while we are learning or demonstrating how we use our post-processing software, imaginations and interpretations.

What a wonderful (thought-through) composition! I wouldn't change a thing! Yes, a 3x2 crop from the bottom 'strut'' would be possible but then the left lower building would be lost. And I like it! It adds to the 'scrunched up buildings'. I also like that this photo shows the context. Cropping would make it more abstract. So to repeat: I wouldn't change a thing! It's a wonderful composition and my congrats to the photographer! Mike

Fabio, I really like all 'the favorite images taken in June'! There are (as there should be) favorite photos in various genres. There's no sense of 'competition' and nor should there be. Having said that, your photo stands out for me personally. The lighting and background are really superb!