"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." —John Wooden

Things Critique"Jeannie's Wreath," continuing the Photo Genesis Project (sort of)

Post Reply
User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1749
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

"Jeannie's Wreath," continuing the Photo Genesis Project (sort of)

Post by Charles Haacker » Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:20 pm

This is not actually a continuation per se of the Photo Genesis Project (on which I jumped the gun anyway so wait 'til next year). What it is, is, um... kinda hard to 'splain. I just saw it almost literally in passing. My subject is a very tiny, old, handmade tree-ornament wreath made from, I think, real holly berries plus some tiny brass bells that really jingle. It belonged to my late bride, Daphne, called Jeannie by her family (she passed a year ago today so I'm thinking about her more than usual). Daphne Jean I'm pretty sure got it from her mother. My sweet DIL, Erin, has begun unpacking some stuff and this tiny thing she hung on a nail on a wall. So I'm looking at it on pretty much this angle, lit by a single CFL on the opposite wall, and I wonder whether I can even do it. It's in a tight spot under a staircase. I can't even get a tripod in there (I can barely get me in there), but my son wondered could I get it with a monopod (?) which as it happens I have since the center column of my tripod doubles as one. So long yap slightly shorter I got in there, managed to crank the ISO down to 1600 (I think 't'was) and make it at 1/6 sec @ f/8 with the light from the CFL plus a little daylight leaking in. Then I wanted to practice some curves and see what I could make of it, if anything...
Attachments
Jeannie's Tiny Wreath-1.jpg
Above is the "straight from the camera" version. I think I raised the exposure a half stop. You can see there's a door post on the right that was cropped away in the final. The wall is that, um, "color" (yick) and the whiter spot is from daylight spill getting in. Yes, I should flag stuff like that off. No, I don't. I am lazy and my excuse is that I shoots 'em as they lie. (And I'm stick'n to it.)
Jeannie's Tiny Wreath-2.jpg
So this one is pretty much straight except cropped and played with, mostly in curves since I am now trying to learn curves thanks to Duck's introduction to Unmesh Dinda! Yay! I think it's pretty good to not bad, and where I'd likely stop normally, but I want to see what else can be done.
Jeannie's Tiny Wreath-3.jpg
Still working mostly in curves and using red and blue channels, this one is intended to make more of the red-gold aspect of the piece, but I left the bilious icky wall pretty much alone but added a vignette.
Jeannie's Tiny Wreath-4.jpg
Since the wall color is mostly yellow (I think the Home Depot feller claimed it was "Bilious Gold" :D ) I opened the blue channel curve and used it to neutralize the yellow. I kept the vignette and added a little haze.
Jeannie's Tiny Wreath-5.jpg
I liked the last one better than the previous ones so I kept going, except punched up the contrast some (still in curves only) and added some grain. I dinked around with the size and intensity of the grain.
Jeannie's Tiny Wreath-6.jpg
Then I noticed that I could with a single click make the hull mess into a negative! ;D
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
LindaShorey
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:50 am
Location: Yakima, WA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by LindaShorey » Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:14 pm

Probably the red-gold (with white vignette) is my favorite 'cause it's so shiny and cheerful, but all are fun. You started with a very interesting subject IMO and shared the joys of playful pp. Thank you, Chuck!
"What's important in a photograph and what isn't." http://photographylife.com/whats-import ... -what-isnt

User avatar
Matt Quinn
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:12 pm
Location: MD in winter: Cape Cod in summer
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Matt Quinn » Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:43 pm

Charles Haacker wrote:This is not actually a continuation per se of the Photo Genesis Project (on which I jumped the gun anyway so wait 'til next year). What it is, is, um... kinda hard to 'splain. I just saw it almost literally in passing. My subject is a very tiny, old, handmade tree-ornament wreath made from, I think, real holly berries plus some tiny brass bells that really jingle. It belonged to my late bride, Daphne, called Jeannie by her family (she passed a year ago today so I'm thinking about her more than usual). Daphne Jean I'm pretty sure got it from her mother. My sweet DIL, Erin, has begun unpacking some stuff and this tiny thing she hung on a nail on a wall. So I'm looking at it on pretty much this angle, lit by a single CFL on the opposite wall, and I wonder whether I can even do it. It's in a tight spot under a staircase. I can't even get a tripod in there (I can barely get me in there), but my son wondered could I get it with a monopod (?) which as it happens I have since the center column of my tripod doubles as one. So long yap slightly shorter I got in there, managed to crank the ISO down to 1600 (I think 't'was) and make it at 1/6 sec @ f/8 with the light from the CFL plus a little daylight leaking in. Then I wanted to practice some curves and see what I could make of it, if anything...


Chuck, I like your first pp. The others are too obviously pp-ed. Matt
Matt Quinn

"One should really use the camera as though tomorrow you'd be stricken blind." Dorothea Lange

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1749
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:17 pm

LindaShorey wrote:Probably the red-gold (with white vignette) is my favorite 'cause it's so shiny and cheerful, but all are fun. You started with a very interesting subject IMO and shared the joys of playful pp. Thank you, Chuck!

Thanks for looking and commenting, Linda. I kinda like that red-gold myself, mostly because I really hate the wall.
Matt Quinn wrote:Chuck, I like your first pp. The others are too obviously pp-ed. Matt

Thanks, Matt. I can't disagree. Normally I would have stopped there, and the fact is I probably wouldn't have shown it since I do think the color of that wall is awful. I lean toward the red-gold ones, but mostly I wanted to play with curves since I'm really getting into them. I had no idea and now that I do I am captivated. Ultimately, though, if I get up the ambition, I might take it into Photoshop and really go to town, and the first thing is to separate the wreath from that dreadful wall, or at minimum totally change its color. That's much easier in Photoshop than Lightroom.
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
minniev
Mentoris Legatus
Mentoris Legatus
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:55 am
Location: Mississippi
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by minniev » Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:16 am

I like photo #5 best, with its rich reds and golds that have an antique feel to them. The reverse vignette works well to enhance the vintage effect. It's endless fun for me to do those various kinds of editing. I can't understand how anyone who enjoys taking photos could fail to enjoy processing them. Keep enjoying this! And thanks for reminding us how many versions of our images lie in hiding.
"God gave me photography so that I could pray with my eyes" - Dewitt Jones

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1749
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:34 pm

minniev wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:16 am
I like photo #5 best, with its rich reds and golds that have an antique feel to them. The reverse vignette works well to enhance the vintage effect. It's endless fun for me to do those various kinds of editing. I can't understand how anyone who enjoys taking photos could fail to enjoy processing them. Keep enjoying this! And thanks for reminding us how many versions of our images lie in hiding.
Thanks, Min. I like that one too. As mentioned, I normally stop with something "straight." That's my temperament supported by my training, but 100% I agree that it's very hard for me as well to understand how some folks not only don't like processing, some viscerally and vocally hate it! None here on Mentoris that I'm aware of, but at a certain other site (aaahemmm) there were some shall-we-say lively arguments between the two warring sides. It's a pretty personal thing, though, and I was so surprised by how good the SOOC stuff was when I made my first digital shots that I could'a stopped right there, but then I was so utterly gobsmacked by how much could be done even with one-click enhancement, especially in the shadows, so I still wonder how the SOOC purists can get pretty exercised at even doing that much, or little. My tiny Nikons all had onboard 1-click processing to open shadows that I could choose to use, or not, or even select as the default (only for jpegs of course). I use my phone camera hardly at all, but I've noticed that if I open a fresh picture and click on the little enhancement icon I get a row of little pitchers that offer all sorts of 1-click wonders. Some just change colors or make things look vintage or whatever, but there is at least one that just makes the original file look better, brighter, more open shadows, just an overall improvement over the straight shot. One tiny click (plus Save, so 2 clicks)... Why wooontcha? :|

(Oh, and if ya wanna disagree with me I will defend to the death my write to tell ye'z off in woids of one syllable. Ya folla fella? Well, do ya, punk?) :rofl:
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
minniev
Mentoris Legatus
Mentoris Legatus
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:55 am
Location: Mississippi
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by minniev » Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:57 pm

Charles Haacker wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:34 pm
minniev wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:16 am
I like photo #5 best, with its rich reds and golds that have an antique feel to them. The reverse vignette works well to enhance the vintage effect. It's endless fun for me to do those various kinds of editing. I can't understand how anyone who enjoys taking photos could fail to enjoy processing them. Keep enjoying this! And thanks for reminding us how many versions of our images lie in hiding.
Thanks, Min. I like that one too. As mentioned, I normally stop with something "straight." That's my temperament supported by my training, but 100% I agree that it's very hard for me as well to understand how some folks not only don't like processing, some viscerally and vocally hate it! None here on Mentoris that I'm aware of, but at a certain other site (aaahemmm) there were some shall-we-say lively arguments between the two warring sides. It's a pretty personal thing, though, and I was so surprised by how good the SOOC stuff was when I made my first digital shots that I could'a stopped right there, but then I was so utterly gobsmacked by how much could be done even with one-click enhancement, especially in the shadows, so I still wonder how the SOOC purists can get pretty exercised at even doing that much, or little. My tiny Nikons all had onboard 1-click processing to open shadows that I could choose to use, or not, or even select as the default (only for jpegs of course). I use my phone camera hardly at all, but I've noticed that if I open a fresh picture and click on the little enhancement icon I get a row of little pitchers that offer all sorts of 1-click wonders. Some just change colors or make things look vintage or whatever, but there is at least one that just makes the original file look better, brighter, more open shadows, just an overall improvement over the straight shot. One tiny click (plus Save, so 2 clicks)... Why wooontcha? :|

(Oh, and if ya wanna disagree with me I will defend to the death my write to tell ye'z off in woids of one syllable. Ya folla fella? Well, do ya, punk?) :rofl:
I love pp, too, Chuck, and like you am baffled by the hostility of those so-called purists who feel it is a cardinal sin. I say, to each his own, of course, but reserve the right to do as I wish with my own pictures. I like some of them right out of the camera, some rather carefully processed to look like what I remembered seeing and others to go somewhere fantastical and unreal. All of it is fun to me.
"God gave me photography so that I could pray with my eyes" - Dewitt Jones

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1749
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 am

minniev wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:57 pm
I love pp, too, Chuck, and like you am baffled by the hostility of those so-called purists who feel it is a cardinal sin. I say, to each his own, of course, but reserve the right to do as I wish with my own pictures. I like some of them right out of the camera, some rather carefully processed to look like what I remembered seeing and others to go somewhere fantastical and unreal. All of it is fun to me.
Absolutely. If it ain't fun why do it, unless you are working and you have to? That said, I fully grok folks who can't abide sitting for hours in front of a computer. I like it, but I also get it. If it makes you happy do it. If it don't, don't. :D I think what tended to cause the fisticuffs was the arrogant insistence of some that if you were not shooting only raw and exposing to the right (the right right naturally) and processing this way and that way, well, you were a peasant and a Philistine and unworthy of exalted company so get thee gone and darken not our door again. That tended to make the peasants cross of course and so up the hill they marched with torches and pitchforks labeled JPEG!!! and well there's the name of that tune! :x
(I've just had a rough coupl'a days so now I am coming off the low with a bit of hysteria. I'll be okay I hope. It beats circling the drain.)
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest