Photo Assignment: Weekend 12/15/07

[SNC1923]

This week's photo assignment comes to your from our friend Bradford Benn and the fine folks at the BMW MOA Foundation (http://www.bmwmoafoundation.org/).

The holidays are upon us and as usual, they are full of surprises. In an attempt to retain some semblance of sanity, we humbly offer these simple rules - with some twists:

* Photos must be shot this year: between December 14th and January 1st, 2008.
* Think about if you would like to receive a Holiday Card with this image as the cover, don't be surprised if someone from the BMW MOA Foundation asks if the images can be used for a Fundraising Card. Yup, Brad is looking ahead to the card for 2008. If you haven't ordered cards yet for 2007, check these out (https://stl.bmwmoa.org/source/Orders/index.cfm?section=Orders&activesection=Orders&CFID=343400&CFTOKEN=67638546).
* You must provide the EXIF information if asked (we'll help you, if you'd like to know how to get it).
* No photoshop alteration (we're looking to improve your skills with your camera, not software).
* Your photograph must adhere to the theme, which will be described below.
* Post only one photo per post, so that commentary can be easily provided for that photo. You may post more than one photo, but try to keep it to a handful.
* Title your photo so it can be referred to later.
* Post your photos in this thread only. Do not start a thread in reply to this assignment. Please post your photos no later than next Wednesday.
* And, the most important rule: have fun! We're looking to spread the joy that many of us derive from taking pictures, particularly ones that tell a story of some kind.


This week's theme: "Holiday Warmth and Motorcycling"


This week you are invited to take a picture of that sums up the Holiday Season and motorcycling. Could this be a motorcycle parked in front of snow? Santa on a motorcycle? Eight motorcycles pulling a sleigh? A motorcycle menoraha? What does the Holiday Season and Motorcycles mean to you? Show us in a picture.

Once again, we encourage you to think about composition and see your viewfinder as a finished print. What will you include within--and exclude from--it's borders and why?

Now get out there and show us Holiday Warmth and Motorcycling.

[Mika]

Links to the Photo Assignment threads:

12/15/2007 ( http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22289)
Holiday Warmth and Motorcycling

12/01/2007 (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22018): Element

11/24/2007 (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21853): Gratitude – Thanksgiving Special

11/17/2007 ( http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21734): Triangle

11/10/2007 ( http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21574): Harmony

11/03/2007 ( http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21441): Pure & Simple

10/27/2007 (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21286): Open Wide

10/19/2007 (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21141): Shadow of a Doubt

10/13/2007 (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20999&highlight=Photo+Assignment): Group Dynamic

10/06/2007 (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20845&highlight=Photo+Assignment): Blue

09/29/2007 (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20687&highlight=Photo+Assignment): Evolution

09/22/2007 (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20513&highlight=Photo+Assignment): Balance

09/15/2007 (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20361&highlight=Photo+Assignment): Where I Want to Be

09/08/2007 (http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20239&highlight=Photo+Assignment): A Long Way to Go

[PAULBACH]

I have not seen it yet but there is an advert out there with eight Harley's pulling a Santa sled.

[tourunigo]

I have not seen it yet but there is an advert out there with eight Harley's pulling a Santa sled.

here yer go, fer yer viewing 'pleasure'..... (although this should really be a tread of its own) - Bob

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_pHl-2PMOI

[PAULBACH]

Good Advert. Lesson in life there - always throw a dog a bone especially a Doberman Pinscher.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread:

Holiday Warmth and Motorcycling

[SheRidesABeemer]

Question about the intent of the no photoshop rule...

Since learning photoshop, and other tools, there are two things I'm doing to a lot of pictures...cropping and fixing the horizon (rotating the picture to straighten the horizon). Would submissions with this type of fix be unwelcome?

Hmmm, who wants to start a altered pictures thread? :)

[SNC1923]

Question about the intent of the no photoshop rule...

Since learning photoshop, and other tools, there are two things I'm doing to a lot of pictures...cropping and fixing the horizon (rotating the picture to straighten the horizon). Would submissions with this type of fix be unwelcome?

Hmmm, who wants to start a altered pictures thread? :)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope that Brad corrects me if I'm wrong.

On this thread, we should go with no photoshop because if an image is selected to be used for a holiday card, the designer may want to do a little work on the image her- or himself, without having to undo our best intentions. I'm also going to guess they should be shot in RAW or--if that is not an option--in the very least compression possible.

As far as our weekly photo assignments go, I've been wondering if we should distinguish between "light photoshopping" as Gail refers to, that is fixing little problems, and "major photoshopping" where a work of art is created from the basis of a photograph. I agree that we don't want to get into the latter, but maybe the former would be OK.

Anyone else care to chime in on this?

[rocketman]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope that Brad corrects me if I'm wrong.

On this thread, we should go with no photoshop because if an image is selected to be used for a holiday card, the designer may want to do a little work on the image her- or himself, without having to undo our best intentions. I'm also going to guess they should be shot in RAW or--if that is not an option--in the very least compression possible.

As far as our weekly photo assignments go, I've been wondering if we should distinguish between "light photoshopping" as Gail refers to, that is fixing little problems, and "major photoshopping" where a work of art is created from the basis of a photograph. I agree that we don't want to get into the latter, but maybe the former would be OK.

Anyone else care to chime in on this?

well certainly cropping would be aceptable to me and I imagine that's already done some, I know I have, and obviously resizing, but other than that it could easily get a bit gray, how do you define "little"? A shot that's not level should best be reshot, with digital there is really no reason you can't tell its off right away. If it's a "lttle" off kilter such that you may not notice in the viewer on the camera, as I know they can be hard to see in bright daylight and being so small a slight tilt may not be noticeable. But if the point of the asingments is to learn to compose and shoot while looking through the camera, then leave it stand as it is and you may learn more and be more inclined to take greater care while acually shooting. then over time you have fewer and fewer that suffer thusly.

the differance to me is that sometimes there is no way to avoid unwanted bits in the edge of a photograph, where as I can't think of any set of circumstances that would prevent ensuring a level image. But again mostly I think trying to pin down "little" photoshopping could be combersome. Here again a photography forum would provide a place where that same photo could be posted WITH photoshopping and input/help/suggestions requested. (like the way I worked that in?:D ha Ha)

RM

[KBasa]

I think if we want to learn, we need to be encouraged to be more careful about what we shoot.

I shot a great picture of my /2 one time, but the horizon was tilted. I have since learned to ensure the horizon is square. I shot pictures a couple weekends ago that were ever so slightly out of focus. I've gone back to learn how to focus more effectively. I shot a picture of the bridge and there was junk in the corner of the image. I've gone back to clean my camera. These screwups could have likely been fixed with photoshop in some fashion, but I think it defeats the purpose of this exercise, which is better composition and camera control skills.

If we rely on Photoshop as a crutch, I think it takes away from developing (so to speak) our skills.

That said, I will admit to running my photo of the bridge through Smugmug's color correction. I'm not proud of that. I learned, in that exercise, that a polarizing filter will be a good thing to own if I'm going to shoot through fog again.

I see these exercises as much like riding schools. You focus on a particular skill, trying to get it right. Along the way, I've learned other, very unintended lessons.

:dunno

[rocketman]

I think if we want to learn, we need to be encouraged to be more careful about what we shoot.

I shot a great picture of my /2 one time, but the horizon was tilted. I have since learned to ensure the horizon is square. I shot pictures a couple weekends ago that were ever so slightly out of focus. I've gone back to learn how to focus more effectively. I shot a picture of the bridge and there was junk in the corner of the image. I've gone back to clean my camera. These screwups could have likely been fixed with photoshop in some fashion, but I think it defeats the purpose of this exercise, which is better composition and camera control skills.

If we rely on Photoshop as a crutch, I think it takes away from developing (so to speak) our skills.

That said, I will admit to running my photo of the bridge through Smugmug's color correction. I'm not proud of that. I learned, in that exercise, that a polarizing filter will be a good thing to own if I'm going to shoot through fog again.

I see these exercises as much like riding schools. You focus on a particular skill, trying to get it right. Along the way, I've learned other, very unintended lessons.

:dunno

:thumb

and we should keep in mind too that any number of the great photographers have done some amazing work with the simplest of cameras. I was watching a series just recently on photography and some really talanted artists and noted how many were using simple rangefinders and box cameras, truly it is in the eye not machine where the best photos lay (lie, lye?:D) hidden.

RM

[lamble]

Photoshop here...No.

If you need to crop, you aren't learning to frame your picture.
Once you get into degrees, then it gets awkward. Keep it simple. Keep it focused (pun well and truly intended).
There's enough farkling buttons on most digital cameras to play with as it is.

This isn't a ludite stance (photoshop sits very happily on my mac), but the purity of these assignments comes from their simplicity of concept.
And finally, do you want to increase the work load of SNC?
It's enough that he critiques our images, without adding the need to analyse our software skills too.

[Mika]

Speaking as one of the lurkers in the group, I enjoy the raw picture theme interpretations for several reasons. First and foremost are the various understandings of the theme that come through the pictures and the attempt to capture that interpretation. Secondly, the basic picture allows me to have a sense of what the photographer was going after and how I might approach the same subject; rather than being presented with a fine tuned picture. Finally, when I view a fine tuned photoshoped picture I think ‘I wish I could do that some day’ and go on to the next picture, viewing these pictures I find myself thinking ‘I could do that’ and wishing I had not left my camera at my daughters house for her to use.

I would like to see a photoshop thread to learn from, but leave the rules of this one as is. Just the view of a humble lurker.
:lurk

[KBasa]

Speaking as one of the lurkers in the group, I enjoy the raw picture theme interpretations for several reasons. First and foremost are the various understandings of the theme that come through the pictures and the attempt to capture that interpretation. Secondly, the basic picture allows me to have a sense of what the photographer was going after and how I might approach the same subject; rather than being presented with a fine tuned picture. Finally, when I view a fine tuned photoshoped picture I think ‘I wish I could do that some day’ and go on to the next picture, viewing these pictures I find myself thinking ‘I could do that’ and wishing I had not left my camera at my daughters house for her to use.

I would like to see a photoshop thread to learn from, but leave the rules of this one as is. Just the view of a humble lurker.
:lurk

I don't know jack about PS, so I'd like to see something along those lines, too. Tips and tricks?

[tourunigo]

:thumb

and we should keep in mind too that any number of the great photographers have done some amazing work with the simplest of cameras. I was watching a series just recently on photography and some really talanted artists and noted how many were using simple rangefinders and box cameras, truly it is in the eye not machine where the best photos lay (lie, lye?:D) hidden.

RM

...Wallace R. MacAskill. His work is a local treasure and a significant part of our history now. (note Sherman Hines also in his own right. The following link showcases MacAskill's work though on Hines' site)

http://www.shermanhinesphotographymuseum.com/collect_mac_.html

I really can't say whether he modified his photos later by cropping etc but he sure did a lot with that box camera. Having digital clearly puts us at an advantage I suppose but it also may take a bit out of the 'edge' which a do-it-right-the-first-time approach provides. $.02 -Bob

[rocketman]

...Wallace R. MacAskill. His work is a local treasure and a significant part of our history now. (note Sherman Hines also in his own right. The following link showcases MacAskill's work though on Hines' site)

http://www.shermanhinesphotographymuseum.com/collect_mac_.html

I really can't say whether he modified his photos later by cropping etc but he sure did a lot with that box camera. Having digital clearly puts us at an advantage I suppose but it also may take a bit out of the 'edge' which a do-it-right-the-first-time approach provides. $.02 -Bob

which is why I'm cleaning out my old Nikon F and gonna load it with B&W film, still not quite happy with the B&W stuff I've done in digital.

I remember the smell of a darkroom, fumbling with the film trying desperately not to touch the surface while you load it into the developing can in pitch darkness, fearing every second that someone will open the door ( we never got around to putting a lock on it) during those oh! so critical moments when light is now your enemy when just a few hours ago it was your friend that fed the film you now hold so dearly….

As you feed it to the spool and crank it then feel the film catch and slowly wind its way onto the spool and finally you slip it into the canister and seal it with a sigh of relief ......

Then comes the process of making the exposures after the film had dried ....

dodging the image that is as yet merely a play of shadow and light on paper in a red lit room, correcting for bright spots or glare from a street light from a night of shooting,

and still all you have is just a ghostly inverted B&W negative image that only hints at the truth that lies within....and that only lasts as long as the exposure from the enlarger….

then finally the rush of satisfaction and excitement as the print you've just exposed sits in the bath and the image slowly emerges......as if being pulled reluctantly from some other dimension.....its not so much science as it is magic....you actually find yourself talking to it.....coaxing it forth.....as if you need to convince it its OK to be......and be seen.....

an all day love affair in a red lit secret room of smells......

kool stuff indeed....

RM

Digital is a breeze indeed…….

[tourunigo]

which is why I'm cleaning out my old Nikon F and gonna load it with B&W film, still not quite happy with the B&W stuff I've done in digital.

I remember the smell of a darkroom, fumbling with the film trying desperately not to touch the surface while you load it into the developing can in pitch darkness, fearing every second that someone will open the door ( we never got around to putting a lock on it) during those oh! so critical moments when light is now your enemy when just a few hours ago it was your friend that fed the film you now hold so dearly….

As you feed it to the spool and crank it then feel the film catch and slowly wind its way onto the spool and finally you slip it into the canister and seal it with a sigh of relief ......

Then comes the process of making the exposures after the film had dried ....

dodging the image that is as yet merely a play of shadow and light on paper in a red lit room, correcting for bright spots or glare from a street light from a night of shooting,

and still all you have is just a ghostly inverted B&W negative image that only hints at the truth that lies within....and that only lasts as long as the exposure from the enlarger….

then finally the rush of satisfaction and excitement as the print you've just exposed sits in the bath and the image slowly emerges......as if being pulled reluctantly from some other dimension....you actually find yourself talking to it.....coaxing it forth.....as if you need to convince it its OK to be......and be seen.....

kool stuff indeed....

RM

Digital is a breeze indeed…….

Good discussion with so many off ramps. I just want to say that your replay of the photo process drama provides the reader with a sense of the technical artistry involved. As I often say "the closer you get to the edge the better the view". Let's stay as close to the edge as possible just to keep us hungry and act, as you say , in reference to film, .... "as if (our pictures) are being pulled reluctantly from some other dimension". Geez I hope all of that was not to freakin' esoteric! -Bob

[knary]

If you've ever developed your own film and photos, you know that the darkroom is an integral part of making the photo. The camera is just one piece of the puzzle. Photoshop is the darkroom in the context of the digital image.

[bricciphoto]

If you need to crop, you aren't learning to frame your picture.

Sorry to barge in, but this simply is not a correct statement. Consider focal length and a subject that is beyond the reach of the lens to be perfectly framed. Even in the days of silver bromide, almost everyone cropped their images in the darkroom--if for no other reason to compensate for the different proportions that could exist between negative and paper. On many occasions a shot is made deliberately with the intent to crop. You're assuming the proportions of the sensor/film is an ideal proportion. Not to mention action shots, where most often "success" is more a matter of timing rather than framing.

Scott makes a valid point regarding film versus digital imaging. Plenty of enhancement occured in the darkroom with filters, frames, retouching negs, etc. It was a secondary process which is absent from digital. I shot photojournalistic work in the film era. The film was digitized for production. Acceptable corrections were sizing, cropping, removal of scratches/dust, and appropriate sharpening (unsharp masking--which is a film technique and not unique to Photoshop, who borrowed the term). Anything else was "manipulation." I don't think it matters if a shot is posted here under the journalism standards. Negating them seems somewhat arbitrary in my opinion.

All that said, most of what I have submitted has been untouched, but I have submitted a couple cropped and resized shots to the prior threads.

The progression from film-era technique/thinking to digital is not linear.

Some good points pro and con have been made in this thread. :violin

[aerialfilm1]

I remember the smell of a darkroom
an all day love affair in a red lit secret room of smells......

kool stuff indeed....

I think I'm gonna make and market an air freshener that smells like D-76 or Rapid Fix, that can sit up on the shelf by the Epson.

Yea I'm a nerd! :brad

[lamble]

Sorry to barge in, but this simply is not a correct statement. Consider focal length and a subject that is beyond the reach of the lens to be perfectly framed. Even in the days of silver bromide, almost everyone cropped their images in the darkroom--if for no other reason to compensate for the different proportions that could exist between negative and paper. On many occasions a shot is made deliberately with the intent to crop. You're assuming the proportions of the sensor/film is an ideal proportion. Not to mention action shots, where most often "success" is more a matter of timing rather than framing.

Scott makes a valid point regarding film versus digital imaging. Plenty of enhancement occured in the darkroom with filters, frames, retouching negs, etc. It was a secondary process which is absent from digital. I shot photojournalistic work in the film era. The film was digitized for production. Acceptable corrections were sizing, cropping, removal of scratches/dust, and appropriate sharpening (unsharp masking--which is a film technique and not unique to Photoshop, who borrowed the term). Anything else was "manipulation." I don't think it matters if a shot is posted here under the journalism standards. Negating them seems somewhat arbitrary in my opinion.

All that said, most of what I have submitted has been untouched, but I have submitted a couple cropped and resized shots to the prior threads.

The progression from film-era technique/thinking to digital is not linear.

Some good points pro and con have been made in this thread. :violin

Good point...so treat it as a metaphor instead, then it works.:thumb

[SNC1923]

:lurk

[RandallIsland]

... and not 24 hours after agreeing upon their name, the EyeRiders encountered their first squabble with semantic technicalities.
Stay tuned for more... :lurk

[lamble]

... and not 24 hours after agreeing upon their name, the EyeRiders encountered their first squabble with semantic technicalities.
Stay tuned for more... :lurk

No squabble. Bricci is right. Exactly and precisely right. He's correct, irrefutably.
He missed the point, but he was very, technically, correct.

Ironically, it just goes to reinforce how valuable this forum is.

[rocketman]

I too agree on the cropping issue as I too often "crop" while composing for the self-same reasons stated. However the removal of scratches etc would seem to me to fall under a gray area and I am not sure translates to digital, esp. since those that use a P&S should never have to deal with dust on the sensor, for the rest of us learn to clean it, it is really not very difficult to do. So again I would go with allowing cropping and resizing and leave the rest alone. That said I will go with whatever ruling is made and continue to enjoy participation in the assignments.
I would suggest that rules be set by Tom as this was/is after all Tom's idea.
And should a bit of a finger show up in the edge of a frame assume it was NOT that kind of finger motion!:stick :D

Either way lets have a ruling so we can get back to business before we run into 20 pages and still NO PHOTOS or we may send Tom screaming from the thread never to return.:D (with popcorn in hand)

RM

[cruisin]

I vote keep it "old school" as if you were using a totally manual camera; like my Olympus OM-1 that I still use frequently or like the photos taken by Ansel Adams. If the focal length of the lens/digital camera is not sufficient to frame the way you want then move to a location so you can frame the shot you want. If the light is not right, then learn to use fill flash or no flash; or maybe wait for the sun or a cloud to get in the right position. Fine photography, (for me anyway), is an art of seeing and capturing an image in the instant you snap the shutter. Granted some of Adam's images went from so-so to prize winning in the dark room but most of his work was un-altered in the dark room. For me, striving to emulate one of the greats like Adams is the ultimate challenge. I see this thread / assignment as a challenge to capture the image you (and the camera) see without alteration in the computer. just my $0.02 worth.

[jdmetzger]

This week you are invited to take a picture of that sums up the Holiday Season and motorcycling. Could this be a motorcycle parked in front of snow?

How perfectly timed. While I got a nice ride in today, the weather is supposed to turn more "Christmas festive" around here:

Saturday: Periods of snow, mainly after noon. High near 29. East wind between 11 and 15 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%. New snow accumulation of less than a half inch possible.

Saturday Night: Periods of snow. Low around 25. Blustery, with a northeast wind between 15 and 23 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%. New snow accumulation of 3 to 7 inches possible.

After I run the snowblower on Sunday I should have a good chance of getting that "bike in the snow" shot. :D

[bluestune]

Ansel Adams said, “The negative is the score, the print the performance.”

My favorite photography instructor would grade us not only on our prints but also the processed film and contact sheets of our B&W or color negatives. The rational was to learn how to make consistently good exposures and compositions, creating a more efficient and productive darkroom and hopefully better photographers. Other reasons for examining our contact sheets were to see just how efficiently we used our film, meaning, shooting to fill the frame so we would need as little cropping as possible and to see how many exposures we used to get “the” shot.

What I’m saying is SNC 1923 has set up a great template for learning the most basic, often difficult, but essential step in creating a photographic image, that is to look at and constructively critique photos before any manipulations occur. Ansel Adams was a master of negative processing and print manipulation, but it all started with “the score.”

It’s really difficult to not crop or “tweak” a photo before posting, but it is a terrific learning experience. Perhaps we could consider leaving the original guidelines in place, that is, post only one photo with no alteration (other than sizing for the forum.) And then those that want to could take there one image and re-submit a processed, altered, posterized, dodged, burned, cropped, split toned or just tweaked image for a second critique. Discussion of image alterations and techniques could follow the second submission. The second submissions could be on the same thread the following week or on a different thread. Just my two cents worth….

[bluestune]

Sorry to barge in, but this simply is not a correct statement. Consider focal length and a subject that is beyond the reach of the lens to be perfectly framed. Even in the days of silver bromide, almost everyone cropped their images in the darkroom--if for no other reason to compensate for the different proportions that could exist between negative and paper. On many occasions a shot is made deliberately with the intent to crop. You're assuming the proportions of the sensor/film is an ideal proportion. Not to mention action shots, where most often "success" is more a matter of timing rather than framing.

Scott makes a valid point regarding film versus digital imaging. Plenty of enhancement occured in the darkroom with filters, frames, retouching negs, etc. It was a secondary process which is absent from digital. I shot photojournalistic work in the film era. The film was digitized for production. Acceptable corrections were sizing, cropping, removal of scratches/dust, and appropriate sharpening (unsharp masking--which is a film technique and not unique to Photoshop, who borrowed the term). Anything else was "manipulation." I don't think it matters if a shot is posted here under the journalism standards. Negating them seems somewhat arbitrary in my opinion.

All that said, most of what I have submitted has been untouched, but I have submitted a couple cropped and resized shots to the prior threads.

The progression from film-era technique/thinking to digital is not linear.

Some good points pro and con have been made in this thread. :violin

There’s a famous photo of little John John Kennedy saluting his fathers casket as it passed him on the street during JFK’s funeral procession. That image was shot from across the street with a normal lens, meaning that the image we all remember was made from a very small portion of the negative. Severe cropping made that an iconic image we can never forget.

Darkroom manipulation and Photoshop alterations have a permanent place in photography, I’m a big fan of both and use Photoshop almost every day, but to create a really good photo it’s always easier to start with a really good image. I think one of the goals of the thread was to level the playing field for those without Photoshop to be able to play with those that have image processing abilities. I like that premise, it keeps things simple and keeps more players in the game. Again, just my 2 cents worth.

[BradfordBenn]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope that Brad corrects me if I'm wrong.

On this thread, we should go with no photoshop because if an image is selected to be used for a holiday card, the designer may want to do a little work on the image her- or himself, without having to undo our best intentions. I'm also going to guess they should be shot in RAW or--if that is not an option--in the very least compression possible.

As far as our weekly photo assignments go, I've been wondering if we should distinguish between "light photoshopping" as Gail refers to, that is fixing little problems, and "major photoshopping" where a work of art is created from the basis of a photograph. I agree that we don't want to get into the latter, but maybe the former would be OK.

Anyone else care to chime in on this?

Okay, I will chime in here on this one. First, Thanks to Tom for organizing this effort.

I think that there is a fine line between Computer Correction and Computer Alterations. The key here is to avoid Computer Alterations and Mutations. I have some photos that I have done cropping and straightening on, as well as red eye correction. To me that seems in the spirit of it.

Here is an example of why I have that feeling. I currently shoot with a P&S camera with a 10Megapixel sensor. I turn off the digital zoom so at times I cannot zoom in as much as I want. There are times I want to crop out some of the picture but I know that I do not the ability to do it on the camera. An example is this photo.
http://bradfordbenn.smugmug.com/photos/214267284-S.jpg
I knew I was going to need to crop it to remove some of the building structure. I did not have a way to do it there while taking the shot. So I cropped it in Photoshop. To me that is fair.
http://bradfordbenn.smugmug.com/photos/231445629-S.jpg

I also know that at times what appears straight in the view finder or display is not straight on the bigger display of a computer. Especially if you are like me with an astigmatism.

However what would be improper Computer Manipulation would be a photo of a Christmas Tree that was taken and then a separate photo of a Motorcycle and then compositing the two together.

So if you feel you must Computer Correct, please post a link to the original and be ready to explain what you did to it and why.

Any questions, just ask.

Remember the goal of this thread and process is to get better at the process of photography and not digital manipulation. Also try to have fun.

I am looking forward to seeing the photos and hopefully having some cool things to pick from for next year's Holiday Card.:thumb

[eosnut]

I'd like to chime in on the cropping issue. I used to shoot with TLR (Twin Lens Reflex) cameras because I love the square format for framing. Unfortunately, they all use medium format film (120 or 220) that is now pretty expensive to process. I don't have room for a darkroom so I had to get my film processed in a lab.

Anyway, I switched to digital for the economy of it. But guess what. There are very few square format digital cameras. You can get digital backs for Rolleis and Hasselblads, but they are big dollar items. So I use "normal" digital cameras with rectangular sensors. But when I compose the shot I do it for a square and crop to that square on the computer. I don't consider this a crop per se, as it is what I intended the moment I pressed the shutter. Now, if I make that square even 1 pixel shorter than the height of the frame, then yes, that is a crop that alters my original framing.

Now I realize that a square picture is not going to be very good for a Christmas card, so I guess I won't start my active participation this week. But for future reference I'd like to know if correcting the format to what I intended (ie: a square), is cropping.

[BradfordBenn]

Now I realize that a square picture is not going to be very good for a Christmas card, so I guess I won't start my active participation this week.

How do you know if the square picture is going to be very good for a card? The card hasn't been designed and laid out yet. A good picture on a square card is still a good card. If you have something in mind I can speak on behalf of the Holiday Card Team of the Foundation we would like to see it. (Is it weird when I talk about myself in the first person plural?:brad )

[eosnut]

How do you know if the square picture is going to be very good for a card? The card hasn't been designed and laid out yet. A good picture on a square card is still a good card. If you have something in mind I can speak on behalf of the Holiday Card Team of the Foundation we would like to see it. (Is it weird when I talk about myself in the first person plural?:brad )

Touche' I guess I was thinking "inside the box" (a rectangular one) :)

[grossjohann]

Ansel Adams said, “The negative is the score, the print the performance.”

My favorite photography instructor would grade us not only on our prints but also the processed film and contact sheets of our B&W or color negatives. The rational was to learn how to make consistently good exposures and compositions, creating a more efficient and productive darkroom and hopefully better photographers. Other reasons for examining our contact sheets were to see just how efficiently we used our film, meaning, shooting to fill the frame so we would need as little cropping as possible and to see how many exposures we used to get “the” shot.

What I’m saying is SNC 1923 has set up a great template for learning the most basic, often difficult, but essential step in creating a photographic image, that is to look at and constructively critique photos before any manipulations occur. Ansel Adams was a master of negative processing and print manipulation, but it all started with “the score.”

It’s really difficult to not crop or “tweak” a photo before posting, but it is a terrific learning experience. Perhaps we could consider leaving the original guidelines in place, that is, post only one photo with no alteration (other than sizing for the forum.) And then those that want to could take there one image and re-submit a processed, altered, posterized, dodged, burned, cropped, split toned or just tweaked image for a second critique. Discussion of image alterations and techniques could follow the second submission. The second submissions could be on the same thread the following week or on a different thread. Just my two cents worth….

+1

Alright, Guys.

We all must acknowledge the difference in the photographic technology available today vs. in the past.

The printing process of the past required a great amount of skill, and those most skilled could correct for errors on the negative, or could adjust the photograph slightly to suit their inspiration. Yes, some have done amazing effects with film photography, but like “heavy photoshopping” this is a subject for a different thread.

My point is that in the past, the exposure was difficult to achieve as was the actual print. Both of these skills needed development before one could be a good photographer.

With exception of very specific professional digital cameras and professional lenses, today’s digital cameras eliminate the need for post processing because they can store the image in the same medium in which they will be displayed. Most of the digital pictures which are taken never make it to paper; rather they are displayed on countless screens. Once a .JPG, the files never “need” to be adjusted. Few of us can study a negative and see subtle shadows and/or vibrant colors, so the traditional photograph must be printed to be appreciated (or not so).

Add to this digital technology which makes photography virtually automatic. The standard P&S cameras available to the general public today with auto focus, auto exposure, facial recognition (up to nine faces at once…and then finds the best focus!), vibration reduction, auto ISO, flash intensity, and a host of presets for “sports”, “portraits”, “landscape”, etc… which have been tuned so that we barely need to understand how the combination of shutter, aperture, flash, etc. should be used together for the desired effect makes great digital photography easy for virtually anyone.

My 10 year old daughter can take crystal clear snap-shots which are nearly always just what she wanted, or more because the camera “saw” subtle details in the image that she didn’t.


I think the question is:

Is this a PhotoShop class, or is it a Photography class? This is up to Tom to decide as it was he who set the rules, “No photoshop alteration (we're looking to improve your skills with your camera, not software).”

The challenge is to learn to better use the photographic instrument, and then to keep your wits about you in the heat of the moment. This is an essential piece to the photography puzzle; not to mention an important life lesson (particularly for those who voluntarily put themselves at risk for the sake of personal enjoyment).

Further, may of us have been impressed with Tom’s ability to see the process behind the image. This is possible because of his careful eye, and of his experience in this field of photography. Adding digital alteration to the submitted image may muddy the waters to the point where the teacher can not aid in the development of the student.

This has been a great discussion, I have to admit that few of my shots have ever made it to print or frame without some “post processing” in PhotoShop or the like. This is hardly scandalous as most of you have already pointed out the long-standing tradition of adjustment after the fact, but in the case of this exercise…

…I choose not to alter the images which I submit for Tom’s careful review.

[BradfordBenn]

What is interesting to me is that the rules are the same as last Photo Assignment, and the one before, and ... etc.

I am not against considering a photoshopped, digitally altered image for the Foundation Holiday Card, but the purpose of this thread and assignment is to better our skills as camera operators, not computer operators.

If you have something you would like to submit for the Holiday card that is computer composited, yes, it would still be welcomed with open arms and be considered for the card project.

-=Brad
VP of the BMW MOA Foundation
Beginning Camera Operator.

[KBasa]

I vote for straight out of the camera, no Photoshop.

Images that might have been less than successful might be useful for a parallel PS thread, if we had someone on here that could explain basic PS operation and think of an assignment each week. Where each week the photography thread works on a composition theme, the PS thread could work on a specific task in PS. Participants could produce before and after images to show how they've applied the current week's skill to an image.

This would require significant time investment for the thread leader, as they'd have to essentially prepare a lesson each week. This might be better to do on a biweekly or monthly basis, I think. The result, at the end of a year, would be a rich online reference of how to use PS.

[bricciphoto]

I vote for straight out of the camera, no Photoshop.

There have been some excellent points made about traditional film technique versus digital-age photography, and photography in general. I too believe the absolute best approach to this, keeping the nature of these threads educational, is to use an image that is as unaltered as possible. The one exception I see is cropping (see bluestune's posts above). If someone doesn't crop a poorly framed image, or doesn't see the finer image within the larger frame, then they are demonstrating a compositional weakness*. Composition (IMO) is one of the most critical artisitic skills a photographer can develop.

Despite this being the digital age, the print is still the standard by which photography is judged--because we can't share prints we're using this electronic medium to display our work. A submission should be posted as it would be displayed in a conventional sense.

I don't mean to get on a soapbox, but it doesn't make sense to me for Tom to point out a photo could be cropped differently if the shooter doesn't have that capability. Conversely, if they submit a shot that is cropped, and Tom (or anyone else) suggests better or different cropping, then the photographer is still learning from the experience.

*Recognizing the photographer should have strived to compose in a manner that would minimize the need for cropping.

Lastly, I think every comment made on this topic has merit. I see both sides of this debate. A few of the finer points have become a conundrum. (I know I am being annoying because I don't participate that much. I'll shut up now. Sorry. :rolleyes )

[franze]

three pages of banter, I'm a true moderate. Post a topic, review the submissions. Crop, shop, whatever. Nobody's paid to get a grade, nobody's going to lose their job if they give a harsh review. Some folks want to get better at photo shopping, some want to improve their "in camera" skills. To each his own.

To put it another way, I don't photo shop cuz mostly I'm an old school guy, loved the thread about "the taste of it, the schmell of it, the texture" yeah, I could tell if I had fixer on my fingers in the dark....... BUT, I'm interested in seeing what people do when they photoshop. I suppose for me I'd like to see the before and after in a photo shop submission. But I don't think this thread should be overcomplicated or over governed. " Let them eat cake"

Merry Christmas y'all:buds

[Voni]

SNIP

*Recognizing the photographer should have strived to compose in a manner that would minimize the need for cropping.
SNIP



I'm glad for the rules to post the unaltered picture.

I took a slug of pictures this weekend at a friend's graduation. In the past, I would have cropped almost every shot, and corrected lots of other stuff. I found I was doing a more thoughtful first shot and rarely need to make changes.

Thanks, Tom, for helping me develop the composition skill I'm still finding.

Voni
sMiling

[KBasa]

I'm glad for the rules to post the unaltered picture.

I took a slug of pictures this weekend at a friend's graduation. In the past, I would have cropped almost every shot, and corrected lots of other stuff. I found I was doing a more thoughtful first shot and rarely need to make changes.

Thanks, Tom, for helping me develop the composition skill I'm still finding.

Voni
sMiling
I think that's the objective. Consider that most of the people here are using their P&S to replace a P&S film camera. They wouldn't perform cropping or play with the prints. They'd take them to Walgreen's, right?

[lamble]

What's this weekend's theme again?:dunno :scratch

[knary]

I think that's the objective. Consider that most of the people here are using their P&S to replace a P&S film camera. They wouldn't perform cropping or play with the prints. They'd take them to Walgreen's, right?

:dunno

If you have photoshop and know how to use it, use it.
If you don't have it, don't stress.
If you have a great DSLR, good for you. Use it.
If you don't, don't stress.
In the end, no matter what you do, it's still the person behind the lens that makes the photo, not the technology.
Just take pictures.
Present them as best you can.

If the picture flat out sucks, maybe someone will tell you why and how to do better next time. :D

[lamble]

http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/233040242-M.jpg


If you want to treat this as a work in progress, perhaps we can take it from this stage through to finished, by 1st Jan, using tips.

The thing is, I don't use this thread for finished works, or even the best pics I've taken that weekend. I don't regard it as a gallery, more of a classroom. For instance, the flames on this pic are not right. What can I do?

[lamble]

http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/233040295-M.jpg

Why do I prefer this? Is there a reason I should?

Title: Thawing out.

[grossjohann]

I like to use a slightly longer shutter speed when shooting flames. It gives them a more ethereal look.

Unfortunately, the weather made for poor motorcycling the weekend, and since I’m not rebuilding a /2 in my living room (this project is planned should I ever need a quick divorce) my shots are a little contrived.

http://lh6.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2WhfP0UIpI/AAAAAAAAA2c/gZTt0Mav4Gc/s800/DSC01828.JPG
All I want for Christmas

[grossjohann]

http://lh4.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2Whev0UIoI/AAAAAAAAA2U/FVFzjgMPgM8/s800/DSC01822.JPG
Icy lament

[grossjohann]

http://lh3.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2Whef0UInI/AAAAAAAAA2M/F9xfUYA-7VE/s800/DSC01810.JPG
Home for the Holidays

[wmubrown]

After spending 3 hours on this today I have some disappointing results. I still like my idea, and will pursue this later, but ran into so many problems it just wasn't going to happen. The first was a very weak battery in the bike, despite being on a battery tender, so I couldn't start the bike to even get it out of the garage. It went downhill from there... brisk temperatures, high winds, clouds changing the natural lighting by the minute, no means to properly support the wreath (and not a neighbor was home), camera batteries dying, etc etc etc. Boots soaked through, and pants drenched from the knees down, I finally just gave up to return another day. These seem to be my better submissions... wreath held at arms length in one hand, camera in the other - it was quite a juggling act in the winds and arms ached something fierce... (reduced in size from originals)

Some Photoshop level adjustment ought to make this an OK shot, but I wanted greater depth of field:
http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow1.JPG

Needs a little level adjustment also, but in full size you can read the "BMW motorcycles" on the top ring of the ornament:
http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow2.JPG

A last ditch effort to get something worthwhile, I kinda like it, but needs to be cropped tighter and levels adjusted:
http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow3.JPG

[BradfordBenn]

Nice shots, keep em coming.:dance

[grossjohann]

http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow1.JPG


This is a great shot; very creative, and certainly apropos.

Have you considered having the wreath out of focus? Add some lights and/or a red ribbon for some interest, and the wreath might glow like a halo around the motorcycle.

If cropping were “legal” this might be a good example of when to use it. If you have a large enough image, you could back off a bit for the right focus, and then crop for effect.

(Tom, Ben, Am I on the right track with this one?)

-Alex

[bricciphoto]

Some Photoshop level adjustment ought to make this an OK shot, but I wanted greater depth of field:
http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow1.JPG

A last ditch effort to get something worthwhile, I kinda like it, but needs to be cropped tighter and levels adjusted:
http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow3.JPG

Yea! Excellent efforts. Without realizing what you had to go through to put these together, I think they are really good concepts. It's tough to get the wreath and bike in focus when you're holding it and the camera at the same time, but you did good. For what it's worth I like the soft focus of the wreath, but I'm a little distracted by the photographer's reflection in the ornament (assuming that's you). Otherwise it's a terrific shot. I really like the second shot, particularly the composition of the ornament and bike (with lights on--nice touch). I realize you're short of helpers, but if the ornament was suspended by a pine bough it would add a little to the shot (framing wise), but a very, very nice effort nonetheless. I like its near monochromatic feel. I like them both, particularly the second one. I wish I could get energetic effort to contribute some of my own (I just need some freakin' time :p ). Kudos for making the effort despite all the obstacles!!!

[wmubrown]

This is a great shot; very creative, and certainly apropos.

Have you considered having the wreath out of focus? Add some lights and/or a red ribbon for some interest, and the wreath might glow like a halo around the motorcycle.

If cropping were “legal” this might be a good example of when to use it. If you have a large enough image, you could back off a bit for the right focus, and then crop for effect.

(Tom, Ben, Am I on the right track with this one?)

-Alex

The wreath IS out of focus ;) Though I think I have one you might like where it is very out of focus. There are lights on the wreath, but I didn't plug them in 'cause, ya know, I was in the snow... which melts... into water... and doesn't play well with AC (they are indoor lights) ;)

[wmubrown]

Yea! Excellent efforts. Without realizing what you had to go through to put these together, I think they are really good concepts. It's tough to get the wreath and bike in focus when you're holding it and the camera at the same time, but you did good. For what it's worth I like the soft focus of the wreath, but I'm a little distracted by the photographer's reflection in the ornament (assuming that's you). Otherwise it's a terrific shot. I really like the second shot, particularly the composition of the ornament and bike (with lights on--nice touch). I realize you're short of helpers, but if the ornament was suspended by a pine bough it would add a little to the shot (framing wise), but a very, very nice effort nonetheless. I like its near monochromatic feel. I like them both, particularly the second one. I wish I could get energetic effort to contribute some of my own (I just need some freakin' time :p ). Kudos for making the effort despite all the obstacles!!!

Thanks! Glad you're enjoying them! Yeah... that is my reflection in the ornament... there wasn't much I could do about that, though upon reflection ( ha ha ) I could have worn a better color jacket to blend in ;) I had the bike running most of the time because I too thought the headlight glow would be a nice addition, but the cooling fans actually kicked on after a while and the last series of attempts were with the bike off (I wasn't thinking too straight by then... my fingers were frozen and I just wanted to get back inside)

[wmubrown]

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/MotorcycleHolidays/photo#5144695694649729650"><img src="http://lh3.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2Whef0UInI/AAAAAAAAA2M/F9xfUYA-7VE/s800/DSC01810.JPG" /></a>
Home for the Holidays

I really like this shot. I can also see it as a nighttime shot, shadows cast outside, soft warm lighting inside the barn to highlight the bike, scatter some hay on the floor like a manger...

[SNC1923]

This is a great shot; very creative, and certainly apropos.

Have you considered having the wreath out of focus? Add some lights and/or a red ribbon for some interest, and the wreath might glow like a halo around the motorcycle.

If cropping were “legal” this might be a good example of when to use it. If you have a large enough image, you could back off a bit for the right focus, and then crop for effect.

(Tom, Ben, Am I on the right track with this one?)

-Alex

Alex,

I think your comments have a lot of merit. The wreath is out of focus, though slightly. It's noticeable, but you are suggesting maybe a bit more? Same could be said for throwing the bike out of focus, as he has done so well with the ornament shot. I like that one, too. I particularly like the inclusion of the gold ribbon.

I have to echo all of Bricci's points. He's an astute observer of detail. I also agree with him that these are great, creative shots.

I've enjoyed our lively discussion in this thread, and I'm glad to be seeing such fine submissions.

[SNC1923]

http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/233040242-M.jpg

If you want to treat this as a work in progress, perhaps we can take it from this stage through to finished, by 1st Jan, using tips.

The thing is, I don't use this thread for finished works, or even the best pics I've taken that weekend. I don't regard it as a gallery, more of a classroom. For instance, the flames on this pic are not right. What can I do?

This is really a great shot, a well-executed concept: I can see that there's a plan, this photo required forethought, and it seems to have translated well to the image.

The EXIF:

Exposure Time 0.05s (1/20)
Aperture f/4.5
ISO 400
Focal Length 40mm (60mm 35mm)

The flames. . . . Try underexposing slightly. You could set your exposure compensation [+/-] -1.3 EV to start, or if you had your camera set to manual, you might decrease the aperture to 5.0 or 5.6. As an alternative, you could increase the shutter speed to 1/30.

Clearly you're using a tripod? Available light clearly the way to go here. Can you shoot it at a lower ISO? Or would that make the shutter speeds to long to render the fire the way you want. Hmmmm, might be more visually interesting. Might be worth a try.

Have you considered spraying water on the face shield? I don't know if it would work, but it might add a sense of drama and possibly conceal the windows visible in the background.


http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/233040295-M.jpg

Why do I prefer this? Is there a reason I should?

Title: Thawing out.

You prefer this because it is a better photo, a more successful rendering.

The vertical orientation of the image mates the helmet and the tree in a vertical orientation. The image of the tree is far less abstract in this image. The decal on your helmet (a distraction) is not fighting as hard for my attention.

The fire looks more like a fire, the glowing coals (visible but abstract in the upper image), and a bit darker than the image above.

Exposure Time 0.25s (1/4)
Aperture f/4.5
ISO 400
Focal Length 60mm (90mm 35mm)

The background and the gloves are in sharper focus here (a result of being farther from the point-of-focus, the helmet). Speaking of the helmet, in the upper image it comprises 50% of the image space, In the shot below, 25%. This photo is just a bit more compressed, having been shot at a slightly greater telephoto setting (90mm).

The large space at the top of this image needs to contain something which is both visually interesting but not in competition with the subject. Your chosen background, a fire, is a wonderful choice. Move around a bit, slightly, and see what you can come up with. Imagine two or three small flames wrapping that log (there's one on your site!). Manipulate your environment by stoking the fire and shooting it as it wanes. Perhaps your lovely wife would assist you? How is she by the way?

Many photographers would call this done. I commend you on wanting to try to improve a really successful image. Worst case scenario is your left with this effort, a really good picture.

[rocketman]

The wreath IS out of focus ;) Though I think I have one you might like where it is very out of focus. There are lights on the wreath, but I didn't plug them in 'cause, ya know, I was in the snow... which melts... into water... and doesn't play well with AC (they are indoor lights) ;)

And here I thought we were all risk takers, hmmmm so you will Ride in the Snow, but not play with 120 volts of electrical energy in the snow? Boy some risk taker you are!:laugh :laugh :laugh

Oh, nice photo by the way, I like the way the wreath is slightly out of focus brings the bike more into the shot as the main subject.

RM

[wmubrown]

And here I thought we were all risk takers, hmmmm so you will Ride in the Snow, but not play with 120 volts of electrical energy in the snow? Boy some risk taker you are!:laugh :laugh :laugh

Welllllll... we all have our limits... ;)

Oh, nice photo by the way, I like the way the wreath is slightly out of focus brings the bike more into the shot as the main subject.

RM

Thanks!!

[Voni]

What I can say is you've all sure raised the bar this time - John and lamble and grossjohann!

You're a tough act to follow . . .

Thank goodness we have more time.

Voni
sMiling

[rocketman]

What I can say is you've all sure raised the bar this time - John and lamble and grossjohann!

You're a tough act to follow . . .

Thank goodness we have more time.

Voni
sMiling

yeah, tell me about it! Esp. now that someone has already done the "bike thru the wreath" bit ........obviously great minds think alike..... so I guess its back to the drawing board for me......:laugh

(*sigh*)

RM

[SNC1923]

I really like this shot. I can also see it as a nighttime shot, shadows cast outside, soft warm lighting inside the barn to highlight the bike, scatter some hay on the floor like a manger...

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/MotorcycleHolidays/photo#5144695694649729650"><img src="http://lh3.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2Whef0UInI/AAAAAAAAA2M/F9xfUYA-7VE/s800/DSC01810.JPG" /></a>
Home for the Holidays

Everything he said. Yes. Do that.

Think about shooting this at twilight. There's often a really nice cast to the sky, it prevent your background from being entirely dark. Try pointing a not-too-bright light source directly into a lower corner away from the window and see how that illuminates. String of colored lights around the inside along the top of the walls? I don't know. . . . maybe.

Take a shot every 20 or 30 seconds for ten or fifteen minutes (or less if it's freezing and more if a chronic over-achiever).

You want to take this without a flash, for sure. The reflections on the saddle bags: interesting but maybe too much?

[lamble]

This is really a great shot, a well-executed concept: I can see that there's a plan, this photo required forethought, and it seems to have translated well to the image.

The EXIF:

Exposure Time 0.05s (1/20)
Aperture f/4.5
ISO 400
Focal Length 40mm (60mm 35mm)

The flames. . . . Try underexposing slightly. You could set your exposure compensation [+/-] -1.3 EV to start, or if you had your camera set to manual, you might decrease the aperture to 5.0 or 5.6. As an alternative, you could increase the shutter speed to 1/30.

Clearly you're using a tripod? Available light clearly the way to go here. Can you shoot it at a lower ISO? Or would that make the shutter speeds to long to render the fire the way you want. Hmmmm, might be more visually interesting. Might be worth a try.

Have you considered spraying water on the face shield? I don't know if it would work, but it might add a sense of drama and possibly conceal the windows visible in the background.




You prefer this because it is a better photo, a more successful rendering.

The vertical orientation of the image mates the helmet and the tree in a vertical orientation. The image of the tree is far less abstract in this image. The decal on your helmet (a distraction) is not fighting as hard for my attention.

The fire looks more like a fire, the glowing coals (visible but abstract in the upper image), and a bit darker than the image above.

Exposure Time 0.25s (1/4)
Aperture f/4.5
ISO 400
Focal Length 60mm (90mm 35mm)

The background and the gloves are in sharper focus here (a result of being farther from the point-of-focus, the helmet). Speaking of the helmet, in the upper image it comprises 50% of the image space, In the shot below, 25%. This photo is just a bit more compressed, having been shot at a slightly greater telephoto setting (90mm).

The large space at the top of this image needs to contain something which is both visually interesting but not in competition with the subject. Your chosen background, a fire, is a wonderful choice. Move around a bit, slightly, and see what you can come up with. Imagine two or three small flames wrapping that log (there's one on your site!). Manipulate your environment by stoking the fire and shooting it as it wanes. Perhaps your lovely wife would assist you? How is she by the way?

Many photographers would call this done. I commend you on wanting to try to improve a really successful image. Worst case scenario is your left with this effort, a really good picture.

It's an artificial fire, so I can't stoke it, poke it or prompt it to produce more flame I'm afraid. My Christmas list to Santa includes a tripod...fortunately Mrs L, who is very well thanks for asking, has many magazines, that along with a few precariously placed boxes do the job for now.
The idea is that you've been out for a ride in the snow and come back to dry off your gear. I was going to work with this image and try photoshopping in a small puddle of water around the base of the gloves and helmet, again to catch the reflections. But as it would be a darn sight easier, I'll go with your idea of spraying it with water and maybe washing up liquid mix, as it holds shape longer I believe. I could even make some mashed potato, as I understand that is often used as snow, or is it as icecream when an indoor substitute is needed?

Finally, I'll digest the techie details, get them translated, then push a few buttons and see what happens...watch this space....thanks.

(I did move the focal point back to the centre of the 9 options available. That stopped all the whirring noises as the lens did its own thing when I shot the paint pots. This time it held focus, usually set on the BMW logo stud. So good tip.)

[bricciphoto]

Thanks! Glad you're enjoying them! Yeah... that is my reflection in the ornament... there wasn't much I could do about that, though upon reflection ( ha ha ) I could have worn a better color jacket to blend in ;)

An "easy" solution (for future reference) is to wear black. Black reflections look like shadows against chrome, or other shiny objects. I've wrapped myself in a black fleece blanket a few times while taking shots with chrome and other reflective surfaces and the black reflection typically looks like it's supposed to be there. The blanket eliminates the potential for a clearly articulated human form (no arms, legs, etc.).

[SNC1923]

An "easy" solution (for future reference) is to wear black. Black reflections look like shadows against chrome, or other shiny objects. I've wrapped myself in a black fleece blanket a few times while taking shots with chrome and other reflective surfaces and the black reflection typically looks like it's supposed to be there. The blanket eliminates the potential for a clearly articulated human form (no arms, legs, etc.).

:bow

What a great idea. Would never have occurred to me in a million years. . . .

[KBasa]

The muse escaped me this week. Probably the best of a bad lot.

http://kbasa.smugmug.com/photos/233379793-L.jpg

[KBasa]

http://kbasa.smugmug.com/photos/233370884-L.jpg

[bricciphoto]

The muse escaped me this week. Probably the best of a bad lot.

http://kbasa.smugmug.com/photos/233379793-L.jpg

Your muse didn't get too far away. Sweet shot. Or "Not bad, if you like things close to perfect." ;) Although it doesn't say "BMW" it's all about a vintage airhead and it has a nice holiday feel. I like the way the mat on the right leads the eye back to the bike's jug and mimics the lines of the cooling fins. Get rid of that unidentified object on the right (about a third of the way down from the top right) and you've got a winner.

(Thanks Tom. That's what this thread is all about.)

[wmubrown]

The muse escaped me this week. Probably the best of a bad lot.

I quite like it Dave :)

[wmubrown]

I had, in my trials, gone both directions similar to some suggestions, maybe one of these fits that vision?

Totally opposite - the objective being to defocus the bike, only most people wouldn't be able to tell it was a bike 'cause it's a little tooooo unfocused:

http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow4.JPG

And then going with the bike as center of focus:

http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow5.JPG

There is only snow on the wreath in either shot which is why I considered them a wash.

[lamble]

http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/233040259-M.jpg

SMC...is this the flames one you were thinking of?

I'd wanted to get the little BMW button in focus and this is a tad out, plus there's the light from the otherside of the fire coming through.

I'll still try with the angled down version and work on getting that spot on.
Who knows, if Santa turns up with a tripod it might be easier too.

[rocketman]

I had, in my trials, gone both directions similar to some suggestions, maybe one of these fits that vision?

Totally opposite - the objective being to defocus the bike, only most people wouldn't be able to tell it was a bike 'cause it's a little tooooo unfocused:

http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow4.JPG

And then going with the bike as center of focus:

http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow5.JPG

There is only snow on the wreath in either shot which is why I considered them a wash.

I'd go with the first one posted, shows more of the bike and the snow, it leaves no doubt about what is going on and the soft focus of the wreath forces the eye to the subject, yet is still quite identifiable and give the final clue that this is not just ANY time of winter but specifically Xmas time.

RM

[rinty]

For those of you who might be interested in trying Photoshop, I would recommend the junior edition, which is called Elements. There is also a good Dummies book you can get for it.

As one who is digitally challenged, I am amazed by what you can do with this software.

Rinty

[grossjohann]

For those of you who might be interested in trying Photoshop, I would recommend the junior edition, which is called Elements. There is also a good Dummies book you can get for it.

As one who is digitally challenged, I am amazed by what you can do with this software.

Rinty

I use PhotoShop Elements. $100 and does well enough for most things. I’ve even used it for advertisements and the like. “Real” ad guys scoff at it (probably because they bought the entire package), but I’ve only hit it’s limitations a couple of times.

[wmubrown]

An "easy" solution (for future reference) is to wear black. Black reflections look like shadows against chrome, or other shiny objects. I've wrapped myself in a black fleece blanket a few times while taking shots with chrome and other reflective surfaces and the black reflection typically looks like it's supposed to be there. The blanket eliminates the potential for a clearly articulated human form (no arms, legs, etc.).

GOOD idea! I'll keep that in mind for 'next' time! :)

[grossjohann]

Alright, Gents.

Thanks for tall the great replies. I wasn’t allowed to steal any of the guinea pig’s hay (not even a plea for the sake of art could sway them “Ginger eats that!”), but I did place a work light so that it shined on the bike. My tripod is at the office, so I used a camping chair, but it was hard to keep steady in the wind (we live on the top of a hill).

The cold eventually forced me in, but I think these are a step in the right direction. Maybe more tomorrow. There should be flurries on Wednesday evening which could add to the effect, but I’m arm candy at my wife’s event that night…

http://lh3.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2cgX_0UIqI/AAAAAAAAA3U/FkqjVII2sbg/s800/DSC_6181.JPG
Home for the Holidays II

[SNC1923]

Alright, Gents.

Thanks for tall the great replies. I wasn’t allowed to steal any of the guinea pig’s hay (not even a plea for the sake of art could sway them “Ginger eats that!”), but I did place a work light so that it shined on the bike. My tripod is at the office, so I used a camping chair, but it was hard to keep steady in the wind (we live on the top of a hill).

The cold eventually forced me in, but I think these are a step in the right direction. Maybe more tomorrow. There should be flurries on Wednesday evening which could add to the effect, but I’m arm candy at my wife’s event that night…

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/MotorcycleHolidays/photo#5145116695934018210"><img src="http://lh3.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2cgX_0UIqI/AAAAAAAAA3U/FkqjVII2sbg/s800/DSC_6181.JPG" /></a>
Home for the Holidays II

This is gorgeous and a quantum leap forward. I think I might prefer the lighting to be indirect, not see it's reflection in the windows. Possibly even lower wattage, though turning it away from the bike might suffice.

Be interesting to see what colored lights would do. But I'm repeating myself. GREAT shot.

[KBasa]

This is gorgeous and a quantum leap forward. I think I might prefer the lighting to be indirect, not see it's reflection in the windows. Possibly even lower wattage, though turning it away from the bike might suffice.

Be interesting to see what colored lights would do. But I'm repeating myself. GREAT shot.

:nod

[SNC1923]

http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/233040259-M.jpg

SMC...is this the flames one you were thinking of?

I'd wanted to get the little BMW button in focus and this is a tad out, plus there's the light from the otherside of the fire coming through.

I'll still try with the angled down version and work on getting that spot on.
Who knows, if Santa turns up with a tripod it might be easier too.

Actually, I was thinking of this one:

http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/233040290-XL.jpg

Hope you don't mind, but this is the best one, I think.

[grossjohann]

The muse escaped me this week. Probably the best of a bad lot.

http://kbasa.smugmug.com/photos/233379793-L.jpg

These are really nice. I don’t think I would have come up with a Christmas Beemer. [New holiday tradition?]

I’m a fan of lights in general, and I particularly like the over-exposed look if it’s to show more details of the subject matter.

Next, can you take a shot with the Christmas Beemer next to a cozy fireplace with presents by the tires? :D

[SNC1923]

I had, in my trials, gone both directions similar to some suggestions, maybe one of these fits that vision?

http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow4.JPG



I like this shot, though the bike needs to be in sharper focus. I think the trick here, for a number of reasons, is to have the wreath in focus and the bike slightly blurred. As a guess, I'd close this down three stops, give or take.

Like several of the others, this is a creative concept that works well.

[SNC1923]

The muse escaped me this week. Probably the best of a bad lot.

http://kbasa.smugmug.com/photos/233379793-L.jpg

http://kbasa.smugmug.com/photos/233370884-L.jpg

Can't decide which of these I like better. The first for the drama of the lighting. It seems more indirect and is less obviously strung Christmas lights.

The second is more of a bike shot and the blacks are really rich and nice. Perhaps if it were lit a bit more like the first one. (I know you're probably going to tell me they're the same. They are both great.

[grossjohann]

This is gorgeous and a quantum leap forward. I think I might prefer the lighting to be indirect, not see it's reflection in the windows. Possibly even lower wattage, though turning it away from the bike might suffice.

Be interesting to see what colored lights would do. But I'm repeating myself. GREAT shot.


Thanks, Tom.

The reflections in the windows are actually candle lights. We have them in the windows of the house, and I thought I would be cute and put them in the shed, too.

http://lh4.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2cj6P0UIrI/AAAAAAAAA4Q/LEqfF8GMZ-U/s400/DSC_6189.JPG
(Yes, I need to shovel the walkway again…)

I think tomorrow I may try zooming way out and taking it in portrait. The idea being to make the cozy shed seem a more remote and precious sanctuary.

It’s funny… I really only took the shot as a sarcastic complaint that the shed is the motorcycle’s unfortunate home for the holidays. I never thought I’d be freezing my butt to simulate a BMW nativity.
:D

[KBasa]

These are really nice. I don’t think I would have come up with a Christmas Beemer. [New holiday tradition?]

I’m a fan of lights in general, and I particularly like the over-exposed look if it’s to show more details of the subject matter.

Next, can you take a shot with the Christmas Beemer next to a cozy fireplace with presents by the tires? :D

:ha

I'm allowed to have bikes in the atrium, but Tina has a strict No Bike in The House policy.

[grossjohann]

:ha

I'm allowed to have bikes in the atrium, but Tina has a strict No Bike in The House policy.

Ditto... :dunno

[wmubrown]

Alright, Gents.

Thanks for tall the great replies. I wasn’t allowed to steal any of the guinea pig’s hay (not even a plea for the sake of art could sway them “Ginger eats that!”), but I did place a work light so that it shined on the bike. My tripod is at the office, so I used a camping chair, but it was hard to keep steady in the wind (we live on the top of a hill).

The cold eventually forced me in, but I think these are a step in the right direction. Maybe more tomorrow. There should be flurries on Wednesday evening which could add to the effect, but I’m arm candy at my wife’s event that night…

Home for the Holidays II

SWEEEETTTT! Focus is a touch off, but not bad for hand balancing it on a chair! :dance
I didn't originally notice this assignment runs until Jan. 1st... It's got me thinking again... (ouch!)

[grossjohann]

SWEEEETTTT! Focus is a touch off, but not bad for hand balancing it on a chair! :dance
I didn't originally notice this assignment runs until Jan. 1st... It's got me thinking again... (ouch!)

Isn't that nuts? You guys are going to be so sick of my shed! :rofl

[grossjohann]

http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow1.JPG

And then going with the bike as center of focus:

http://www.robietech.com/johnbrown/temp/snow5.JPG


I really like these. This is a winning concept. I like the idea of having the bike blurred slightly (maybe to make the shot less specific and perhaps give broader appeal), but I really want to see the motorcycle.

Since you have a “classic” K, I think she deserves to be seen. It’s almost like a portrait of the motorcycle.

http://lh4.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2dIWP0UIsI/AAAAAAAAA4w/ikuj7USWAsA/s400/snow1-PS2.jpg http://lh3.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2dIZ_0UItI/AAAAAAAAA44/PY2cKMUA2dY/s400/snow5-PS.jpg
(Thanks for letting me abuse your photos…)

[Rapid_Roy]

:ha

I'm allowed to have bikes in the atrium, but Tina has a strict No Bike in The House policy.
Ditto... :dunno
Aha! *says Roy, rubbing his hands together and thinking of a way to get the rest of the gas out of his R50*

[rocketman]

Aha! *says Roy, rubbing his hands together and thinking of a way to get the rest of the gas out of his R50*


Easy if its an R50 (aka airhead) just turn it upside down and shake vigorously!:laugh

(or you could just remove the tank, its what? all of two little tumb screws? but what fun is that?:laugh )

Once when we were putting a driveshaft back together on a /5, one of the strech bolts at the universal end fell down into the driveshaft housing, Yikes!
Then, since there were three of us, we just lifted up the rear end of the bike and shook vigorously and the littlle sucker came right out! Ha Ha!

kinda like lifting up the rear end of old VW bug when someone is about to take off,,,,

good prank that is:laugh

Sometimes simple REALLY is better...

RM

[rocketman]

Ya gotta have some big balls to do this.....(well at least one anyway!)

focus is a bit soft but that's seems to be more an issue of the surface of the xmas ball is not very smooth, its plastic and as such somewhat bumpy

I did three series at different zoom levels but can't decide which I like best.

http://roadrunes.com/images3/MOA-assignments/xmas-bikes/glode-1-web.jpg

RM

[rocketman]

http://roadrunes.com/images3/MOA-assignments/xmas-bikes/globe3-web.jpg

RM

[rocketman]

This one doesn't come across from my site as well as it looks on my system, its a little flat lighting wise.

Also this being the closest zoom level the imperfections in the surface of the globe show up more.

http://roadrunes.com/images3/MOA-assignments/xmas-bikes/glode2-web.jpg

RM

[BradfordBenn]

:ha

I'm allowed to have bikes in the atrium, but Tina has a strict No Bike in The House policy.

I notice that is a singular word No Bike. How about BikeS? Hacks? Scooters?

[lamble]

Santa has brought me a tripod...I know he has, as I just went and bought it myself. How sad is that? Christmas Day- "Oooh a tripod, what a surprise!"

It's small and light enough to carry on my bike, so I can use it for video and stills, when stopped. In the week over Christmas (if we don't go away) I'll revisit the submissions here and try to adopt the tips you gave SNC.

[franze]

http://elcid.smugmug.com/photos/234141039-M.jpg

[rocketman]

http://elcid.smugmug.com/photos/234141039-M.jpg

Ha Ha! What a scream! A Homer xmas Creech complete a BMW repair manual in hand! Ha Ha! I Love it!:laugh :rocker

RM

[MLS2GO]

Is that the sacrifical burning of a late model final drive?

[wmubrown]

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/MotorcycleHolidays/photo#5145160646334358210"><img src="http://lh4.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R2dIWP0UIsI/AAAAAAAAA4w/ikuj7USWAsA/s400/snow1-PS2.jpg" /></a>
(Thanks for letting me abuse your photos…)

Very cool... I think I might use this, thanks! Abuse... I see no crime here?!? ;)

[wmubrown]

((Homer photo, cut to reduce repetition))

Ho ho hilarious... :)

[grossjohann]

Very cool... I think I might use this, thanks! Abuse... I see no crime here?!? ;)

Thanks, John.

Let me know if you want any others doctored. It usually turns out a little better if I have a high-resolution original.

-Alex

[PAULBACH]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g264/PaulBach/ClipArt/Efi.jpg
Technical Details


Uploads photos automatically from Eye-Fi Card inside your camera. Built-in Wi-Fi connects to your home network
Provides free and unlimited photo uploads to your computer and your favorite photo or social networking website. Photo transmission is secure and private
Supports sharing and printing websites, including Fotki, Shutterfly, dotPhoto, webshots, phanfare, Picasa Web albums, flickr, TypePad, Wal-Mart, snapfish, VOX, smugmug, facebook, photobucket, Kodak Gallery, and Sharpcast
Handles full-resolution jpeg images and intelligently re-sizes photos if limited by your chosen photo or social networking website
Fits digital cameras that use SD memory cards and offers 2 GB of memory to store photos on the card


Saw this on Amazon. Has anyone used this card? Look interesting and gosh darn - works with SMUGMUG

[grossjohann]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g264/PaulBach/ClipArt/Efi.jpg
Technical Details



Saw this on Amazon. Has anyone used this card? Look interesting and gosh darn - works with SMUGMUG

Welcome back, Paul.

I have never seen this before... Sounds almost too good to be true.

-Alex

[KBasa]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g264/PaulBach/ClipArt/Efi.jpg
Technical Details



Saw this on Amazon. Has anyone used this card? Look interesting and gosh darn - works with SMUGMUG

I saw it at the smugmug birthday party a couple weeks ago.

pretty neat.

[SNC1923]

Just checking in.

I'm not posting a new assignment this week as I don't want to distract from the potential of this one which runs until January 1st. I've seen some really creative efforts to satisfy a pretty specific assignment.

Those of you working on improving an image, do let us see what you're up to. Those of you that haven't tried yet (present company included), let's see what you've got!

Thanks everyone. As you were. :laugh

[SNC1923]

http://SNC1923.smugmug.com/photos/234496754-L.jpg

This is my best effort so far. My motorcycle is in the penthouse window, 3rd from the left. Unfortunately, you can't see it due to the reflection. Guess I'll have to re-shoot it.

[rocketman]

http://SNC1923.smugmug.com/photos/234496754-L.jpg

This is my best effort so far. My motorcycle is in the penthouse window, 3rd from the left. Unfortunately, you can't see it due to the reflection. Guess I'll have to re-shoot it.


Hmmmm..

You know, the last time I stayed at a Hyatt and wanted to park my bike in the room with me they wanted an extra 10 grand. Humph!
As I said, that was the last time I stayed in one.

RM

(See, I can be dead serious too.)

[lamble]

http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/235256889-S.jpg


http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/235256884-S.jpg

Tried moving the logs, used Santa's gift-I know it's not present opening day, but I bought it so I knew what it was. Itried the water droplets on the visor but they didn't make that much difference.

So here they are, stage 2.

What's next?

[SNC1923]

I like number one, but the fire is too bright. Can you shoot it on manual? Lower the fire? I keep wanting you to try the flash, but I think available light is the way to go here. Maybe a longer exposure with a smaller aperture? I'm just shooting in the dark here. . . .

[lamble]

I like number one, but the fire is too bright. Can you shoot it on manual? Lower the fire? I keep wanting you to try the flash, but I think available light is the way to go here. Maybe a longer exposure with a smaller aperture? I'm just shooting in the dark here. . . .

I tried flash and the light was really harsh. It took any warmth from the fire and really looked unpleasant.

It's only step 2 and there's plenty of dates left.
I'd hoped the water would work, but it wasn't noticable at all.

[wmubrown]

Tried moving the logs, used Santa's gift-I know it's not present opening day, but I bought it so I knew what it was. Itried the water droplets on the visor but they didn't make that much difference.

So here they are, stage 2.

What's next?

If you want the look of water, especially on as smooth a surface as a plastic visor, mix some glycerin in with water and then spray/drop it on - it will hold in place better. With the low level of light you're working with though, I'm not sure it will have any effect...

I still like the original set better for some reason :)

[lamble]

http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/235336204-L.jpg

Last for today. Happier with the fire.

[SNC1923]

http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/235336204-L.jpg

Last for today. Happier with the fire.

The exposure is better here. This is a nice shot.

If you want to keep playing with it, why not try a more telephoto shot? It would (or could) enlarge or foreground the helmet and push the fire into less focus. Might bring out the detail of water, if you are even still pursuing that course. Might bring out the rondel a bit, too. A production designer might say arrange the gloves in a less haphazard manner.

I hear what you're saying about the flash. Are you using the on-board flash or an auxiliary? An auxiliary flash sometimes gives the option of shooting at 1/2, 1/4 power, etc. I still think natural light is your best bet. Perhaps focusing the torch on the rondel? I'll bet the lovely Mrs. Lamble would assist.

I think I said before, if this is the best you get, it's a very good and very creative shot.

[BeerTeam]

http://klasjm.smugmug.com/photos/235479366-X3.jpg



Merry Christmas One And All
Santa

[BeerTeam]

http://klasjm.smugmug.com/photos/234196791-X3.jpg


And Happy New Year

[BeerTeam]

http://klasjm.smugmug.com/photos/235373850-X3.jpg

At this years Badger Motorcyclist of Wisconsin Christmas Party, Ken McHugh and myself received the Million Mile award. Mac and I are both 25 plus year "Lifetime Badger members".

[BeerTeam]

http://klasjm.smugmug.com/photos/227692912-X1-2.jpg


I have know and watched Mac's odometer for 30 years. When I received my Million Mile award at the 2000 National Rally, Mac mentioned to me that he would never get a Million Mile award as he was already 60 years old and had 200,000+ miles to go.

I told Mac that if on 50,000 per year he would be there in 5 years. He mentioned that statement at the Badger Christmas party, that he took my statement seriously and his average was 41,000 per year since that day.

Congratulations Mac.

[Voni]

Sweet!

And knowing you I'll bet you were as proud of Mac's accomplishments as your own!

Voni
sMiling

[SNC1923]

Congrats, Jim. Nice to see some BeerTeam photos, too. Nice shot in front of the house, though the transvestite Santa makes me a bit uncomfortable. :rofl

[KBasa]

Congratulations, Jim! :thumb

[calmil]

The photo is a bit out of focus but my best effort with local opportunity.
Calmil

[Voni]

The photo is a bit out of focus but my best effort with local opportunity.
Calmil

Clever! I like it ; )

Voni
sMiling

[PAULBACH]

Congrats on the first million! What was the best and the most challenging of the first million?

[KBasa]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZBOPBJYPKfk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZBOPBJYPKfk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[lamble]

http://lamble.smugmug.com/photos/236118916-S.jpg

Dave, I bet I was wearing more clothes than you, down on the beach!

[rocketman]

not quite sure if this idea qualifies but what the hey....the sign does have the word Christmas on it and it was taken today, but like a total idiot I forgot to use any fill flash so I had to do it in photoshop so I will disqualify it from the running, but it came out so nice figured I'd post it anyway..

it was so nice (mid 50's) that i decided to take the long way home...

http://roadrunes.com/images3/MOA-assignments/xmas-bikes/bike2-web.jpg


also from the same location without the bike or sign...

http://roadrunes.com/images3/MOA-assignments/xmas-bikes/sky1-web.jpg

RM

[rkasal]

Photoshop here...No.

If you need to crop, you aren't learning to frame your picture.
Once you get into degrees, then it gets awkward. Keep it simple. Keep it focused (pun well and truly intended).
There's enough farkling buttons on most digital cameras to play with as it is.

This isn't a ludite stance (photoshop sits very happily on my mac), but the purity of these assignments comes from their simplicity of concept.
And finally, do you want to increase the work load of SNC?
It's enough that he critiques our images, without adding the need to analyse our software skills too.

Hey Lamble, do your friends call you Steve Baker or Steven Baker? Just wanted to know as I think referring to you as Lamble is silly.

Anyway, my friend, can you tell me which version of Photoshop is the best for a home user? I don't want to do anything exotic. Just clean up some travel pictures. There's a few with red eyes and some that are taken in the dark where the flash wasn't up to snuff.

Thanks in advance!

Your friend,

Randy

[knary]

Hey Lamble, do your friends call you Steve Baker or Steven Baker? Just wanted to know as I think referring to you as Lamble is silly.

Anyway, my friend, can you tell me which version of Photoshop is the best for a home user? I don't want to do anything exotic. Just clean up some travel pictures. There's a few with red eyes and some that are taken in the dark where the flash wasn't up to snuff.

Thanks in advance!

Your friend,

Randy

The basic home version has more than enough power for your needs. :nod

http://conary.org/bike/post/gdoggut.jpg

[SNC1923]

The basic home version has more than enough power for your needs. :nod

http://conary.org/bike/post/gdoggut.jpg

Oh, great. More nightmares.

Randy:

I realize your question was directed elsewhere, but I thought that I would offer that I just purchased Adobe's Lightroom. It's really more for organizing photos, but it has all the basic photo correction stuff such as color, contrast, red eyes, fixing dust spots, etc. It's about 1/3 the cost of Photoshop. Just an FYI. As a Mac user, I was also very fond of iPhoto for it's simplicity.

[grossjohann]

This is gorgeous and a quantum leap forward. I think I might prefer the lighting to be indirect, not see it's reflection in the windows. Possibly even lower wattage, though turning it away from the bike might suffice.

Be interesting to see what colored lights would do. But I'm repeating myself. GREAT shot.

Well, I didn't try the colored lights... I probably would have, but we don't have them anymore.

Here is another try without the lights in the windows (longer exposure):

http://lh6.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R3cKFv0UIxI/AAAAAAAAA7g/HBuTgodxSoo/s800/DSC_6236.JPG

[grossjohann]

...And here's another which I hoped would make the shed look more remote.

http://lh6.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R3cFkv0UIwI/AAAAAAAAA7c/HDHHT2bLglw/s800/DSC_6197.JPG

[grossjohann]

Something in between the two:

http://lh6.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R3cKGv0UIzI/AAAAAAAAA7w/GxeMy4VKhZ4/s800/DSC_6228.JPG


I’m still not happy with any of these. My heart’s either not in it, or I’m just not seeing what I want to show.

[Voni]

I really like the middle one . . .

Do you have a simple wreath for one window?

Voni
sMiling

[Voni]

My Merry Christmas wish.

Voni
sMiling

[grossjohann]

I really like the middle one . . .

Do you have a simple wreath for one window?

Voni
sMiling

Thanks, Voni.

That's a good idea. I have one on the front door which I could try.

-Alex

[SNC1923]

My Merry Christmas wish.

Voni
sMiling

Voni,

That's the
BEST!

[SNC1923]

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/MotorcycleHolidays/photo#5149595792772965138"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R3cKFv0UIxI/AAAAAAAAA7g/HBuTgodxSoo/s800/DSC_6236.JPG" /></a>

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/MotorcycleHolidays/photo#5149590827790770946"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R3cFkv0UIwI/AAAAAAAAA7c/HDHHT2bLglw/s800/DSC_6197.JPG" /></a>

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/MotorcycleHolidays/photo#5149595809952834354"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/Alex.Grossjohann/R3cKGv0UIzI/AAAAAAAAA7w/GxeMy4VKhZ4/s800/DSC_6228.JPG" /></a>



Alex,

These are great. I was going to say that I was leaning toward the first, but the third is growing on me. It seems that perhaps darker might be better. The second opens a lot of possibilities, not the least of which is the addition of a graphic or some text. Even without it evokes the emotion of solitude with warmth. Am I wrong, or is it a bit fuzzy? Perhaps just my old and whiskey-addled eyes.

In any case, these are powerful images, and I hope the Foundation will give them their due consideration.

[grossjohann]

Alex,

These are great. I was going to say that I was leaning toward the first, but the third is growing on me. It seems that perhaps darker might be better. The second opens a lot of possibilities, not the least of which is the addition of a graphic or some text. Even without it evokes the emotion of solitude with warmth. Am I wrong, or is it a bit fuzzy? Perhaps just my old and whiskey-addled eyes.

In any case, these are powerful images, and I hope the Foundation will give them their due consideration.

Thanks, Tom.

The neither the autofocus nor I could see anything to get a clear focus, so I set it to infinity. I think it was too long by about 15-20 feet. Which really surprised me. I think I had the camera on shutter-priority, and I had assumed the aperture would be at 2.8 Apparently, it was at 5.6 (which I would have thought was low enough, too).

Next time, I'll set up the night shot fully manually, and I'll turn off the garage lights which are too bright for very long exposures.

I wasn't thinking this for the MOA; just part of the assignment. Now I understand the colored lights, etc. If we get another show, then I'll go all out for the MOA shot.

(I must be a little distracted at the moment.)

-Alex

[SNC1923]

(I must be a little distracted at the moment.)

-Alex

'Tis the season.

[BradfordBenn]

These are great guys. Keep 'em coming :)

Remember the card image doesn't need to get picked for a few months.:thumb

[Voni]

Beemers Roasting by an Open Fire

Voni
sMiling