ceesmaas

<p>I use Capture One 5 for raw conversion, since Adobe announced that the new .3-version of Lightroom would bring a better conversion than the .2-version. The by Adobe so promoted DNG-format may have a better archival value, but the basic quality of DNG made by LR has a certain level, I concluded.<br />I am happy with the qualtity of the conversion by CO5. IMHO it beats LR. I also hate sidecar files. It is an odd and confusing way of working. After conversion I switch over to LR to catalogue and archiving the files. My basic archive of the original files contains NEF, my master archive TIFF. I seldom use DNG as step between anymore.</p>

<p>@David: Wise words.</p>

<p>Do you need balls for street photography? If so, you can wonder why. I don't like street photography if street photography is sneaking up on people and taking pictures without them knowing it. In my humble opinion that's plain voyeurism and unethical. I know a lot of non-photogs who doesn't like walking through a city nowadays while boys and girls with cams (most of the time weekend warriors with half-decent camera's) taking their pictures without asking it. And I (30 years of experience in journalism) understand that irritation. For what I hear and read, that irritation is growing worldwide as the numbers of street photographers increase. It gives photography in general a bad name. And as Ray says: Seems like everybody is a street photographer these days.<br>

Is street photography art? Well, some is, some isn't. Don't have to spend many words on the subject. All too soon the pro arguments sounds like trying to justify a lost course. I like (some) street photography for its social value. Sometimes for its architecture, street life and/or documentary value. Most of the time I like good street photography for aesthetical reasons.<br>

It is typical that the real ethical pro's - the photojournalists, seldom talk about among eachother about 'street photography' as a genre.<br>

But for those who practise it with love and passion, and talk about it in several fora, one can say: at the end it all comes down on common decency.</p>

<p>According to (a very old) law, ships in Holland, how big or small they may be, have always precedence over cars and other traffic. So it happens regularly that, say, 60 cars have to wait ten minutes for the passing through of a single small sailing boat.In this case it was a giant sea-ship I was waiting for. In a little town called Terneuzen. Photospecs: ISO 200 - f/8 at 1/160<strong></strong></p><div></div>

<p>Arthur, dank je wel man.</p>

<p>Good morning,<br>

On the first day of spring, it stopped raining. I felt a strange and strong optimism as I woke up. I looked out the window and saw this moon.<br>

Some tech specs: 200mm - f/13 at 1,3sec. - ISO 200</p><div></div>

<p>Like Steve, I've never been too thrilled by the performance of the AF-S 17-35 2.8 either. And I am not alone, I know three other guys who bought the lens and seldom use it.<br />I have the AF-S 17-35 2.8 , the AF-S Nikkor 24-70 1:2.8G ED and the AF-S Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 G ED on FX format (D700).<br />The 17-35 is the weakest of the pack. The 24-70 and the 70-200 are pretty equal in image quality. All three are wonderful lenses, but there's a difference. I don't know exactly what it is. But the lenses you use the most are normally the better ones. And indeed, the 17-35 is nothing more than a fast zoom lens with good build quality. You cannot compare it with a prime.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I am on old land today. It is not a spectaculair scenery. Not a Grand Canyon or the Horse Shoe Canyon or so. In fact it is a rather dull piece of mediaeval Dutch farmland. With some hawthorn, some wild roses, some hidden artic geese. And it is cold today. My tripod is sinking slowly a bit further in the mud. The light is difficult. A big rainshower is heading my way. I have to be fast.<br />I am on old land. Between the 10th and the 15th century people digged peat here. My ancestors. They dried and burned the peat to gain salt. Not much has chanched since then. The land is a nature preserve now. You can see it was a peat bog by the bumpy surface of the grasslands. But few people know it. It is forgotten land. Nearly nobody comes here, it is a dead corner somewhere in the south of Holland.<br />The sun breaks through on the horizon. I have to be fast now. A black crow behind me flies up, alarmed by the loud click of the Nikon.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi,<br>

Some urban scenery this week. In a small city called Goes, in the South of Holland.</p><div></div>

<p>I always shoot in the A-mode. Aperture-mode. So I can choose my dept of field. As I mostly use a tripod, and work with non-moving targets, shutterspeed is less important. I tried the P-mode once (Nikon D700), but was very dissapointed with the results. It was no more than mediocre, with all my lenses. And, I had the feeling I had no control whatsoever.</p>

<p>Big black ones, some very small black ones (for puppy photography) and one single medium black one.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Yesterday. Brrr... Minus 6 degrees Celsius. North wind 6 Beaufort. My fingertips: all white. Had to use a remote shutter control with an extra large button to operate my Nikon. Location: a very small railwaystation in the south of Holland. My display says: 1/2 second at f.8 - Click...</p><div></div>

<p>FWIW: My fav this week - we drink, we smoke, we eat meat. The marvelous portrait from Kent. </p>

<p>Morning,<br>

Beautiful (handmade?) knife, mr. Laur - Wouter: thanks for your kind words last week. My contribution: smoked fish. I think red gurnard, you call them in english. It is a common fish here at the North Sea coast in Holland, not as good as a wild salmon for smoking, but still very tasty health food. We smoke them over a mix of oak wood and beech. </p><div></div>

<p>Good morning,<br>

FWIW:<br>

My own favourites in this weeks (very nice) series - the ones that really touched me:<br>

- Richard Abston<br>

- Oskar Ojala<br>

- Monika Epsefass<br>

- Andrew Fedon<br>

- Dubravko Grakalic<br>

- Hayley Karl<br>

If I had to choose a number 1, that would undoubtedly be The Granny from Hayley. The power and the energy of that portrait are enormous. With The Snowflake from Oskar and The Airbus from Andrew on an shared honourable second place.<br>

Good light,<br>

Cees</p>

 

<p>Good morning everyone,<br />This photograph is about dissapearing places. At least here in Holland. It is a small fisherman's wharf in Yerseke, The Netherlands. It is not a spectaculair scene. Some drying (handmade) nets, some rope and some plastic jerrycans. The smell of seaweed and diesel oil in the air. An empty packet of strong, black cigarettes on the floor. An empty can of beer. This workplace stands for a local culture that no longer exist as it once did, and probably will be gone in about five years.</p><div></div>

<p>My software workflow:<br>

1. Import, and from 14 bit RAW NEF to 16bit TIFF - Capture One 5 Pro, produces imho the very best image quality (try the trial!)<br>

2. The TIFF goes in Ligthroom 3 (I use the beta) for catalogue (namegiving,keywords,other metadata) and specific tweaks you can do in Lightroom, and making backups.<br>

3. If needed: some final tweaks in Photoshop CS 3 (nothing beats the fine curves tuning imho)<br>

4. Back to Lightroom for export (I love the way Lightroom converses TIFF to JPG)<br>

Cees</p>

<p>Thanks, Matt. For starting this thread so un-American early.</p><div></div>

<p>Goodmorning everyone,</p>

<div></div>

<p>Savitri and Wouter, thanks for the kind words. For me, (one of) the most beautiful and interesting images in this series this week is Ireland from Jonas.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

It is quite a study. Using Lightroom or ACR and the curves of Photoshop I'm trying various B&W conversions this week. My aim is to go further in B&W and develop an own continuous style. It is difficult. But aren't all things that are really worthwhile difficult in the beginning? About a year ago I had an expositon in an art galery, everyone was enthousiastic and I sold quite a few prints. But If I look at those images now, I am not happy with them. To say the least.<br>

This one is taken underneath a long bridge in Holland (for the Dutch people here: De Zeelandbrug).</p>

<div></div>

<p>This one is scanned on a regular all round flatbed scanner (Epson Stylus DX4400) at 300 dpi.</p><div></div>

<p>Good afternoon (in Europe that is),<br>

Love your ropes, Bernard. And Matt, you have something nice going on with guitar players. Wonderful conversion.</p><div></div>

<p>Douglas,</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Should photographers strive to accurately represent reality or to offer others their individual interpretation of that reality?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The first thing the photographer does is take a whole dimension away from reality. He makes a two dimensional image of a 3d-situation. And if that's not enough, he steals all the colors away, if he chooses so. Or he saturates the original colors. He was in a real situation with real smells, real wind or real rain, and he ends up with a flatten image of what (seemed to be) reality. An accurately representation is therefore impossible. Of course that depends on one's interpretation of 'accurately'.</p>

<p>Good morning everyone,<br>

An earlier photo I worked on this wednesday morning. A small street with very old houses. Which are now in use mostly by artists. Old ghosts and new spirits. A lot of vibrations there.</p><div></div>