I thought that I'd gone through all the train shots that I'd taken the other day but then I came across this one. I'm not entirely convinced this works, but it's an example of a kind of reflection shot I've been working on so thought I'd put it up. Basically, the technique I've been trying out is for manipulating very flat images; i.e. ones with very little contrast, and involves applying an almost vertical Curve to the image.
What I like about this technique is that it renders almost imperceptible aspects of the original scene visible. What I'm less sure about, and less confident about controlling, is the noise. Normally, a shot taken at ISO 200 is relatively noise-free, but when you increase the contrast this much it becomes much more visible. In the full-res' version this looks ok – almost as though this was a painting – but it's a bit less convincing at this size.
tanner: thanks, I posted the entry before adding the link to the image. It's fixed now.
comment byAdriana at 08:02 PM (GMT) on 9 April, 2005
well I know what your talking about. i've done that and yes, increasing the constrast makes even the little noise it may have, more visible. For me, seeing the plain image gaves another perspective of this one. I can not say that one is better than the other I just see them as complement to each other. By the way Your last two post were really good. :)
comment bynogger at 08:08 PM (GMT) on 9 April, 2005
"What I like about this technique is that it renders almost imperceptible aspects of the original scene visible."
Yes, it does. But, well, did you see this when you took the shot or is it after the event fiddling?
Not that I'm against after the event fiddling, I do it all the time and most of 'em end up in the bin, I was just curious as to how your photo and thought processing goes.
As for the image itself, well, I think I'm gonna have to come back and look at it some more. Not sure what it does for me yet.
nogger: in general I know what I'm after when I take the shot – which aspects of the scene I'm subsequently going to emphasise – but because the original scene is very flat it's a bit of a hit and miss process.
comment by chris at 11:36 PM (GMT) on 9 April, 2005
the "high contrast" version somehow adds extra motion to the image for me. The double reflection from the window layering becomes closer to motion-blur, much more so than in the RAW.
comment by Anonymous at 12:30 AM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
This should be called a Digital Image not a photograph... I don't know It just bugs me when people use photoshop too much.
Do you use a tripod or monopod for these or is it just handheld? I love the motion blurriness
comment byFellow Eskimo at 03:13 AM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
Thats good tuning in PS...but I prefer yesterdays image to this one. This one just seems to have less focus (literaly too...).
comment byJuice at 05:23 AM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
The noise seems to add to this one, because it doesn't really seem like noise. I like that it's also patchy, there is much less noise on the tracks than in other areas.
I think the sepia is what makes this work. Sepia just seems to make the contrast jump and everything sort of elevates.
comment byriff at 06:41 AM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
gritty. i like it..
comment by joan at 07:53 AM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
I don't know anything about noise or photoshop, but I find this photo moving. Relaxed, beautiful hands, fleeting moments. We all know these things.
comment byMihael at 10:31 AM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
pretty suggestive...
comment byDon Colin at 02:59 PM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
OPINION STATEMENT: David this is one of those shots that appear on your roll or card that is part of a sequence of more interesting shots, but you are inclined to find in it, something that is missing from your more "successful" shots. It happens all the time. What I like about photoblogs is that we have time and space for these "missed moments". This one is very nice. The toning adds the "enough" needed to bring this shot into the realm of exhibit. Too many people believe Photoshop to be some kind of mockery of the actual; bah, I tend to believe that everything we shoot is plastic and mallable. That's what our imaginations do with our visual field. Good shot.
Don Colin
http://www.shadowmold.org
comment by pedro at 04:56 PM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
doesn´t look a digital image to me...i think you could get pretty much the same result in a dark room(if you where shooting film,of course), without putting your hands in PS.
really like it...a lot!
comment by m at 08:13 PM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
Not my favourite by a long way, but it was very good to see the original. Would the noise have differed in a colour version?
comment byvivien at 08:29 PM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
why dont you make a documentary about how to behave in a train or so... i like those pictures, but i think there could be more change on this site.
but if you want to make topics or so, it's ok.
id like it if you would post more colorful images like some flowers or something like that.
i mean, hello, its springtime!
comment bydjn1 at 09:41 PM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
Thanks everyone.
Anonymous: I'm not sure that it's a distinction I'd make: post-processing is a part of my creative thinking and I don't think there's a line that you cross between photography and digital images; i.e. they're one and the same.
comment by chinomikan at 10:50 PM (GMT) on 10 April, 2005
Hm.. this image has a lot of contrast compared to your original one it definately has its brightness to it.
Qiuck question, what are you representing with your streaked lines?
Lin. : )
comment byRob Prouse at 02:48 PM (GMT) on 11 April, 2005
I kind of fall in the camp of people that feel that you pushed PS a bit too far on this one. When I first saw this image, it didn't really grab me. I just clicked through to yesterday's image. I think it is a case of not really having enough to start with. I think the technique of pushing the curves to this extreme might be valid for some shots if that was the vision you had when taking the photo, I just don't think it was worth it for this one. How's that for sitting on the fence ;)
BTW, the shots of your kitchen reno were great.
comment byJoseph Spurling at 04:41 PM (GMT) on 16 April, 2005
Photoshop should be used however an artist feels will help create the image that he/she is searching for - it's no less a real photo. There should be no such thing as 'too much PS'.
I really like this. It's a sad photo, at least it makes me feel sad (probably not helped by the depressing music i'm listening to)
I thought that I'd gone through all the train shots that I'd taken the other day but then I came across this one. I'm not entirely convinced this works, but it's an example of a kind of reflection shot I've been working on so thought I'd put it up. Basically, the technique I've been trying out is for manipulating very flat images; i.e. ones with very little contrast, and involves applying an almost vertical Curve to the image.
What I like about this technique is that it renders almost imperceptible aspects of the original scene visible. What I'm less sure about, and less confident about controlling, is the noise. Normally, a shot taken at ISO 200 is relatively noise-free, but when you increase the contrast this much it becomes much more visible. In the full-res' version this looks ok – almost as though this was a painting – but it's a bit less convincing at this size.
Anyway, let me know what you think.
Oh, and the converted RAW file is here:
.../archives/the_space_between_us_2.php
As you can see the end result isn't much like the original ;-)
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
Canon 20D
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
40mm (64mm equiv.)
f/4.0
1/25
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
200
no
RAW
C1 Pro
no
A rather plain image, if you ask me ;)
Alright, I know that was lame. But, your site isn't working properly.
tanner: thanks, I posted the entry before adding the link to the image. It's fixed now.
well I know what your talking about. i've done that and yes, increasing the constrast makes even the little noise it may have, more visible. For me, seeing the plain image gaves another perspective of this one. I can not say that one is better than the other I just see them as complement to each other. By the way Your last two post were really good. :)
"What I like about this technique is that it renders almost imperceptible aspects of the original scene visible."
Yes, it does. But, well, did you see this when you took the shot or is it after the event fiddling?
Not that I'm against after the event fiddling, I do it all the time and most of 'em end up in the bin, I was just curious as to how your photo and thought processing goes.
As for the image itself, well, I think I'm gonna have to come back and look at it some more. Not sure what it does for me yet.
nogger: in general I know what I'm after when I take the shot – which aspects of the scene I'm subsequently going to emphasise – but because the original scene is very flat it's a bit of a hit and miss process.
the "high contrast" version somehow adds extra motion to the image for me. The double reflection from the window layering becomes closer to motion-blur, much more so than in the RAW.
This should be called a Digital Image not a photograph... I don't know It just bugs me when people use photoshop too much.
Do you use a tripod or monopod for these or is it just handheld? I love the motion blurriness
Thats good tuning in PS...but I prefer yesterdays image to this one. This one just seems to have less focus (literaly too...).
The noise seems to add to this one, because it doesn't really seem like noise. I like that it's also patchy, there is much less noise on the tracks than in other areas.
I think the sepia is what makes this work. Sepia just seems to make the contrast jump and everything sort of elevates.
gritty. i like it..
I don't know anything about noise or photoshop, but I find this photo moving. Relaxed, beautiful hands, fleeting moments. We all know these things.
pretty suggestive...
OPINION STATEMENT: David this is one of those shots that appear on your roll or card that is part of a sequence of more interesting shots, but you are inclined to find in it, something that is missing from your more "successful" shots. It happens all the time. What I like about photoblogs is that we have time and space for these "missed moments". This one is very nice. The toning adds the "enough" needed to bring this shot into the realm of exhibit. Too many people believe Photoshop to be some kind of mockery of the actual; bah, I tend to believe that everything we shoot is plastic and mallable. That's what our imaginations do with our visual field. Good shot.
Don Colin
http://www.shadowmold.org
doesn´t look a digital image to me...i think you could get pretty much the same result in a dark room(if you where shooting film,of course), without putting your hands in PS.
really like it...a lot!
Not my favourite by a long way, but it was very good to see the original. Would the noise have differed in a colour version?
why dont you make a documentary about how to behave in a train or so... i like those pictures, but i think there could be more change on this site.
but if you want to make topics or so, it's ok.
id like it if you would post more colorful images like some flowers or something like that.
i mean, hello, its springtime!
Thanks everyone.
Anonymous: I'm not sure that it's a distinction I'd make: post-processing is a part of my creative thinking and I don't think there's a line that you cross between photography and digital images; i.e. they're one and the same.
Hm.. this image has a lot of contrast compared to your original one it definately has its brightness to it.
Qiuck question, what are you representing with your streaked lines?
Lin. : )
I kind of fall in the camp of people that feel that you pushed PS a bit too far on this one. When I first saw this image, it didn't really grab me. I just clicked through to yesterday's image. I think it is a case of not really having enough to start with. I think the technique of pushing the curves to this extreme might be valid for some shots if that was the vision you had when taking the photo, I just don't think it was worth it for this one. How's that for sitting on the fence ;)
BTW, the shots of your kitchen reno were great.
Photoshop should be used however an artist feels will help create the image that he/she is searching for - it's no less a real photo. There should be no such thing as 'too much PS'.
I really like this. It's a sad photo, at least it makes me feel sad (probably not helped by the depressing music i'm listening to)