Yosemite, 3 images

DavidTO

Here's my first three images:

Andy

yahoo!

great to meet you there david, what a cool trip. your shots don't disappoint it's really a magical place, isn't it?

David_S85

Super views. Its gonna take hours to get through all of these when all you Yosemite'ites get them up here. Thanks for the preview!

DavidTO

Andy, thanks for the comment, but mostly thanks for organizing such a fantastic trip. Magical, yes.

David, yeah it'll take us days to process and upload these images. Right now the servers must be taking a major hit, cause it's mighty slow! Thanks for the comment.

ehughes

David, great shots.. It's going to take me weeks to get through what I captured this weekend. We sure had the luck of the weather on Saturday..

Ed

CatOne

Dave,

Nice meeting you on the trip, looks like you made the drive back safely.

Here's the link to the book I mentioned yesterday:

http://www.msjphotography.com/bookstore.html

It's a $25 PDF and I've found it outstanding for working through common tasks with masks, color matching for print, etc. All the published books, I had a helluva time with.

Hope to see you out there some time again. I'll upload some shots (I sorta recognize the shooting locations of #2 and #3, I may have some rather similar shots ;-)

DavidTO

CatOne wrote:

Dave,

Nice meeting you on the trip, looks like you made the drive back safely.

Here's the link to the book I mentioned yesterday:

http://www.msjphotography.com/bookstore.html

It's a $25 PDF and I've found it outstanding for working through common tasks with masks, color matching for print, etc. All the published books, I had a helluva time with.

Hope to see you out there some time again. I'll upload some shots (I sorta recognize the shooting locations of #2 and #3, I may have some rather similar shots ;-)

Thanks, Bill. Bought and paid for (should be paid for and bought?). Look forward to digging into.

Yeah, it was very nice to meet you and Paula. You are lucky how incredibly patient she is with your photography, especially at 5am, 6am, 7am...and so on.

I've got a lousy picture of you shooting that I'll send your way. Nice shot of you, but late light and handheld...

wxwax

CatOne wrote:

Dave,

Nice meeting you on the trip, looks like you made the drive back safely.

Here's the link to the book I mentioned yesterday:

http://www.msjphotography.com/bookstore.html

It's a $25 PDF and I've found it outstanding for working through common tasks with masks, color matching for print, etc. All the published books, I had a helluva time with.

Hope to see you out there some time again. I'll upload some shots (I sorta recognize the shooting locations of #2 and #3, I may have some rather similar shots ;-)

Thanks for remembering, Bill!

Nir

Beautiful shots David!

ginger_55

Fantastic shots, David!

Yes, I had never seen smugmug so slow, I e-mailed them, I thought it was my computer, or something.

Wonderful shots. I stayed here, and I still have shots from last week to work up, and I didn't leave the house for 4 days.

ginger

SusanB

All wonderful! I have not seen so much water from the falls, that there are those two huge areas down stream of the water and mist rising up to the tree tops- wow! The meadow shot is gorgeous and the rushing river is super too.


Susan

DavidTO

Hey, y'all.

I appreciate all the positive comments, but don't be shy...I need some constructive criticism, too. Composition, processing, you name it.

CatOne

DavidTO wrote:

Hey, y'all.

I appreciate all the positive comments, but don't be shy...I need some constructive criticism, too. Composition, processing, you name it.

My comments:

Pic #1: Dead on. I love the composition. It's an outstanding picture, and I'm a bit chagrined that I missed that perspective.

Pic #2: I don't like the branches creeping in on the upper right. It's distracting to my eye. I had a picture where I included the branches in front of a landmark, but you can tell they're supposed to be there:



From viewing your photo, I can't tell if you intended to put them there, or they're just in the way and you couldn't get a clean shot (having been there, I know you could have gotten a clean shot so it was intentional).

Pic #3: I like the composition; I took that same shot myself and maybe you borrowed my ND grad to take it. Though it doesn't impress me the same way the first shot does. I have the exact same shot from where I took it, and mine doesn't totally send me, either. I think, really, the light wasn't all that good, and there's nothing you or I could have done about it. It's overhead, flat light, and the problem is, it makes everything look exactly how the eye sees it. It's "pretty scenery," but nothing that you really go "WOW!"

Oh, BTW, did you lose a pair of sunglasses? A pair turned up in our car; I figure they're probably yours as neither Paola nor I recognize them.

Steve Cavigliano

Super shots David The color and composition look very good, IMO

That first one is sooooooooo nice. I'd like to see a bit more contrast in the rock. You posted these so quickly, you probably just did a quick edit. I know that's all I did on my shots. We're going to have plenty of work ahead of us processing and re-processing all these images....lol

Great to meet you and I really enjoyed sharing this experience with the group

Steve

DavidTO

CatOne wrote:

My comments:

Pic #1: Dead on. I love the composition. It's an outstanding picture, and I'm a bit chagrined that I missed that perspective.

Pic #2: I don't like the branches creeping in on the upper right. It's distracting to my eye. I had a picture where I included the branches in front of a landmark, but you can tell they're supposed to be there:



From viewing your photo, I can't tell if you intended to put them there, or they're just in the way and you couldn't get a clean shot (having been there, I know you could have gotten a clean shot so it was intentional).

Pic #3: I like the composition; I took that same shot myself and maybe you borrowed my ND grad to take it. Though it doesn't impress me the same way the first shot does. I have the exact same shot from where I took it, and mine doesn't totally send me, either. I think, really, the light wasn't all that good, and there's nothing you or I could have done about it. It's overhead, flat light, and the problem is, it makes everything look exactly how the eye sees it. It's "pretty scenery," but nothing that you really go "WOW!"

Oh, BTW, did you lose a pair of sunglasses? A pair turned up in our car; I figure they're probably yours as neither Paola nor I recognize them.

Thanks. Yeah, I did. Bolle's.

#1: Thanks, yeah, so far that's my favorite of the few of mine that I like at all. It's OK to only have a few, though--it gives me incentive to get back up there and shoot some more!

#2: Yeah, the branches--I never quite got the composition right, that they should frame the shot and look intentional. Be curious to see what Sid and Marc did with that, as we were all tying to incoporate the branches. Mark even used a fill flash.

#3: Agreed, the light was not great. I do think that I can do more with processing it to improve it, but that it'll never be a great shot. A nice shot, though, and I'm happy I took it!

DavidTO

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Super shots David The color and composition look very good, IMO

That first one is sooooooooo nice. I'd like to see a bit more contrast in the rock. You posted these so quickly, you probably just did a quick edit. I know that's all I did on my shots. We're going to have plenty of work ahead of us processing and re-processing all these images....lol

Great to meet you and I really enjoyed sharing this experience with the group

Steve

Thanks, Steve. Yeah, the processing on the first is somewhere between a quickie and a final. The original was very flat, and I have spent a while on it, but haven't finalized the processing. I was concerned with going too far, so I held back to take the time to look at it and ruminate.

BUT: more importantly, Marc was talking me into moving from sRGB to Adobe colorspace. The first post was Adobe, which, of course, gets stripped out by smugmug. Below I've posted the exact same shot, but this time in sRGB, which gets stripped out as well, but at least in Safari, is the assumed colorspace, so it looks more accurate. Is it better?



Here's the Adobe colorspace for reference:

Dee

Love the one with the deer
I almost didn't notice them, then when I did, it made the photo even more interesting. Love the fog patches under the waterfall too!

I guess getting up early had it's rewards :

Looking forward to more pictures from everyone on the trip.

SusanB

The sRGB is stunning! Beautiful job.


Susan

CatOne

DavidTO wrote:

Thanks, Steve. Yeah, the processing on the first is somewhere between a quickie and a final. The original was very flat, and I have spent a while on it, but haven't finalized the processing. I was concerned with going too far, so I held back to take the time to look at it and ruminate.

BUT: more importantly, Marc was talking me into moving from sRGB to Adobe colorspace. The first post was Adobe, which, of course, gets stripped out by smugmug. Below I've posted the exact same shot, but this time in sRGB, which gets stripped out as well, but at least in Safari, is the assumed colorspace, so it looks more accurate. Is it better?

...

Dave,

In general, you should use Adobe because it has a wider gamut. There's more range, and you can have more variations in color.

The downside is, by default, it lacks more punch, and it's less saturated. So for images that you want to "pop," you have to do more post processing and saturate the colors a bit.

For point and shoot users that want things to look great out of the camera and do little work at all, shooting JPEG and sRGB will look the best initially. If you really want to control your images, RAW->Adobe RGB/TIFF and finally convert to JPEG is the way to go. No sense doing extra work on one side, and then throwing it out half way through the process

DavidTO

CatOne wrote:

Dave,

In general, you should use Adobe because it has a wider gamut. There's more range, and you can have more variations in color.

The downside is, by default, it lacks more punch, and it's less saturated. So for images that you want to "pop," you have to do more post processing and saturate the colors a bit.

For point and shoot users that want things to look great out of the camera and do little work at all, shooting JPEG and sRGB will look the best initially. If you really want to control your images, RAW->Adobe RGB/TIFF and finally convert to JPEG is the way to go. No sense doing extra work on one side, and then throwing it out half way through the process

May be true, but here on smugmug my color problems were way reduced when I moved to sRGB. Prints match my smugmug site now. And BTW, the sRGB that I posted looks more like the Adobe version than the Adobe one does. When the color profile gets stripped out, the Adobe one is the one that suffers, sRGB looks just as it should, and to my eye, just as the Adobe colorspace one looked in PS.

Whether or not I print sRGB, it's definitely better for display.

wxwax

Good discussion. FWIW, I agree that the sRGB looks better when posted here.

DavidTO

CatOne wrote:

Dave,

In general, you should use Adobe because it has a wider gamut. There's more range, and you can have more variations in color.

The downside is, by default, it lacks more punch, and it's less saturated. So for images that you want to "pop," you have to do more post processing and saturate the colors a bit.

For point and shoot users that want things to look great out of the camera and do little work at all, shooting JPEG and sRGB will look the best initially. If you really want to control your images, RAW->Adobe RGB/TIFF and finally convert to JPEG is the way to go. No sense doing extra work on one side, and then throwing it out half way through the process

Bill,

Here's Baldy's take on it: http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=50936&postcount=5

Baldy wrote:

Here's our help topic on it: http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-color

It's not true that Adobe RGB is bigger — it has the same number of bits to represent it — but it is true that it's broader — it can represent more colors, but in coarser gradations since it has the same number of bits to cover a broader area.

It turns out the conversion from Adobe 98 to sRGB is hard because some computer has to make decisions for you about how to represent colors in the Adobe 98 file that don't exist in sRGB.

So.... Counterintuitively, you end up with a poorer sRGB file by going through Adobe 98 first.

In most cases, and to most eyes, it won't make a difference because few naturally occurring colors are outside sRGB, especially ones that can be printed or displayed.

Since virtually all pro and consumer printers in the US expect sRGB files, including EZ Prints, Ofoto, Shutterfly, Costco, Walgreens, Wolfe's, whcc, and the web expects sRGB, our advice is to stick with it unless you have a client who expects Adobe 98 (a magazine, for example).

Thanks,
Baldy

SusanB

DavidTO wrote:

May be true, but here on smugmug my color problems were way reduced when I moved to sRGB. Prints match my smugmug site now. And BTW, the sRGB that I posted looks more like the Adobe version than the Adobe one does. When the color profile gets stripped out, the Adobe one is the one that suffers, sRGB looks just as it should, and to my eye, just as the Adobe colorspace one looked in PS.

Whether or not I print sRGB, it's definitely better for display.

I have switched from aRGB in camera to sRGB in camera simply because the few applications of smugmug gallery and a couple of printers that I use, also insist on sRGB, and they seem to do well. That said, I definitely notice a difference while in PSCS between the original aRGB tiff files versus sRGB tiff files. The same thing happens when I switch from the 16 bit tiff to the required 8 bit tiff and on to the 8 bit jpeg to print, even tho' it is the requirement of the printer to send 8 bit, sRGB, 300 dpi jpegs. I'm going to contact the Pro Color Labs who I know specialize in Competition Prints and see what they require altho' that standard is a bit over the top since merit pro competition prints are made solely to view under a couple of spot lights by pro judges who are looking for every last miniscule drop of color on the media, and is not the same as normal print scruntiny. Then there is the rest of the pro land looking for other print parameters from high end periodicals such as Architectural Digest to newspaper, which is another whole story.

Susan

GREAPER

DavidTO wrote:

Here's my first three images:

Cool shots David.

It could be my monitor, but the first one looks a touch blue on my monitor. I tried adjusting the color balance on it and reduced the blue a touch and bumped red and green just a touch and it looked better to me, but, like I say, my uncalibrated monitor could be the culprit. The second version you posted in the other color space looked less blue to me.

MHughes

Nice shots David, was nice meeting you.

DavidTO

Greaper, as I refine my processing on that shot, I'll take a look at the blues, and what happens when I pull them back. Thanks for the comments.

MHughes: it was very nice to meet you. We didn't spend any time shooting together, but your quiet kindness and smile brightened my time there. Thanks for the comment.

DavidTO

Here's one more that I've processed. I think I may have gone too far.

wxwax

Funny how hard it is to get the granite right when it's in the shade. Black point?

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

Funny how hard it is to get the granite right when it's in the shade. Black point?

Can you be more specific about what looks wrong? I can make a few guesses about what you mean, but I'd like to get the straight wxwax wisdom.

wxwax

DavidTO wrote:

Can you be more specific about what looks wrong? I can make a few guesses about what you mean, but I'd like to get the straight wxwax wisdom.

Not wisdom, I can assure you! I guess to my eye it looks a little blue and washed out. I've noticed the same thing in my shots. On the only one I've processed, I sorta messed around with something Marc did. In Curves I grabbed the darkest point, and slid it along the edge of the graph a wee bit. It seemed to help.

Here's how mine ended up under similar lighting conditions. Perhaps a smidge darker and greyer?

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/21713009-M.jpg

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

Not wisdom, I can assure you! I guess to my eye it looks a little blue and washed out. I've noticed the same thing in my shots. On the only one I've processed, I sorta messed around with something Marc did. In Curves I grabbed the darkest point, and slid it along the edge of the graph a wee bit. It seemed to help.

Here's how mine ended up under similar lighting conditions. Perhaps a smidge darker and greyer?

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/21713009-M.jpg

Ooooo. Your's is ominous. Cool. Not the look I'm going for (although I like yours), but I'll go back and work on the curves for the granite. Back in a flash (work permitting.)