A Photo for B.D. Colen

Flutist · June 23, 2009

I know I know it's not of people, but it is for a person. In talking to B.D. Colen about his workshop I mentioned I was going on vacation to Cape Cod this week and he told me to make sure I stopped somewhere, so I had to share my picture of where he told me to visit..

Guess where?

Pie in the Sky.....Falmouth, Ma.

bdcolen · June 24, 2009

Flutist wrote:

I know I know it's not of people, but it is for a person. In talking to B.D. Colen about his workshop I mentioned I was going on vacation to Cape Cod this week and he told me to make sure I stopped somewhere, so I had to share my picture of where he told me to visit..

Guess where?

Pie in the Sky.....Falmouth, Ma.

I am seriously salivating. Okay, drooling!

Thank you, Shannon - this brings back fond memories. I spent the summer of 1986 in the then-brand-new summer journalism fellowship at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, and Pie-in-the-Sky was a regular stop on my bike ride from our cottage to the lab. Love that place. Sorry your weather is so appallingly bad.

Flutist · June 24, 2009

I'm glad you like it! any C&C is appreciated from anyone. I know it is not of people.....they were getting ready to close.

Trevlan · June 24, 2009

Shannon. I like the composition, you have interesting elements in the foreground, subject area and background. I would do three things to improve this photo if it were mine.

#1 I would have shot it with a circular polarizer to minimized the reflections on the glass.

#2 I would cloned out the lights near the top. You have a line of power there, that commands your eye to look around the top third of the photograph, but those bright blown out lights grab the eye. Also, you happened to be in the family of angles from those lights, reflecting of the glass.

#3 This photo screams HDR me!

A color version might have been just as sweet. (Pun intended.) Great job.

Flutist · June 26, 2009

I do not know how to do HDR, but would love to see it done on this photo!!! Thank you for your suggestions, gotta work on them. I usually take photos of my family...

bdcolen · June 28, 2009

Trevlan wrote:

Shannon. I like the composition, you have interesting elements in the foreground, subject area and background. I would do three things to improve this photo if it were mine.

#1 I would have shot it with a circular polarizer to minimized the reflections on the glass.

#2 I would cloned out the lights near the top. You have a line of power there, that commands your eye to look around the top third of the photograph, but those bright blown out lights grab the eye. Also, you happened to be in the family of angles from those lights, reflecting of the glass.

#3 This photo screams HDR me!

A color version might have been just as sweet. (Pun intended.) Great job.

Of course if she cloned out the lights, it would no longer be a photo of Pie-in-the-Sky, in Woods Hole, MA; it would be a photo of what someone wanted Pie-in-the-Sky to be.

If she wanted to get rid of the line of lights, all she'd have to have done was think about that when she composed the image. :-)

BTW - and just FYI - IF Shannon were assigned to shoot this for virtually any daily newspaper, and cloned out the lights before turning in the image? She'd be fired.

Flutist · June 28, 2009

The reason I left the lights in is because one, they defined the space, and two because the travel cups along the top created a real sense for the way the community thinks....Reduce, reuse, recycle!!!

ian408 · June 28, 2009

I like it because it tells me a bit about what I might experience should I go there.

My only suggestion would have been to take a 1/2 step right to get more of the display case.

My onlyotherquestions is why on earth does everyone want to turn everything into HDR? No offence but HDR does not make every picture better.

Flutist · June 28, 2009

Thank you Ian408. I was worried about moving to the right, I had thought about it. I was concerned if I moved to the right and rule of thirds I may have gotten would have been broken. I thought the island in the middle for all the condiments helped to break up the photo and make it a bit more interesting.

Trevlan · June 29, 2009

ian408 wrote:

I like it because it tells me a bit about what I might experience should I go there.

My only suggestion would have been to take a 1/2 step right to get more of the display case.

My onlyotherquestions is why on earth does everyone want to turn everything into HDR? No offence but HDR does not make every picture better.

I agree. But I wasn't suggesting the exaggerated HDR that we see more commonly. I'm talking more along the lines of the human eye. I'm going to tinker with this one for a bit and post what I come up with.

And Bob, why would she get fired for removing distracting bright lights from the picture? Guess it's a different world for newspaper photography.

Trevlan · June 29, 2009

What do you guys think of the edit. Shannon, if you don't like anything about it, I'll take it down.

Flutist · June 29, 2009

Trevlan wrote:

What do you guys think of the edit. Shannon, if you don't like anything about it, I'll take it down.

I like it!

the only thing I do not like and now I'm glad I did not remove, is the lights you took out. To me it now looks like a set on a stage and the black where the lights were looks like the empty stage space....

bdcolen · June 29, 2009

Trevlan wrote:

I agree. But I wasn't suggesting the exaggerated HDR that we see more commonly. I'm talking more along the lines of the human eye. I'm going to tinker with this one for a bit and post what I come up with.

And Bob, why would she get fired for removing distracting bright lights from the picture? Guess it's a different world for newspaper photography.

----
That was me - B. D. - saying she'd be fired. Removing something from a photo after you've taken it is not "tinkering a bit," it's a version of doing what the Soviets did when they would make a formerly-living 'hero of the revolution' disappear from a May Day photo.

Seriously, and very ironically, as general journalistic standards have gone straight to hell in the past 10, 15 years, the standards in photo journalism have become far stricter. I remember, as a young reporter, watching the air-brushing of photos being done in the art department at the Washington Post - background distracting? Airbrush it out and just have a head shot. But as digital took over, and, therefore, it became easier and easier to substantially and meaningfully alter reality in photos, newspapers became less and less tolerant of photographic manipulation. I suspect that the real problem - issue - here is that everyone smart enough to be able to read a newspaper (in print or on line) understands how radically a talented 8-year-old can alter a photo, and therefore there is less and less trust in the idea that a given photo offers a 1000th of a second slice of reality. It didn't help when National Geographic moved a pyramid in a photo on the cover, or when Time Magazine so radically altered OJ's mug shot, or, or, or when, during Gulf War II, an LA Times photographer cloned together elements of two photos.

The upshot of this is that while it's acceptable to make the sorts of adjustments that have always been routinely made in the darkroom, there is generally no tolerance of the sorts of image manipulation that change the scene.

But again - for this sort of photo, why even think about post-processing manipulation? The photographer should be thinking about what he or she wants to capture, and shooting to get that. If you don't get it? Well, guess what? You didn't get it.:-)

bdcolen · June 29, 2009

Flutist wrote:

I like it! the only thing I do not like and now I'm glad I did not remove, is the lights you took out. To me it now looks like a set on a stage and the black where the lights were looks like the empty stage space....

1 - Waaaaaay over processed.
2 - Shannon...Rule of thirds? What rule? Think about what you see, what appeals to your eye. Remember, the only rule is, "we don't need no steenkin rules."

3 - Well, we don't need no steenkin' rules beyond:
a. The one thing you owe your subject is honesty;
b. No bums;
c. No alterations to the image beyond those you that would have been routine in a wet darkroom.
d. None of the above applies in any way to art photography or photo illustration - do whatever the heck you want.:D

Flutist · June 29, 2009

bdcolen wrote:

1 - Waaaaaay over processed.
2 - Shannon...Rule of thirds? What rule? Think about what you see, what appeals to your eye. Remember, the only rule is, "we don't need no steenkin rules."
3 - Well, we don't need no steenkin' rules beyond:
a. The one thing you owe your subject is honesty;
b. No bums;
c. No alterations to the image beyond those you that would have been routine in a wet darkroom.
d. None of the above applies in any way to art photography or photo illustration - do whatever the heck you want.:D

Well ok then, no holds barred....I'm gonna shoot away like a teenager breaking curfew

bdcolen · June 29, 2009

A teenager breaking curfew...

Flutist wrote:

Well ok then, no holds barred....I'm gonna shoot away like a teenager breaking curfew

Absolutely! Go with the flow - your flow.

Oh - wait! I forgot another no-rule rule

... Horizons are straight.

ian408 · June 29, 2009

Trevlan wrote:

What do you guys think of the edit. Shannon, if you don't like anything about it, I'll take it down.

Way over cooked. But if you took the original, masked the lower left and brought the levels up just a bit, that would probably be OK and maybe (I can't say for sure because I was not there) be closer to what they eye saw. I'd have left the lights in and if anything, toned them down--they're important as they do emphasize the row of cups above (in addition to helping "explain" the lighting to the viewer). Without them, it does look like a stage.

I guess for me, the HDR images I've seen are over processed in an effort to make the dynamic range even for all things. In reality, it never is. Is a scene sometimes the product of multiple exposures? Maybe. Especially if the sensor is not capable of metering for the range your eye can see. A good example is a shooting into the setting sun.

Trevlan, thank you for taking the time to make the edit and to show it to us.

Angelo · June 29, 2009

bdcolen wrote:

Absolutely! Go with the flow - your flow.

Oh - wait! I forgot another no-rule rule ... Horizons are straight.

BD - it is so refreshing to have a new voice of reason among us. I tire of those who routinely quote "rules" often ignoring either the creative or realistic aspects of what the image is supposed to capture. Thank you

And Ian - I agree; why the obsession with HDR? lordy!!!

Shannon & BD - as for the original image in this post. rather than offer any critique I'd prefer to ask a question.

As I look at the picture I think it appears "flat" to me - all the elements in the middle and back of the image seem to have no depth beyond the prominence of the "barrel" in the foreground, but even there it seem to be melding into the showcase behind.

Does anyone else see it the same way? If so how would one compensate?

I have ideas but I'd rather hear others' comments. Thanks.

rwells · June 29, 2009

Angelo wrote:

And Ian - I agree; why the obsession with HDR? lordy!!!

I find this somewhat OT to the OP, but...

Excerpts from Wikipedia:

...The intention of HDRI is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to shadows.

High dynamic range imaging was originally developed in the 1930s and 1940s by Charles Wyckoff...

HDR has been, and is regularly practiced my most photographers today, and for many, many years in the past.

Do you use flash, fill flash? Why? ~ To try and work around a dynamic range that's too wide for your camera's media/sensor.

How about ND or GND filters?

Ever dodged or burned an image, either digitally or in the darkroom?

There are many ways to apply HDR, the latest software versions are just one of many.

lordy!!! is correct

~ there appears to have been an obsession with HDR for a long, long time.

Something to ponder...

YMMV

bdcolen · June 29, 2009

rwells wrote:

I find this somewhat OT to the OP, but...
Excerpts from Wikipedia:

...The intention of HDRI is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to shadows.

High dynamic range imaging was originally developed in the 1930s and 1940s by Charles Wyckoff...

HDR has been, and is regularly practiced my most photographers today, and for many, many years in the past.

Do you use flash, fill flash? Why? ~ To try and work around a dynamic range that's too wide for your camera's media/sensor.

How about ND or GND filters?

Ever dodged or burned an image, either digitally or in the darkroom?

There are many ways to apply HDR, the latest software versions are just one of many.

lordy!!! is correct ~ there appears to have been an obsession with HDR for a long, long time.

Something to ponder...

YMMV

All good points, Randy.

ian408 · June 29, 2009

rwells wrote:

I find this somewhat OT to the OP, but...

It is very much OT. I asked the question because I see so many people using the technique today. Very few images processed this way are appealing to me.

Richard · June 29, 2009

ian408 wrote:

It is very much OT. I asked the question because I see so many people using the technique today. Very few images processed this way are appealing to me.

That might be because the really good ones don't look like they were done with HDR. It becomes noticeable when the colors are over the top or the local contrast just looks unnatural. Some people seem to like this look, but I think it has become a cliché.

ian408 · June 29, 2009

Richard wrote:

Some people seem to like this look, but I think it has become a cliché.

It's this years selective color

Flutist · June 29, 2009

For reference here is the original photo, I will also post it in the OP for comparison

I did have 2 screaming kids with me and a husband who doesn't understand wanting to take photos of non people, so I was being rushed. Not that that is any excuse as to why the photo was taken the way it was. It was a split second decision photo, sometimes I get my best photos when I don't think too much on them.

I personally am learning a lot from this discussion, I hope you are too. If not learning, appreciating point of views..

ian408 · June 29, 2009

Flutist wrote:

It was a split second decision photo, sometimes I get my best photos when I don't think too much on them.

Flutist · June 29, 2009

ian408 wrote:

Right back at ya!

Trevlan · June 30, 2009

It is a bit over cooked. LoL. But, that was off one small photo.

Bob put it best. If you feel the lights are distracting, then find a way to removed them in the composition.

Good choice with the black and white. The color version doesn't have the same impact for me at least.

A Photo for B.D. Colen

Comments