tom_mann1

Review your pix from the last game or 2, and for each one ask yourself if the new lens or the new body under consideration would have really made a significant improvement to it or reduced the time u spend in PP'ing. You'll have your answer very quickly. In fact, maybe you'll come to the conclusion that something entirely different ( eg, big remotely triggered strobes or hiring an assistant, etc etc) would make more of a difference. Just a thought. Tom M

To bring out the sparkle in gem stones, you need to have a mixture of two different types of light sources: a) At least several (more are better) very small, point sources of light - These bring out both the internal and external reflections from the facets; and, b) A diffuse source of light such as your light tent - This provides soft ambient light brings out the overall shape, the background, etc. It lets you see something looking through the stone, not just the starry night effect one would get if the only lights were point sources. The peak brightness of the reflections of the point sources should be at least two, and often more stops brighter than the ambient light. It's ok to slightly blow out the very brightest reflections. This lets you see the much larger number of weaker reflections, as well as some diffraction stars or halo-ing around the bright reflections. Right now you have no lights whatsoever from category (a). Go to a good jewelry store and look carefully at how they light their display area. Often the ceiling is peppered with a very large number of small, very bright, focused lights, as well as the usual, more diffuse sources, ie, exactly as described above. HTH, Tom M

Wow ... It's been many decades since I've thought about this ... Since flashbulbs operate by what amounts to a combusion process, it takes a significant amount of time (maybe 30-100 msec, I don't remember the exact number ... depends on the size of the bulb) for the bulb's light output to reach it's maximum light output once triggered. This means that one has to trigger the flash before the shutter is opened. This is the reason for the various synchronization options on old cameras. In contrast, electronic flashes fire almost instantly after triggering, so the shutter is opened first, then the (electronic) flash is fired. So, you would have to rig up some means of sequencing the events, or if the situation permits, you might be able to essentially paint with light by opening the shutter and firing the flash bulb(s) manually. Tom M

<p>PPS - If color is an important aspect of your art, then include something like a MacBeth color checker card in some of the photos and learn how to accurately reproduce the colors on the chart in post production.</p>

<p>There have been a lot of previous threads on this subject here on photo.net which you can easily Google. My summary of these are that the camera and lens (...both of yours are reasonable) are rarely the problem in tasks like this. People have been highly successful in photographing artwork (eg, for museum catalogs) using fully manual equipment from 50 or more years ago. </p> <p>Rather, it's the lighting that usually causes novices problems:</p> <p>It needs to have good color without unexpected / unnoticed color casts from nearby objects;</p> <p>It should not have a spiky spectrum like what comes out of most home or commercial fluorescent lights;</p> <p>The intensity should be absolutely uniform across the artwork both left to right and top to bottom (certainly, no patchy lighting like you might get outside under leaves);</p> <p>The light hitting the artwork should come from both sides, not from near the camera (or you might pick up reflective glints), and usually not grazing incidence (unless you want to exaggerate surface texture). Large area sources (umbrellas, softboxes, etc.) are usually better than small sources (eg, hot-shoe flashes) again, because of texture, glints and uniformity.</p> <p>HTH,<br /> <br />Tom M</p> <p>PS - I assume you were talking about 2D art (eg, paintings, sketches, etc.), not 3D (eg, sculpture). The latter are handled somewhat differently.</p>

<p>Maybe even a more painterly look ...</p><div></div>

<p>My preference would be for Adriano's colors and tones cropped like Dieter's ... maybe even a bit tighter vertically.<br> Tom M</p>

<p>PS - I've done this before. I'll try to find a sample photo and post it.</p> <p>Tom M</p>

<p>Rather than trying to do it all in PP, I would suggest using your Softlighter they way you usually do, but add an additional tightly focused beam (but with nice fall-off character) to bring up the levels on the guy's face by a stop or so. This can be from a studio light with a snoot, a Fresnel, or even a shoe mount flash that can be zoomed way out (eg, I think my sb-910 zooms out to 200 mm), but probably the best would be an additional light with a small softbox placed close to his face, but just out of view of the camera.</p> <p>Using this additional light also opens the possibility of moving it around a bit to get better modeling of his features, but beware of shadows if you go too far off axis with such a small area source.</p> <p>Just my $0.02,</p> <p>Tom M</p>

<p>In advance, let me say that I have both posted this question on FB's so-called "help" forums, as well as used the "report problem" mechanism of FB without any reply. I have a client who is very disappointed in the way their cover photos (my images) looks on mobile devices, so I am desperate.</p> <p>Also, let me immediately state that my problem is not the same as the standard "unwanted gray shadow" problem that has been discussed many, many times over the past few years. This isn't a little strip of low opacity gray at the bottom of the cover photo. I don't have that problem. In addition, I've got all the usual FB compression and loss of resolution problems well in hand.</p> <p>My original image(s) look perfect in PS before I upload them. Once uploaded and made into a "cover photo", it continues to look just fine (ie, minimal shadowing) when viewed on a desktop machine with either a Windows, Mac, or Unix OS. </p> <p>The covers also look fine when viewed on an iPhone or iPad but using the browser in the phone instead of the FB app. The problem is that when I or anyone else views my cover photo(s) using the FB mobile app for iPhones and iPads, the shadow occupies about half of the image, not just a little strip at the bottom, and, to make matters worse, is quite dark, ~ 60% opacity or so, not the usual 10 or 20%. It *completely* wrecks my images. </p> <p>So, assuming that no one here on PN will immediately know how to fix such a specific problem, does anyone know of a better forum to discuss this problem, or a better way to get FB's attention?</p> <p>Thanks in advance,</p> <p>Tom M</p> <p>PS - For the record, using FB wasn't my choice, but my client needs to maintain a FB presence, and his IT guy has thrown up his hands, so I'm stuck with the problem.</p> <p> </p>

<p>This question comes up quite often. Google {fix corrupt adobe illustrator file} and you will find around 180,000 hits on the subject, many (most?) of them informative / useful.<br> HTH,<br> Tom M</p>

<p>Oh, goodie: We haven't had a religious debate on merits of UV filters for at least a couple of months. LOL.</p> <p>I suspect we must all go to very different types of events. I completely side with Jeff and the (generally) pro-filter crowd. </p> <p>Just wait till you experience the effects of having a drop of salt spray dry on your front lens element (...or exuberant firemen at one of their parties, or whatever...) </p> <p>Tom M</p>

My guess is that he used one of two plugins, either Topaz Glow or Fractalius from Redfield Plugins. Tom M

<p>Thanks for all your postings, Marc -- These articles take me right back to when I was first shooting seriously (eg, for my college newspaper, trying to sell prints, etc.). I couldn't wait for the photography magazines to come out every month so I could soak up all the information on the new equipment, films, etc. </p> <p>+1</p> <p>Tom Mann</p> <p>PS - As a side note, my dad was an electrical contractor in NYC in those days and, as I recall, did a fair amount of work in Keppler's studio.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Because it is very difficult to convey in words exactly what one has in mind when making such recommendations, I had a few minutes and also tweaked your second image.<br /><br />Is I mentioned, I'm not a big fan of making a photo taken on a rainy day have a warm color cast, except, as suggested by others, the skin tones might have to be dealt with separately since clients generally don't like blueish skin, LOL. Anyway, I toned down the overall warmth of your image to make it look more rainy, but added saturation of the warm colors that are present to provide contrast and center of interest. Don't forget the old art school adage, "Cool tones recede while warm tones come forward". Also, as per my previous post, I slightly darkened the sky from being 255,255,255, added a bit of cyan-blue and some structure to the sky, and opened up the shadows a bit while retaining some very dark tones.<br /><br />Also, I did spot your image (...way too many white flecks to look professional), but I didn't do anything to your composition because I felt that you framed it the way you did to achieve a particular look. OTOH, I did slightly darken the OOF cobblestones nearest the camera so that they didn't draw too much attention away from the subject.<br /><br />Just my $0.02,<br /><br />Tom M<br /><br />PS - Don't forget to download the larger version of the image.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<div></div>

Two bits of advice / personal opinion: 1) Don't try to change an overcast, rainy day all the way into a sunny day. The quality of light is too different & the result will almost certainly look oddly "off" -- a bit fake. Instead, make your goal somewhere between the two extremes. 2) IMHO, the worst part of days like these is the featureless, white sky. Drop in a hint of blue and some structure ( ie, appropriate clouds at low opacity), and you'll see a big, immediate improvement without doing hardly anything to the actual subjects. Just my $0.02, Tom M

<p>PS - it would be nice if the female subject has similar skin tones and hair, and there is a building with white or near white siding directly in back of her.</p>

<p>Sven, why don't you post one or two of your images (unprocessed - RAW files are best) that show a girl in a similar location illuminated with, say, cloudy-bright sunlight, and also show us what you've tried. Then we'll have something concrete to work from.</p> <p>Tom M</p>

<div></div>

<p>I'm with Allyn, Michael and Rick in enjoying and appreciating Allyn's isolated, miniaturized version. For the purposes of this thread, I think the various derivative images should each stand on their own, and there is absolutely no reason for the images submitted in this thread to attempt to be faithful to Dali's style unless that is the intention of a particular participant in this thread. To me, the changes made by Allyn allow me to focus on the (presumed) subject while adding a nice air of size dissonance.</p> <p>Fred, as we have debated years ago, if you think a derivative version presuming to adhere to Dali's preferences would be interesting, and since this is a hands-on thread, why don't you submit a version so we can see exactly what you have in mind, rather than just suggesting in words that such an approach might be interesting or even preferable.</p> <p>Tom M</p>

<div></div>

<p>Because the photos posted by the OP are likely to be removed, here is the link to the one I was using as my "target" look:<br> http://cdn-dailyelle.ladmedia.fr/2014/10/louis-vuitton-panne-de-velours-ss15-471x705.png</p>

<p>Fortunately, no matter how good they are technically, photographers that tend towards Asperger's-like personalities or other socialization / communication deficits are almost immediately weeded out of the wedding profession, but many of these can survive and even thrive on the internet or in other areas of photography (eg, product).</p> <p>Tom M</p>