“It is better to inspire than direct." —Sheryl Sandberg

Member's ShowcaseA Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Nature's beauty cannot be expressed more perfectly than in its flora.
- Flowers and plants in any state, from natural to arranged, outdoor or indoor.
User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Tertius
Mentoris Tertius
Posts: 987
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Reputation: 91
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

A Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Postby Charles Haacker » Sun May 21, 2017 1:47 am

I came across this remark elsewhere...
St3v3M wrote:... a funny image I'm sure I wouldn't have taken and would have regretted it now that I see what you've done with it. We should have an 'almost boring contest' where we see who can take what would be assumed as a boring image and post our vision of how to make it better. Wait, did I say that out loud? ... S-

As it happens I just found a shot I'd made a year or so ago that I had never processed, probably because it was a totally meh picture, but in the meantime my skills have evolved so I thought I'd have a crack at it. Waddya think?
DSC00925.EM-2.jpg
This is the original raw file zeroed out. It's pretty meh. SONY DSC-RX10, 1/250 f/5.6 ISO 250 hand held. It's a pretty small weed shot on a breezy day.
DSC00925.EM.jpg
This has been reworked in Lightroom only. It could stand to be sharper but there was a bit of a breeze as I recall so things were moving around. When I rediscovered it this was the sharpest of about 5 tries, so I was using the old spray'n'pray trick.
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
Didereaux
Mentoris Sextus
Mentoris Sextus
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:37 pm
Reputation: 90
Location: swamps of East Texas
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Re: A Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Postby Didereaux » Sun May 21, 2017 3:00 am

I certainly cannot see anything wrong with the processing. Nice detail and super color.
There are no banal subjects in photography, but an infinite number of banal ways to illustrate them.

User avatar
St3v3M
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:02 am
Reputation: 101
Location: 35,000 feet
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Re: A Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Postby St3v3M » Sun May 21, 2017 5:48 am

Charles Haacker wrote:As it happens I just found a shot I'd made a year or so ago that I had never processed, probably because it was a totally meh picture, but in the meantime my skills have evolved so I thought I'd have a crack at it. Waddya think?

A great example of taking something average and making it your own. Thank you for starting this! S-
"Take photographs, leave footprints, steal hearts"

User avatar
LindaShorey
Mentoris Quartus
Mentoris Quartus
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:50 am
Reputation: 95
Location: Yakima, WA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Re: A Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Postby LindaShorey » Sun May 21, 2017 12:21 pm

Very appealing, Chuck. Nicely worked!
"What's important in a photograph and what isn't." http://photographylife.com/whats-import ... -what-isnt

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Tertius
Mentoris Tertius
Posts: 987
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Reputation: 91
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Re: A Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Postby Charles Haacker » Sun May 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Didereaux wrote:I certainly cannot see anything wrong with the processing. Nice detail and super color.
St3v3M wrote:A great example of taking something average and making it your own. Thank you for starting this! S-
LindaShorey wrote:Very appealing, Chuck. Nicely worked!

Thank you, Monte, Steve, and Linda. One of the things I like best about Lightroom is the ease of manipulating highlight, shadow, white, and black. I know Lightroom = ACR, and when I first started fooling with raw I used ACR, but my take is that Lightroom is overall easier, less klutzy than ACR. Like anything else it's all according to what you get used to. I also find that Lightroom works very well with jpegs. Jpegs are more limiting, but I have seen lots of assertions that jpegs "can't" or at least "shouldn't be" post processed, but I have never found that to be true.

I had prepped this pair earlier. I think they're appropriate. When I first got my P7000 in 2011 I'd been goofing around with white balance, tried tungsten, forgot about it, and the next day we journeyed down to Dubuque (another favorite ride + walk) and I was happily snapping away in the bright sun (the P7000 had no electronic viewfinder) which made the display hard to see so I did not notice for awhile that everything was BLOOOOOOOOOoooo! They're all jpegs of course so I wrote them off, but came across them the other day and thought I'd see how much I could drag back from the brink of blue. The second one was adjusted just with white balance and tint sliders. I could try the adjustment brush on the walkway and the foreground boulder, but initially this was just an experiment. It's also a lesson; if you shoot jpegs, check your WB setting! :oops:
DSCN0026.EM-2.jpg
DSCN0026.EM.jpg
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 Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:55 am
Reputation: 117
Location: Mississippi
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Re: A Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Postby minniev » Sun May 21, 2017 2:25 pm

Charles Haacker wrote:I came across this remark elsewhere...
St3v3M wrote:... a funny image I'm sure I wouldn't have taken and would have regretted it now that I see what you've done with it. We should have an 'almost boring contest' where we see who can take what would be assumed as a boring image and post our vision of how to make it better. Wait, did I say that out loud? ... S-

As it happens I just found a shot I'd made a year or so ago that I had never processed, probably because it was a totally meh picture, but in the meantime my skills have evolved so I thought I'd have a crack at it. Waddya think?DSC00925.EM-2.jpgDSC00925.EM.jpg


Very nice rescue operation Chuck! You turned it from a dull capture to a pretty one!

I see the raging arguments on other forums about the supposed heresy of post processing, but never will I give up my PP tools!
"God gave me photography so that I could pray with my eyes" - Dewitt Jones

User avatar
LindaShorey
Mentoris Quartus
Mentoris Quartus
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:50 am
Reputation: 95
Location: Yakima, WA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Re: A Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Postby LindaShorey » Sun May 21, 2017 2:56 pm

Great save on the "blooo" Chuck!
"What's important in a photograph and what isn't." http://photographylife.com/whats-import ... -what-isnt

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Tertius
Mentoris Tertius
Posts: 987
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Reputation: 91
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Re: A Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Postby Charles Haacker » Sun May 21, 2017 3:11 pm

minniev wrote:Very nice rescue operation Chuck! You turned it from a dull capture to a pretty one!

I see the raging arguments on other forums about the supposed heresy of post processing, but never will I give up my PP tools!

Out of curiosity only I dropped in on Other Forums yesterday and saw a Raging Argument about the Hull Thing, jpeg v. raw, PP v. SOOC, yada ad infinitum ad nauseam. My take is based on my background. I was trained that real photographers can print. I (probably to my own detriment I know) spent at least as much time in the darkroom as I did making the negatives in the first place. But when I went digital it was only natural that I should post process. A picture wasn't finished until it was tweaked. On the other hand, I understand that many folks do not want to spend their finite time in either Darkroom or Lightroom (see what I did there?). What I really don't understand is the passion for a position. I love to post process. Someone else hates it. Different strokes. Yet every time the subject comes up (in the recent case in Other Forums it was brought up deliberately by a known agitator) the rocks and bottles start flying.

IF YOU ARE NOT SHOOTING RAW YOU ARE A PHILISTINE! :x
IF YOU CAN'T GET IT RIGHT IN THE CAMERA YOU ARE LAZY AND CANNOT CALL YOURSELF A PHOTOGRAPHER!! :devil:
What up with that? :|
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
Didereaux
Mentoris Sextus
Mentoris Sextus
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:37 pm
Reputation: 90
Location: swamps of East Texas
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Re: A Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Postby Didereaux » Sun May 21, 2017 4:30 pm

Charles Haacker wrote:
minniev wrote:Very nice rescue operation Chuck! You turned it from a dull capture to a pretty one!

I see the raging arguments on other forums about the supposed heresy of post processing, but never will I give up my PP tools!

Out of curiosity only I dropped in on Other Forums yesterday and saw a Raging Argument about the Hull Thing, jpeg v. raw, PP v. SOOC, yada ad infinitum ad nauseam. My take is based on my background. I was trained that real photographers can print. I (probably to my own detriment I know) spent at least as much time in the darkroom as I did making the negatives in the first place. But when I went digital it was only natural that I should post process. A picture wasn't finished until it was tweaked. On the other hand, I understand that many folks do not want to spend their finite time in either Darkroom or Lightroom (see what I did there?). What I really don't understand is the passion for a position. I love to post process. Someone else hates it. Different strokes. Yet every time the subject comes up (in the recent case in Other Forums it was brought up deliberately by a known agitator) the rocks and bottles start flying.

IF YOU ARE NOT SHOOTING RAW YOU ARE A PHILISTINE! :x
IF YOU CAN'T GET IT RIGHT IN THE CAMERA YOU ARE LAZY AND CANNOT CALL YOURSELF A PHOTOGRAPHER!! :devil:
What up with that? :|



What most of the neophyte experts forget is the reason why the high end magazines(what there is left of them) want you to shoot RAW. It gives them a proof that the shot was not manipulated in any manner other than by standard darkroom procedures. There are legal factors involved for them, and the photographer always has available an unblemished original on which to do anything they wish immediately or over time. It also assures that you can produce a file that can be printed to its maximum potential, something a compressed file cannot do since it is inherently degraded in the compressing.

Personally I do not care what others do, they can process snapshots into outrageous neon cartoons if they wish, but I draw the line when they try and tell me that doing so from an already degraded original is showing the image at its best.

Now as far as taking the best SOOC I have to agree that if you are going to try and be something other than mediocre you have to be able to produce excellence in the camera, if you cannot do it there then how can you possibly know what to do in post to achieve it? Is it necessary to always produce a super high quality shot SOOC? Not only is it not necessary it is is flat impossible in many circumstances,,,you take and get the best you can under the circumstances. But that illustrates again the need for knowing! If you do not know how to produce the best then you cannot know whether the present shot is the best possible in that circumstance.

All of this simply points out, and highlights the fact that the less someone knows the more apt they are to hold rigid unfounded beliefs. How many times must it be said that photography is a compromise!
There are no banal subjects in photography, but an infinite number of banal ways to illustrate them.

User avatar
St3v3M
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:02 am
Reputation: 101
Location: 35,000 feet
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Re: A Boring Weed Made Better I Hope

Postby St3v3M » Sun May 21, 2017 10:00 pm

Charles Haacker wrote:Thank you, Monte, Steve, and Linda. One of the things I like best about Lightroom is the ease of manipulating highlight, shadow, white, and black. I know Lightroom = ACR, and when I first started fooling with raw I used ACR, but my take is that Lightroom is overall easier, less klutzy than ACR. Like anything else it's all according to what you get used to. I also find that Lightroom works very well with jpegs. Jpegs are more limiting, but I have seen lots of assertions that jpegs "can't" or at least "shouldn't be" post processed, but I have never found that to be true.

I had prepped this pair earlier. I think they're appropriate. When I first got my P7000 in 2011 I'd been goofing around with white balance, tried tungsten, forgot about it, and the next day we journeyed down to Dubuque (another favorite ride + walk) and I was happily snapping away in the bright sun (the P7000 had no electronic viewfinder) which made the display hard to see so I did not notice for awhile that everything was BLOOOOOOOOOoooo! They're all jpegs of course so I wrote them off, but came across them the other day and thought I'd see how much I could drag back from the brink of blue. The second one was adjusted just with white balance and tint sliders. I could try the adjustment brush on the walkway and the foreground boulder, but initially this was just an experiment. It's also a lesson; if you shoot jpegs, check your WB setting! :oops:

That's amazing, and look at the color of the water! I might try that just to see where it leads. Thank you for sharing this trick! S-
"Take photographs, leave footprints, steal hearts"


Return to “Flowers & Plants”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests