This shot's for Joe M

Great capture.......lets see it a little darker. To enrich those colors - maybe in PS curves, posted on April 9, 2008 at 19:34:13
Joe M Audiophile Posts: 11980 Joined: September 27, 2001	or hues and saturation.

RE: darker, posted on April 9, 2008 at 22:56:27

user510

check now.

This one is wierd. I could spend hours with it in PS color balance and not be satisfied. If I adjust saturation upward the overall tone goes dark blue. Kind of attractive but unnatural.

D70s: White bal was set to daylight, 0. Filter used is B&W 010 (uv) used as general purpose uv and lens protection. The raw file came out with a predominant dark blue cast. If I alter the raw (NEF) file adjustments for white bal in PS I can radically change the tones. Cloudy or shade settings adds a yellow cast and replaces the blue tones with gray.

I did darken the midtones in 'PS levels' a few points for the image as it appears now. I think what I have now is fairly close to how I remember the color tones of the scene. You were right. It needed to darken.

-Steve

You're right what a bear to adjust. i took out some of the blueishness it warmed the buildings, posted on April 10, 2008 at 07:14:50
Joe M Audiophile Posts: 11980 Joined: September 27, 2001	in hues/Sat. I then in Image >adjust > Selevtive color, picked the Black channel and dakened the water. It only made a diff color than yours, not necessarily better. Your Call. Thanks for putting some LIFE Back into this place!!!

RE: a bear to adjust., posted on April 10, 2008 at 11:24:57

user510

That is an interesting result. Replaced the dominant blue shadows with black.

hues/sat then: image/adjust/selective color/black channel. I'll experiment with that.

Also, we have to account for monitor differences since no one viewing this might be seeing it exactly the same as anyone else. Monday I had made an 8.5x11 inch print of this scene and the result was much more to my liking than anything I've seen up on screen. Of course the image size was larger for the print.

(printer: Epson R1800)

-Steve

RE: a bear to adjust., posted on April 21, 2008 at 19:40:57

Doc B.
Manufacturer

Posts: 5916
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: October 6, 1999

Nowhere near as dramatic as Steve's beautiful shot, but I submit this as a color reference. Fuji GS645, and I think it was Kodak VC400. I like Steve's version much better than Joe's on both of my monitors - calibrated Sony and laptop LCD. On Joe's version the saturation and contrast are both a bit too much on my monitors.

RE: a bear to adjust., posted on April 21, 2008 at 19:42:22
Doc B. Manufacturer Posts: 5916 Location: Pacific Northwest Joined: October 6, 1999	Here's my submission for a compromise between the two:

RE: adjusting the bear, posted on April 21, 2008 at 20:29:21

user510

Hi Doc B.
I like your shot very well. Spectacular!! It looks like it also was taken at late afternoon/early eve with a low sun and warmish tones.

I --believe-- the color of the water in your shot is closer to what I witnessed. Seattle does have an impressive skyline when viewed from the west looking east.

This summer, because of the increasing cost of fuels, I will focus on getting more Seattle shots into my portfolio. There is much to discover/uncover in this old city.

Thanks for the input!!

-Steve

PS: monitors. I'm using two different Samsung 22" LCD's on two different desktop PC's with no particular calibration. The effects seen on one monitor is not too far from what is seen on the other.

RE: the print, posted on April 21, 2008 at 20:43:17

user510

The day after I took the shot, I made an 8.5x11" print using my Epson R1800 on Kodak glossy paper. I had used PS to reduce noise in the cloudy sky and I adjusted size to fit the paper, but otherwise did not mess with the photo.

The blue tones of water are similar in the print to what you have rendered with my photo. But the mostly cloudy sky in my print is somewhat lighter with a blue-gray tone. The buildings of the city are front lit with the warm tones of the setting sun and similar to your 'compromise' render.

Now that I've had a chance to get used to different color tones from two other pairs of eyes I think I will go with the original and just accept the photo, blue cast and all.

Thanks again for helping me adjust my eyes as well as the photo!!

-Steve

RE: the print, posted on April 22, 2008 at 07:51:17

Doc B.
Manufacturer

Posts: 5916
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: October 6, 1999

I think the original is just great, and there is a lot to be said for the importance of the intent of the original artist over those of us who want to "fix" his work! Fooling with the PS stuff is quite secondary to having the sense to capture that beautiful scene in the first place.

Color management is really a task. I didn't spend too much time on it until we started reprinting the original artwork from several of the albums we're doing for the Tape Project. Getting from the album cover to the scanner to the monitor and to the printer and getting it to look the same at both ends can take hours and hours. I ended up with two of the venerable old Sony GDM-20E20 CRT monitors on my graphics workstation, one of which I had to overhaul. Getting them up and calibrated made me realize just how much of a yellow cast my Toshiba laptop's LCD monitor has. And of course if you change paper you generally have to tweak whatever color settings you have made for the original paper. It's a lot of work to get right (I should probably say close rather than right), and I can't really say that I find it the most pleasant part of photography.

I agree that there is a lot of potential for nice shots in Seattle. Once you adjust your frame of mind you can find interesting shots just about anywhere.

Oh, one final tip - IME I would take the Kodak paper and start a nice fire with it, then order some Epson paper. I think you would like the improvement in color matching with your monitor and the overall improvement in the look of the print.

Ain't film great? With Tranparencies even better - you get a truer reference as to color with slides, posted on April 22, 2008 at 08:01:23
Joe M Audiophile Posts: 11980 Joined: September 27, 2001	negatives and digi are susceptible to human judgement after the fact. While i always prefer a more saturated and warmer look, others have their preferences. I tend for an emotional connection in a scene, than a record shot to achieve it.

RE: another from the same scene, posted on April 22, 2008 at 16:31:03

user510

I took this one a few minutes earlier.

-Steve

Seattle Shots

RE: Ain't film great? With Tranparencies even better - you get a truer reference as to color with slides, posted on April 22, 2008 at 21:40:23

Doc B.
Manufacturer

Posts: 5916
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: October 6, 1999

Absolutely Joe, a good transparency would have been even better for a color reference. I think the VC400 is a little exaggerated anyway.

The best thing about the art is that it allows for different strokes for different folks. I appreciate your sensibility in the way you treated the colors.

ya know what.......our images here take a different look on the net than on, posted on April 24, 2008 at 12:54:18
Joe M Audiophile Posts: 11980 Joined: September 27, 2001	my desktop. I pulled yours down to look what i would change. I see it is warmer on my desktop, as i would make it. Viewing it back on AA it is less saturated. The other one i did for you, when re- upon opening on my desk, doesn't look like it does on AA.........???

RE: yes, posted on April 24, 2008 at 13:26:48

user510

I'd suspect that the Asylum is likely saving some bandwidth by 'processing' the images uploaded to its server. FWIW I have to be careful with my html editor settings or it will automatically do some 'extra jpeg compression' to my images when they get saved to my website.

There is probably a way to optimize an image so that it won't be 'ruined' by the formatting when uploading to the server. 'Just don't know what that is.

Anyway that would explain the excessive contrast on the one image. I'm still struggling with the blue cast. Aesthetically it's pleasing enough but I can't decide if its true to the event. I suspect a lens/camera conspiracy.

-Steve

btw. Just ordered a Telephoto Zoom. Tokina AF-D 80-400mm F4.5-5.6. It's a little slow but several owners reports, that I've read, confirm that its pretty sharp at both ends provided its stopped down enough. Otherwise the big-name auto-focus zooms that go to 400mm are just too expensive. I'll use it with a tripod mostly.

Shutterbug Strasse

This shot's for Joe M

71.117.1.217