Ground control to major Tom

JavierJavier Major grinsPosts: 152Registered Users Major grins
edited April 28, 2012 in Documentary

Comments

  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 26, 2012
  • EaracheEarache Unsharp and Oversaturated SO CALPosts: 3,533Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Nice, Javier...... A Street Oddity ...
    In #1 she has a two dimensional, cut-out look - a very cool thing!
    The baby's face tops the lame` cupcake.
    Eric ~ Smugmug
  • toragstorags Major grins Posts: 3,973Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    These shots are assembled.Wrong forum...
    Rags
  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    torags wrote: »
    These shots are assembled.Wrong forum...

    What does this mean?
  • lensmolelensmole Major grins Posts: 1,548Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    I don't know what he meansne_nau.gif Awesome captures and light in the first one, looks just like David in drag.
  • toragstorags Major grins Posts: 3,973Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    two photos merged into one (#1 you can see an outline of her left hand)... belongs in other cool shots
    Rags
  • RichardRichard Mildly bemused Madrid, SpainPosts: 17,527Administrators, Vanilla Admin moderator
    edited April 27, 2012
    torags wrote: »
    two photos merged into one (#1 you can see an outline of her left hand)... belongs in other cool shots
    Couple of things. First, what makes you so sure these are composites? The hand artifact could be motion blur, I think. Second, there's no rule against composites here, though they are not generally acceptable for photojournalism or documentary purposes. Anything goes in art, though, and art is most certainly welcome on this forum.

    That said, there is something weird about the light in these. Was she posing for a film or video shoot? headscratch.gif
  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    torags wrote: »
    two photos merged into one (#1 you can see an outline of her left hand)... belongs in other cool shots

    Rags....It is people like you, who drive people away from forums. What you did was accuse me of pasting the image together when I did nothing of the sort. It is not a cut out. Just to show your total ignorance and lack of respect for me and other, here are the out of the camera Jpegs of both pictures. They are full size so you can down load them and examine them. They have not been in any sort of photo editing tool, outside what Nikon provides internally. You just made yourself look foolishly. You should have asked me, instead of making a fool of your self.

    http://s404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/?action=view&current=DSC_4041.jpg#!oZZ2QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs404.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp128%2Fjgredline%2F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3DDSC_4033.jpg

    http://s404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/?action=view&current=DSC_4041.jpg#!oZZ1QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs404.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp128%2Fjgredline%2F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3DDSC_4041.jpg
  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Richard wrote: »

    That said, there is something weird about the light in these. Was she posing for a film or video shoot? headscratch.gif

    Nope, she is a ''he'' and was just out and about having a great time in a very sunny, normal L.A. afternoon.
    Take a look at the originals. I posted a link above.
  • RichardRichard Mildly bemused Madrid, SpainPosts: 17,527Administrators, Vanilla Admin moderator
    edited April 27, 2012
    K. The reason I found it strange is that it looks like he is in some strong light yet there aren't strong shadows on the ground. Strong makeup? ne_nau.gif
  • RyanSRyanS Always Learning Posts: 507Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    We all should be very careful about accusing anyone of image manipulation. While many post street, there are a few of us here that do street and PJ work. Being accused of image manipulation at all, even for "art," could end a career. It is a highly sensitive subject in the industry right now. This recently came up at a local PJ meeting. A fellow PJ had been suspended for burning in some hot spots on a published image. We all felt that there was probably more to the story, but it still left us with a desire to remain above reproach in this regard. If an image is manipulated then it should be clearly stated. Street gets wider latitude for creative processing, color/bw, and dodge/burn. Still, I don't think I'd like someone passing off a highly manipulated "false" image in the street forum as reality. I don't think anyone here has done that. I have a deep respect for everyone in this forum. What we have here is pretty special.

    Javier. I think the SOOC shot on the first image is quite good. The second one seems very strong straight up as well. That is just my opinion, of course, but I really like them.
    Please feel free to post any reworks you do of my images. Crop, skew, munge, edit, share.
    Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Amen.
    Just as a member of the group, I'd say an apology is definitely in order
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • lensmolelensmole Major grins Posts: 1,548Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Richard wrote: »
    K. The reason I found it strange is that it looks like he is in some strong light yet there aren't strong shadows on the ground. Strong makeup? ne_nau.gif

    I am thinking that the light is reflected light from a mirror type glass, from a building window I don't think it will necessarily cast a shadow depending on how it hits the subject.
  • RichardRichard Mildly bemused Madrid, SpainPosts: 17,527Administrators, Vanilla Admin moderator
    edited April 27, 2012
    lensmole wrote: »
    I am thinking that the light is reflected light from a mirror type glass, from a building window I don't think it will necessarily cast a shadow depending on how it hits the subject.
    Yeah, could be something like that. Hot lights would do the same, depending on the height and angle, which made me think of a movie shoot.
  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Richard wrote: »
    Yeah, could be something like that. Hot lights would do the same, depending on the angle, which made me think of a movie shoot.

    I have an image with very similar, similarly weird lighting, of a group of young girls praying in front of a Family Planning clinic - The front of the building is all reflective glass, and the sun had just peaked over the tops of the buildings behind the girls, and it looked as though they were bathed in kleig lights, but it's shadowless.
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • toragstorags Major grins Posts: 3,973Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Javier wrote: »
    Rags....It is people like you, who drive people away from forums. What you did was accuse me of pasting the image together when I did nothing of the sort. It is not a cut out. Just to show your total ignorance and lack of respect for me and other, here are the out of the camera Jpegs of both pictures. They are full size so you can down load them and examine them. They have not been in any sort of photo editing tool, outside what Nikon provides internally. You just made yourself look foolishly. You should have asked me, instead of making a fool of your self.

    http://s404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/?action=view&current=DSC_4041.jpg#!oZZ2QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs404.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp128%2Fjgredline%2F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3DDSC_4033.jpg

    http://s404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/?action=view&current=DSC_4041.jpg#!oZZ1QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs404.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp128%2Fjgredline%2F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3DDSC_4041.jpg

    I take your word for it and I apologize, it looked like they were Photoshopped

    I thought this was a documentary photo forum.
    Rags
  • RichardRichard Mildly bemused Madrid, SpainPosts: 17,527Administrators, Vanilla Admin moderator
    edited April 27, 2012
    Right. It made me think of a shot Mike Penn posted a few years ago that was lit by the reflection from a passing fire truck.
  • lizzard_nyclizzard_nyc Zygote Grinner Posts: 4,056Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Javier,
    If I remember correctly when you first started posting I loved your shots and then one day you posted a "posed" type shot and I think I told you that posed don't belong in street :) I've since revised my opinion.

    This post and the comments reminds me of that.

    Anyway, I very very much enjoyed this post and I like that you included the original because you did some wonderful work in PP to really make the black and white stand out.

    I thought NYC was freaky.
    Liz A.
    _________
  • lensmolelensmole Major grins Posts: 1,548Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    RyanS wrote: »
    We all should be very careful about accusing anyone of image manipulation. While many post street, there are a few of us here that do street and PJ work. Being accused of image manipulation at all, even for "art," could end a career. It is a highly sensitive subject in the industry right now. This recently came up at a local PJ meeting. A fellow PJ had been suspended for burning in some hot spots on a published image. We all felt that there was probably more to the story, but it still left us with a desire to remain above reproach in this regard. If an image is manipulated then it should be clearly stated. Street gets wider latitude for creative processing, color/bw, and dodge/burn. Still, I don't think I'd like someone passing off a highly manipulated "false" image in the street forum as reality. I don't think anyone here has done that. I have a deep respect for everyone in this forum. What we have here is pretty special.

    Javier. I think the SOOC shot on the first image is quite good. The second one seems very strong straight up as well. That is just my opinion, of course, but I really like them.

    I have been guilty of rushing to judge and I think we all have this tendency from time to time .One basic principal that hits me, is to always get both sides of the story.
  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    By the way, I have to say I definitely believe that neither merging images, nor any other form of PS screwing around other than normal cropping, contrast adjustment, and 'burning and dodging,' have any place in a forum called "Street and PJ." But then I'm not the Mod.
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • toragstorags Major grins Posts: 3,973Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    +1
    Rags
  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Thanks folks.
    To answer your questions on the lighting, it is easy really. I know my town and when the light is best. Historic Broadway runs about 7-8 blocks in length. It is in between high rises for the most part. So there are a few problems that this presents.
    Usually the shadows are total killers and really mess with the dynamic range and exposer is tricky because of this. Now the building are all equipped with heavy windows, most of which are tinted. These buildings and windows will act as reflectors and there are no shadows if you choose the time of the day just right. The window is small, about 2 hours. Usually between 10:00 and 12:00 A.M, Depending on what time of the year it is. There is also a time, usually about 1:00 pm, that the sun is shooting straight down Broadway and at that point, there is nothing you can do but shoot into the sun or directly away from it. I make it a point to always shoot away from it. Then the good light comes back around about 3:00 to 4:00 pm but fades quickly. The difference in the shadows to the light is usually 1 to even 2 stops...It is huge...I will see if I can dig out a picture of Broadway and post it up.
  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    bdcolen wrote: »
    By the way, I have to say I definitely believe that neither merging images, nor any other form of PS screwing around other than normal cropping, contrast adjustment, and 'burning and dodging,' have any place in a forum called "Street and PJ." But then I'm not the Mod.

    So just so I am straight. What your suggesting is that If i wanted to post up a black and white shot, I should shoot black and white film or set my DSLR's to black and white?
  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    There are virtually no shadows if you time it right
    Historic Down Town L.A.
    6400221099_e5dd9b2419_b.jpg
    Broadway by Shutter_bug_626, on Flickr

    6400222217_21a3f5d602_b.jpg
    Broadway by Shutter_bug_626, on Flickr

    6455907959_0acc05e859_b.jpg
    Colorfull dude by Shutter_bug_626, on Flickr

    6409147037_220686a03c_b.jpg
    The people on Broadway by Shutter_bug_626, on Flickr

    6400221653_a2f44c4fe7_b.jpg
    Broadway by Shutter_bug_626, on Flickr

    6455898289_bdbc3c9dd9_b.jpg
    A mean pair by Shutter_bug_626, on Flickr

    Trust me..I did not sit there and clone out shadow :)
  • M38A1M38A1 Curious. Very curious. Posts: 1,313Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Interesting.... When I first saw the sharpness in the crisp edges on #1, I thought "Flash". I don't know why, other than my peacock image was shot with a flash and gives much the same layered look with the bird/body appearing as if on top of the feathers. I'm thinking an intense light of some sort defines crisper edges/contrast which is what happened here with the reflecting window panes???


    .
  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    M38A1 wrote: »
    Interesting.... When I first saw the sharpness in the crisp edges on #1, I thought "Flash". I don't know why, other than my peacock image was shot with a flash and gives much the same layered look with the bird/body appearing as if on top of the feathers. I'm thinking an intense light of some sort defines crisper edges/contrast which is what happened here with the reflecting window panes???


    .

    While this picture was with no flash, I will often resort to using fill flash many times while street shooting to combat the DR problems.
  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 28, 2012
    Javier wrote: »
    So just so I am straight. What your suggesting is that If i wanted to post up a black and white shot, I should shoot black and white film or set my DSLR's to black and white?

    No, Javier, I am not suggesting that, as the only way to shoot and get a "negative" is to shoot raw, the only way to shoot raw and get black and white is to convert. You could shoot for the New York Times and convert to black and white, just as peope shot with color negative film and sometimes made black and white prints. You would not, however, be allowed to manipulate that image beyond ways that were acceptable darkroom standards.

    All I've been saying is that I view street photography as photography of life lived in public, or photography done in that style.
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Sign In or Register to comment.