Controlled Chaos (in color)

lizzard_nyc

Same day of the Yankees parade, I took some color shots which I did not post before. I'm trying to get over my dislike of color in street shots--You tell me if these are better or worse than the b&w's I posted. Curious.


1.



2.



3.



4.



This last shot was taken when I got back to the office. A view from the window--I've always liked how crowded together the buildings look.

5.

Wil Davis

1: A bit washed out, and v. soft, especially the background. Was that PP or a really soft lens or what? I don't think I'd like to mess with the chap looking directly at the camera… he looks like he means business (Note to self: def. not the place to be wearing any Red Sox regalia!)

2: Again, very pastel, washed out and wicked soft. Interesting expressions, but the problem is that one of them has seen the camera and it's no longer a candid. The kid looks as if he's spaced out on some exotic substance…

3: The middle third (vertically) is where it all is. Great interest and lots of stuff happening; but the chap in the glasses has spotted you!

5: I love this type of shot - fabulous test of just how good a lens really is, which is why they seldom work with anything less than the absolute best, using large format, on a very good tripod.

So what's the story with the "soft"?

Thanks for sharing!

- Wil

PS: Ah! just found #4: This one is totally candid, and is better for being that. It looks like these chaps are just about to get some $$ from an ATM (remember the film where they used a laptop to break into ATMs ?); either that or he's just found a HotSpot.

Flyinggina

Nice series, Liz. Especially #2 - the Superbowl Jacket versus the World Series t-shirt and the hippy looking guy. Looks like the wind was really blowing.

##1 and 3 don't do anything for me.

$4 is intriguing. I think you need to brighten up the guy at the computer. The picture says a lot about our world today.

Re color, I think it is fine to have these in color. On my monitor, however, the first four look too cool (too blue). Also, I think that #2 would do really well in b&w.

I love the last one, but I confess to loving architectural photography. The golden hour glow adds a lot of interest. It looks to me like it might need straightening, though I can see that that wouldn't be all that easy to achieve. It could also use some brightening and "pop? (ie, enhanced contrast to make the picture pop) Others are much more qualified to me to give advice on this.

Virginia

Patti

Liz,

#1&2: I'd like to see in B&W with the soft focus. I like the composition of #2.

#3: I like the composition again. I like the woman's expression as she looks at the fans. I didn't realize the man was looking at the camera, thought he was looking at a fan in the foreground.

#4: my favourite of the people shots. I like the comment it makes on our inability to let go of our technology dependence, no matter where we are or what we're doing. A bit more light in the foreground would be nice.

#5: for me you have captured the beauty of the golden hour on beautiful NYC. The colours, textures and patterns remind me of textile art. I love it.

lizzard_nyc

Wil Davis wrote:

1: A bit washed out, and v. soft, especially the background. Was that PP or a really soft lens or what? I don't think I'd like to mess with the chap looking directly at the camera… he looks like he means business (Note to self: def. not the place to be wearing any Red Sox regalia!)

2: Again, very pastel, washed out and wicked soft. Interesting expressions, but the problem is that one of them has seen the camera and it's no longer a candid. The kid looks as if he's spaced out on some exotic substance…

3: The middle third (vertically) is where it all is. Great interest and lots of stuff happening; but the chap in the glasses has spotted you!

5: I love this type of shot - fabulous test of just how good a lens really is, which is why they seldom work with anything less than the absolute best, using large format, on a very good tripod.

So what's the story with the "soft"?

Thanks for sharing!

- Wil

PS: Ah! just found #4: This one is totally candid, and is better for being that. It looks like these chaps are just about to get some $$ from an ATM (remember the film where they used a laptop to break into ATMs ?); either that or he's just found a HotSpot.

The deal with the soft focus is...soft focus setting on my camera. I can almost feel B.D. reaching out and choking me through the computer.

My color shots are flat otherwise with my minimal PP, so I overcompensate with my camera settings--I like the high high contrast, I like the glow of the color shots, I like the crazy PP work. I like the effects my camera gives without actually using PP tools.
So this is a dilemma for me. I want to listen to the advise in this forum, mainly "stay away from your camera's built in filters"--but...I like the look. So for now I am following the advise since I am new--but the flat color shots really bite!

Will, on #5 are you saying I should have used a tripod, or you think I used a tripod because no tripod was used with my kit lens.

In shot #3, I don't think the man is looking at me, I think he's looking at the half naked man--but if I had been spotted, is that so bad?

brvheart

I love #1 and #2, they just seem to speak volumes to me. Well done

lizzard_nyc

Flyinggina wrote:

Nice series, Liz. Especially #2 - the Superbowl Jacket versus the World Series t-shirt and the hippy looking guy. Looks like the wind was really blowing.

##1 and 3 don't do anything for me.

$4 is intriguing. I think you need to brighten up the guy at the computer. The picture says a lot about our world today.

Re color, I think it is fine to have these in color. On my monitor, however, the first four look too cool (too blue). Also, I think that #2 would do really well in b&w.

I love the last one, but I confess to loving architectural photography. The golden hour glow adds a lot of interest. It looks to me like it might need straightening, though I can see that that wouldn't be all that easy to achieve. It could also use some brightening and "pop? (ie, enhanced contrast to make the picture pop) Others are much more qualified to me to give advice on this.

Virginia

I had not noticed the Superbowl jacket with the Yankees outfit--good catch and I'm glad you bought it to my attention.

On my monitor the shots look warm--but I dont' have my monitor calibrated.

I'm just starting to want to take photos of architecture, but in this case I don't have the patience for the tripod set up etc. Funny one of the few things I have is a tripod, gorillapod, and I don't use it .

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

thoth

lizzard_nyc wrote:

The deal with the soft focus is...soft focus setting on my camera. I can almost feel B.D. reaching out and choking me through the computer.

My color shots are flat otherwise with my minimal PP, so I overcompensate with my camera settings--I like the high high contrast, I like the glow of the color shots, I like the crazy PP work. I like the effects my camera gives without actually using PP tools.
So this is a dilemma for me. I want to listen to the advise in this forum, mainly "stay away from your camera's built in filters"--but...I like the look. So for now I am following the advise since I am new--but the flat color shots really bite!

I think that's just part of the growing process, Liz. We must all suffer through those boring dull shots as it is our dislike for them that drives our passion for learning how to fix them. If we let our cameras do it for us then what are we to learn? I'm with B.D.; we must put down those in-camera settings and look at the world through a RAW-colored lens. Only then can we begin our journey! :ivar

lizzard_nyc

Patti wrote:

Liz,

#1&2: I'd like to see in B&W with the soft focus. I like the composition of #2.

#3: I like the composition again. I like the woman's expression as she looks at the fans. I didn't realize the man was looking at the camera, thought he was looking at a fan in the foreground.

#4: my favourite of the people shots. I like the comment it makes on our inability to let go of our technology dependence, no matter where we are or what we're doing. A bit more light in the foreground would be nice.

#5: for me you have captured the beauty of the golden hour on beautiful NYC. The colours, textures and patterns remind me of textile art. I love it.

I really like #4 as well for that same reason--I think he couldn't get to his office because so many streets were blocked and cops got tired of hearing lies "but I work in this area"--and well he did what he had to do to get his work done. I just hate how flat it looks.

If you have the tools to convert to B&W, I dont' mind at all if you fiddle with 1 and 2 and turn them to b&w. I'd love to see that.

Thanks for looking.

lizzard_nyc

brvheart wrote:

I love #1 and #2, they just seem to speak volumes to me. Well done

Thank you brvheart.
Do they say "yankees rule!" .

silversx80

Hi Liz. Of all the shots, I like #5 the best. The one nit is that it seems a little tilted. I think that it's because the kit lens has a little distortion at the wide and the tele ends.

#4 is a good capture too. It seems a little underexposed, but that's just a little nit. Do you use the auto-gradation feature on the E-620? That boosts the shadows a little, but adds a little (non-detracting) noise.

As far as the art filters go, I really don't like the soft-focus and the pale-color ones. My favorites are the pop art, pin hole and grainy film, but that's just personal preference... actually, I like the grainy film B&W better than a lot processing I can do in PS.


A quick tip, in case you don't already know. You can play with the art filters after the fact. I tend to shoot in aperture priority or manual most of the time, but want to use an art filter. Since the camera won't give me control AND let me use a filter, I shoot in RAW and process in Olympus Master 2. The right tab (when you click the RAW button to convert) has a section at the bottom for art filters. That way I get the RAW and the ability to check shots with all the different filters.

lizzard_nyc

thoth wrote:

I think that's just part of the growing process, Liz. We must all suffer through those boring dull shots as it is our dislike for them that drives our passion for learning how to fix them. If we let our cameras do it for us then what are we to learn? I'm with B.D.; we must put down those in-camera settings and look at the world through a RAW-colored lens. Only then can we begin our journey! :ivar

Travis,
Just starting to force myself to use RAW--especially since a computer is in the works, I will hopefully soon be able to go back and fix them to my liking.

And you are right, I love it when I nail shots, but it's the missed shots or screwed up shots that push me to get back out there.

lizzard_nyc

silversx80 wrote:

Hi Liz. Of all the shots, I like #5 the best. The one nit is that it seems a little tilted. I think that it's because the kit lens has a little distortion at the wide and the tele ends.

#4 is a good capture too. It seems a little underexposed, but that's just a little nit. Do you use the auto-gradation feature on the E-620? That boosts the shadows a little, but adds a little (non-detracting) noise.

As far as the art filters go, I really don't like the soft-focus and the pale-color ones. My favorites are the pop art, pin hole and grainy film, but that's just personal preference... actually, I like the grainy film B&W better than a lot processing I can do in PS.


A quick tip, in case you don't already know. You can play with the art filters after the fact. I tend to shoot in aperture priority or manual most of the time, but want to use an art filter. Since the camera won't give me control AND let me use a filter, I shoot in RAW and process in Olympus Master 2. The right tab (when you click the RAW button to convert) has a section at the bottom for art filters. That way I get the RAW and the ability to check shots with all the different filters.

Joe,
I did not know that!
Well actually I was told about this feature but I did not think it was available to me on my Masters 2 program, I even uploaded the latest version. But what I had not realized is that I had to shoot in RAW to get this.
Thanks for that! Now I can have the best of both worlds, my high contrast grainy b&w, but toned down considerably so that I don't get the blowouts--I am so excited. That is my favorite setting btw--and my family loves the soft focus as it erases the lines and softens the faces--wish I had never shown them the result of this special feature as it doesn't show the "real" person. They all shout "use the soft focus" blah!

Also I will look into the auto-gradation feature--I don't know what it is, or how to use it--but I will figure it out this weekend. Thanks!

Richard

lizzard_nyc wrote:

I really like #4 as well for that same reason--I think he couldn't get to his office because so many streets were blocked and cops got tired of hearing lies "but I work in this area"--and well he did what he had to do to get his work done. I just hate how flat it looks.

I really like that one as well. I took a quick stab at reworking it a bit...shadow/highlight, a color tweak and slight contrast adjustment:


What do you think?

lizzard_nyc

Richard,
Thank you:D . Much improved. It's amazing what a little PP work can do.

Wil Davis

lizzard_nyc wrote:

snip…

Will, on #5 are you saying I should have used a tripod, or you think I used a tripod because no tripod was used with my kit lens.

In shot #3, I don't think the man is looking at me, I think he's looking at the half naked man--but if I had been spotted, is that so bad?

No, I didn't mean that you should use a tripod; well, actually you can use whatever is to hand; in fact I often use a bean-bag and scrunch the camera against a wall or tree or utility pole to steady the camera. What I meant was that to really test a lens using that type of shot, in order to avoid camera shake you need to make the camera as steady as possible.

I suppose you could say that the camera should be rock-steady for any shot. I love your shot by the way; the light is interesting; just look at the parapet where there are lots of decorations, some in sunlight, and the ones in shadow looking totally different. With the hundreds of windows and roof-gardens and spaces, it's like peering into dozens of different worlds!

#3: Yup, looking at it once again, I realize that you could be right - on first glance I just thought the glasses-man had spotted you, in which case it's not a candid anymore, i.e. the photographer is now involved in the picture.

Keep 'em coming!

- Wil

rutt

These are all interesting, but I'm having a hard time getting over the processing.

Until you get your computer, maybe try photoshop.com which lets you do quite a bit on their website. I did this just using the exposure and then auto correct options. Just shoot the best most neutral jpegs you can to get ready for this.