street infra red

[PeterN[_7_]]

I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
Got this street shot in the rain.

Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>

Similar shooting conditions, playing with faux color:
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/msin96zvnuv633m/20170617_1918%20lowered%20temp.jpg?dl=0>

--
PeterN

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article >):

> I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
> Got this street shot in the rain.
>
> Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>

Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the subject
the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at the
image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no matter
how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.

It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an old
Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
difference. A great opportunity wasted.

It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your FF
Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400 there
was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)
>
> Similar shooting conditions, playing with faux color:
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/msin96zvnuv633m/20170617_1918%20lowered%20temp.jpg?
> dl=0>

Just not my thing.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in . com>):

> On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
> > Got this street shot in the rain.
> >
> > Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
> > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
>
> Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the subject
> the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at the
> image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no matter
> how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.
>
> It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an old
> Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
> questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
> difference. A great opportunity wasted.
>
> It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your FF
> Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400 there
> was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)

BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg>
>
> >
> > Similar shooting conditions, playing with faux color:
> > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/msin96zvnuv633m/20170617_1918%20lowered%20temp.jp
> > g?
> > dl=0>
>
> Just not my thing.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in >):

> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck
> > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
> > (in . com>):
> >
> > > On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
> > > (in article >):
> > >
> > > > I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
> > > > Got this street shot in the rain.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
> > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
> > >
> > > Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the
> > > subject
> > > the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at the
> > > image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no matter
> > > how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.
> > >
> > > It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an
> > > old
> > > Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
> > > questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
> > > difference. A great opportunity wasted.
> > >
> > > It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your FF
> > > Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400
> > > there
> > > was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)
> >
> > BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
> > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg>
>
> You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest,
> but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract,
> in my opinion.

Actually the noise does detract for me. It’s that taste, and opinion thing
again.
Why would I have to add something?
The subject, and the capture of the moment speak for themselves, all that is
needed is some denoising.
>
> A little - just a little - dodging of the face might have improved the
> shot since her face seems to be a hidden asset in the shot. I'd like
> to see more of her expression.

I suppose a few tweaks would be in order.

You would prefer something such as this?
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8urdthvbsgr3tm/20170617_1923LE.jpeg>

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Bill W]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:30:51 -0400, PeterN
> wrote:

>I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
>Got this street shot in the rain.
>
>Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
><https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>

I like this photo. At the same time, I never would have known there
was any IR involved.

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in >):

> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:21:37 -0700, Savageduck
> > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
> > (in >):
> >
> > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
> > > > (in . com>):
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
> > > > > (in article >):
> > > > >
> > > > > > I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
> > > > > > Got this street shot in the rain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
> > > > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
> > > > >
> > > > > Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the
> > > > > subject the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at
> > > > > the image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no
> > > > > matter how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.
> > > > >
> > > > > It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an
> > > > > old Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
> > > > > questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
> > > > > difference. A great opportunity wasted.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your
> > > > > FF Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400
> > > > > there was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)
> > > >
> > > > BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
> > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg>
> > >
> > > You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest,
> > > but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract,
> > > in my opinion.
> >
> > Actually the noise does detract for me. It’s that taste, and opinion thing
> > again.
> > Why would I have to add something?
>
> A change in what was done adds a new view of the original. Not an
> object.
>
> > The subject, and the capture of the moment speak for themselves, all that is
> > needed is some denoising.
> > >
> > > A little - just a little - dodging of the face might have improved the
> > > shot since her face seems to be a hidden asset in the shot. I'd like
> > > to see more of her expression.
> >
> > I suppose a few tweaks would be in order.
> >
> > You would prefer something such as this?
> > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8urdthvbsgr3tm/20170617_1923LE.jpeg>
>
> No, that's over-done, it shows what there but makes it too noticeable.
> Maybe that's because I knew what was there before. I might not have
> noticed it as much if this had been the first version.

Oh well...
>
> Personally, I prefer letting the photographer present *his* image as
> he sees it. I've never viewed photography as a group effort.

That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to
understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go
about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my
taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost,
mostly due to a poor choice in camera.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in >):

> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:14:34 -0700, Savageduck
> > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
> > (in >):
> >
> > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:21:37 -0700, Savageduck
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
> > > > (in >):
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
> > > > > > (in . com>):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
> > > > > > > (in article >):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
> > > > > > > > Got this street shot in the rain.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
> > > > > > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the
> > > > > > > subject the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I
> > > > > > > look at
> > > > > > > the image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise,
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > matter how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > old Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a
> > > > > > > camera with
> > > > > > > questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no
> > > > > > > real
> > > > > > > difference. A great opportunity wasted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > FF Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO
> > > > > > > 400
> > > > > > > there was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
> > > > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg>
> > > > >
> > > > > You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest,
> > > > > but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract,
> > > > > in my opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Actually the noise does detract for me. It’s that taste, and opinion
> > > > thing
> > > > again.
> > > > Why would I have to add something?
> > >
> > > A change in what was done adds a new view of the original. Not an
> > > object.
> > >
> > > > The subject, and the capture of the moment speak for themselves, all that
> > > > is
> > > > needed is some denoising.
> > > > >
> > > > > A little - just a little - dodging of the face might have improved the
> > > > > shot since her face seems to be a hidden asset in the shot. I'd like
> > > > > to see more of her expression.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose a few tweaks would be in order.
> > > >
> > > > You would prefer something such as this?
> > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8urdthvbsgr3tm/20170617_1923LE.jpeg>
> > >
> > > No, that's over-done, it shows what there but makes it too noticeable.
> > > Maybe that's because I knew what was there before. I might not have
> > > noticed it as much if this had been the first version.
> >
> > Oh well...
> > >
> > > Personally, I prefer letting the photographer present *his* image as
> > > he sees it. I've never viewed photography as a group effort.
> >
> > That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to
> > understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go
> > about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my
> > taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost,
> > mostly due to a poor choice in camera.
>
> It seems that what you are saying is that any image that does not meet
> with your approval is a "problem" image.

Not at all. I see photographs which I like immediately because they are
captured with technical skill, and all the elements of exposure, composition
and opportunity have met to form a pleasing photo. Then I see photos such as
Peter’s girl in the rain, which are great captures, but fail in areas which
are fixable. For me, that presents a challenge.

> I think there's a word for that.

Probably.

> I don't know what Peter was up to that day, but I can understand going
> out with one camera and seeing what can be done with that camera that
> day. That's a rather good self-imposed challenge to any photographer.
>
> Years ago I went on a field trip with a pro photographer who made us
> use only a 50mm lens or, if we had only a zoom lens, we had to tape
> the lens at that setting. His instructions were to get the best
> photos possible with that lens. We probably had some lost
> opportunities because of lack of lens choice, but it was a good
> exercise in finding what would work under those conditions.

My photography basics have been rooted in single focal length cameras. My
1954 Brownie, my father’s C3, my first SLRs, both with 50mm lenses, and my
Yashica Electro 35 with its 45mm f/1.7. It has only been since entering the
world of the DSLR that I started using zoom lenses. Now with my move to
Fujifilm mirrorless I am returning to mostly using good quality primes, and
using my zooms when need to. It is challenging, fun, and satisfying to
restrict ones self in that way. It is interesting how different it is, going
out with only a 14mm, 23mm, or 35mm on your camera. You might have noticed,
my latest lens is a 23mm f/2.0, and my next lens is likely to be another
prime.

> I think Peter did exactly that.

I wouldn’t really know what Peter’s intention was, other than using an IR
converted camera to make those captures. I just feel that the first shot he
shared was an opportunistic image with so much going for it, but ultimately
for me, a disappointment.
....and I know it is his work, his image, and his particular expression, but
he is still putting it out there, and I cannot avoid formulating my opinion.

As for his second shot, let’s just say, it is not my thing, and I
wouldn’t know what to do with it other than move on.

> Peter could have carried the Coolpix, his Nikon, three lenses, his
> extension set, and still have "lost opportunities" in street shooting.
> The subjects don't tend to wait around in good poses while the
> photographer changes lenses or switches cameras.

I understand the concept of capturing the opportunistic image, and just how
fleeting those opportunities are.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:21:37 -0700, Savageduck
> wrote:

>On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
>(in >):
>
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
>> > (in . com>):
>> >
>> > > On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
>> > > (in article >):
>> > >
>> > > > I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
>> > > > Got this street shot in the rain.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
>> > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
>> > >
>> > > Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the
>> > > subject
>> > > the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at the
>> > > image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no matter
>> > > how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.
>> > >
>> > > It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an
>> > > old
>> > > Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
>> > > questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
>> > > difference. A great opportunity wasted.
>> > >
>> > > It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your FF
>> > > Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400
>> > > there
>> > > was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)
>> >
>> > BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
>> > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg>
>>
>> You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest,
>> but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract,
>> in my opinion.
>
>Actually the noise does detract for me.

I am puzzled. I cannot see significant noise anywhere. Where do you
see it and what do you have to do to see it?

> It’s that taste, and opinion thing
>again.
>Why would I have to add something?
>The subject, and the capture of the moment speak for themselves, all that is
>needed is some denoising.
>>
>> A little - just a little - dodging of the face might have improved the
>> shot since her face seems to be a hidden asset in the shot. I'd like
>> to see more of her expression.
>
>I suppose a few tweaks would be in order.
>
>You would prefer something such as this?
><https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8urdthvbsgr3tm/20170617_1923LE.jpeg>
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill W]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:18:10 +1200, Eric Stevens
> wrote:

>I am puzzled. I cannot see significant noise anywhere. Where do you
>see it and what do you have to do to see it?

Zoom in.

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On Jun 24, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in >):

> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:21:37 -0700, Savageduck
> > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
> > (in >):
> >
> > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
> > > > (in . com>):
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
> > > > > (in article >):
> > > > >
> > > > > > I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
> > > > > > Got this street shot in the rain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
> > > > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
> > > > >
> > > > > Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the
> > > > > subject
> > > > > the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at
> > > > > the
> > > > > image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no
> > > > > matter
> > > > > how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.
> > > > >
> > > > > It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an
> > > > > old
> > > > > Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
> > > > > questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
> > > > > difference. A great opportunity wasted.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your
> > > > > FF
> > > > > Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400
> > > > > there
> > > > > was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)
> > > >
> > > > BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
> > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg>
> > >
> > > You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest,
> > > but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract,
> > > in my opinion.
> >
> > Actually the noise does detract for me.
>
> I am puzzled. I cannot see significant noise anywhere. Where do you
> see it and what do you have to do to see it?

The noise is very conspicuous. Peter even adresses it in his OP when he says,
“Yes, I know it’s grainy...�.

Are you looking at Peters original image #1, or are you looking at one of my
de-noised renditions?

>
> > It’s that taste, and opinion thing
> > again.
> > Why would I have to add something?
> > The subject, and the capture of the moment speak for themselves, all that is
> > needed is some denoising.
> > >
> > > A little - just a little - dodging of the face might have improved the
> > > shot since her face seems to be a hidden asset in the shot. I'd like
> > > to see more of her expression.
> >
> > I suppose a few tweaks would be in order.
> >
> > You would prefer something such as this?
> > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8urdthvbsgr3tm/20170617_1923LE.jpeg>

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[PeterN[_7_]]

On 6/24/2017 9:26 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
> (in >):
>
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:21:37 -0700, Savageduck
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
>>> (in >):
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
>>>>> (in . com>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
>>>>>>> Got this street shot in the rain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
>>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the
>>>>>> subject
>>>>>> the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no
>>>>>> matter
>>>>>> how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an
>>>>>> old
>>>>>> Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
>>>>>> questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
>>>>>> difference. A great opportunity wasted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your
>>>>>> FF
>>>>>> Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg>
>>>>
>>>> You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest,
>>>> but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract,
>>>> in my opinion.
>>>
>>> Actually the noise does detract for me.
>>
>> I am puzzled. I cannot see significant noise anywhere. Where do you
>> see it and what do you have to do to see it?
>
> The noise is very conspicuous. Peter even adresses it in his OP when he says,
> “Yes, I know it’s grainy...�.
>
> Are you looking at Peters original image #1, or are you looking at one of my
> de-noised renditions?
>
>>

I did not remove any noise, because I did not want to. Here is an image
from a nearby location taken on a different day. To me it's nothing but
a picture postcard.

<https://www.dropbox.com/s/zfnoczxji8vmryu/bow%20bridge.jpg?dl=0>

The faux color image, was processed by warming the RAW and the doing a
color channel switch. To my way of thinking one of the neat things about
photography is that there is no need for all of us to agree.

Having said that, when does photography end and digital art begin. Or
are we going back to the f64 discussions.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/esqa284w6tmxt7s/_DSC6534%20distorted%20and%20turned.jpg?dl=0>


--
PeterN

[PeterN[_7_]]

On 6/24/2017 12:23 AM, Bill W wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:30:51 -0400, PeterN
> > wrote:
>
>> I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
>> Got this street shot in the rain.
>>
>> Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
>
> I like this photo. At the same time, I never would have known there
> was any IR involved.
>

Thank you.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article >):

<<Snip>>
>
> I did not remove any noise, because I did not want to.

That’s OK if you could pass the noise off for grain. However, with that
image the noise does not have the quality or character of genuine grain, or
pseudo grain digitally produced by apps such as NIK Silver Efex Pro2, or
Exposure X2.

Anyway, it is your image. It is a great capture of a perfect moment, which
for me is spoilt by the noise issue.

> Here is an image from a nearby location taken on a different day. To me it's nothing but
> a picture postcard.
>
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/zfnoczxji8vmryu/bow%20bridge.jpg?dl=0>

Agreed. That is very much a postcard image. That said, sometimes postcard
images can be quite good.
>
> The faux color image, was processed by warming the RAW and the doing a
> color channel switch. To my way of thinking one of the neat things about
> photography is that there is no need for all of us to agree.

....and my response just proves that point.
>
> Having said that, when does photography end and digital art begin. Or
> are we going back to the f64 discussions.
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/esqa284w6tmxt7s/_DSC6534%20distorted%20and%20turned
> .jpg?dl=0>

Personal taste is the overriding factor here. That sort of image is not in my
photography wheelhouse, and is just way too gimmicky, and obviously heavily
stepped on with process for me.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[PeterN[_7_]]

On 6/24/2017 1:58 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:14:34 -0700, Savageduck
> > wrote:
>
>> On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
>> (in >):
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:21:37 -0700, Savageduck
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
>>>> (in >):
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
>>>>>> (in . com>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
>>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
>>>>>>>> Got this street shot in the rain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
>>>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the
>>>>>>> subject the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at
>>>>>>> the image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no
>>>>>>> matter how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an
>>>>>>> old Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
>>>>>>> questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
>>>>>>> difference. A great opportunity wasted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your
>>>>>>> FF Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400
>>>>>>> there was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg>
>>>>>
>>>>> You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest,
>>>>> but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract,
>>>>> in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Actually the noise does detract for me. It’s that taste, and opinion thing
>>>> again.
>>>> Why would I have to add something?
>>>
>>> A change in what was done adds a new view of the original. Not an
>>> object.
>>>
>>>> The subject, and the capture of the moment speak for themselves, all that is
>>>> needed is some denoising.
>>>>>
>>>>> A little - just a little - dodging of the face might have improved the
>>>>> shot since her face seems to be a hidden asset in the shot. I'd like
>>>>> to see more of her expression.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose a few tweaks would be in order.
>>>>
>>>> You would prefer something such as this?
>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8urdthvbsgr3tm/20170617_1923LE.jpeg>
>>>
>>> No, that's over-done, it shows what there but makes it too noticeable.
>>> Maybe that's because I knew what was there before. I might not have
>>> noticed it as much if this had been the first version.
>>
>> Oh well...
>>>
>>> Personally, I prefer letting the photographer present *his* image as
>>> he sees it. I've never viewed photography as a group effort.
>>
>> That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to
>> understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go
>> about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my
>> taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost,
>> mostly due to a poor choice in camera.
>
> It seems that what you are saying is that any image that does not meet
> with your approval is a "problem" image. I think there's a word for
> that.
>
> I don't know what Peter was up to that day, but I can understand going
> out with one camera and seeing what can be done with that camera that
> day. That's a rather good self-imposed challenge to any photographer.
>
> Years ago I went on a field trip with a pro photographer who made us
> use only a 50mm lens or, if we had only a zoom lens, we had to tape
> the lens at that setting. His instructions were to get the best
> photos possible with that lens. We probably had some lost
> opportunities because of lack of lens choice, but it was a good
> exercise in finding what would work under those conditions. I think
> Peter did exactly that.
>
> Peter could have carried the Coolpix, his Nikon, three lenses, his
> extension set, and still have "lost opportunities" in street shooting.
> The subjects don't tend to wait around in good poses while the
> photographer changes lenses or switches cameras.
>
You hit the nail on the head. The plan that day was to shoot nothing but
IR, and seeing what we would get. From a personal shooting point, I am
thinking of converting my D300 to IR, and if so which near IR do I like
best. When i put up the original image, I of course knew what the Duck's
comment would be.

--
PeterN

[PeterN[_7_]]

On 6/24/2017 10:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
> (in article >):
>
> <<Snip>>
>>
>> I did not remove any noise, because I did not want to.
>
> That’s OK if you could pass the noise off for grain. However, with that
> image the noise does not have the quality or character of genuine grain, or
> pseudo grain digitally produced by apps such as NIK Silver Efex Pro2, or
> Exposure X2.
>
> Anyway, it is your image. It is a great capture of a perfect moment, which
> for me is spoilt by the noise issue.
>
>> Here is an image from a nearby location taken on a different day. To me it's nothing but
>> a picture postcard.
>>
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/zfnoczxji8vmryu/bow%20bridge.jpg?dl=0>
>
> Agreed. That is very much a postcard image. That said, sometimes postcard
> images can be quite good.
>>
>> The faux color image, was processed by warming the RAW and the doing a
>> color channel switch. To my way of thinking one of the neat things about
>> photography is that there is no need for all of us to agree.
>
> ...and my response just proves that point.
>>
>> Having said that, when does photography end and digital art begin. Or
>> are we going back to the f64 discussions.
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/esqa284w6tmxt7s/_DSC6534%20distorted%20and%20turned
>> .jpg?dl=0>
>
> Personal taste is the overriding factor here. That sort of image is not in my
> photography wheelhouse, and is just way too gimmicky, and obviously heavily
> stepped on with process for me.
>

Different personal tastes makes life far more interesting. When we first
moved into our co-op management wanted everybody to have exactly the
same flowers in front on the house. (Begonias.) I fully complied and
planted Rieger, Picotee and Rose Begonias, even though everybody else
planted ordinary wax begonias. Our idiot board didn't know they were
begonias, and the sent me a nasty letter of non-compliance. I simply
sent a catalog page. That was the end of uniform planting.





--
PeterN

[PeterN[_6_]]

On 6/24/2017 1:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:


<snip>

>
> That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to
> understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go
> about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my
> taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost,
> mostly due to a poor choice in camera.
>

As I stated earlier, the object of the shoot, which had ben planned a
few weeks earlier, was to shoot IR. I used what I have. Whatever
happened, we would shoot it. Yes we did have a model, but I was not at
all happy with our model shoots.



--
PeterN

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article >):

> On 6/24/2017 1:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to
> > understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go
> > about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my
> > taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost,
> > mostly due to a poor choice in camera.
>
> As I stated earlier, the object of the shoot, which had ben planned a
> few weeks earlier, was to shoot IR. I used what I have. Whatever
> happened, we would shoot it. Yes we did have a model, but I was not at
> all happy with our model shoots.

You had a model!
So this wasn’t exactly street, or candid photography, but an
arranged/planned club, or whatever outing. Now did you say you were not happy
with the groups’ model shots, does that mean the girl in your image
wasn’t a model?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:26:17 -0700, Savageduck
> wrote:

>On Jun 24, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
>(in >):
>
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:21:37 -0700, Savageduck
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
>> > (in >):
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
>> > > > (in . com>):
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
>> > > > > (in article >):
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
>> > > > > > Got this street shot in the rain.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
>> > > > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the
>> > > > > subject
>> > > > > the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no
>> > > > > matter
>> > > > > how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an
>> > > > > old
>> > > > > Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
>> > > > > questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
>> > > > > difference. A great opportunity wasted.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your
>> > > > > FF
>> > > > > Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400
>> > > > > there
>> > > > > was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)
>> > > >
>> > > > BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
>> > > > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg>
>> > >
>> > > You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest,
>> > > but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract,
>> > > in my opinion.
>> >
>> > Actually the noise does detract for me.
>>
>> I am puzzled. I cannot see significant noise anywhere. Where do you
>> see it and what do you have to do to see it?
>
>The noise is very conspicuous. Peter even adresses it in his OP when he says,
>“Yes, I know it’s grainy...”.

He also said he anticipated your criticism. In fact, the noise only
becomes conspicuous at 100% although if you peer you can see it at
66%. At 53% the image has a texture comparable with the output of a
35mm camera.
>
>Are you looking at Peters original image #1, or are you looking at one of my
>de-noised renditions?

Looking at the original. I agree that de-noising is an improvement but
then the same applies to many famous B&W shots from the past.
>
>>
>> > It’s that taste, and opinion thing
>> > again.
>> > Why would I have to add something?
>> > The subject, and the capture of the moment speak for themselves, all that is
>> > needed is some denoising.
>> > >
>> > > A little - just a little - dodging of the face might have improved the
>> > > shot since her face seems to be a hidden asset in the shot. I'd like
>> > > to see more of her expression.
>> >
>> > I suppose a few tweaks would be in order.
>> >
>> > You would prefer something such as this?
>> > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8urdthvbsgr3tm/20170617_1923LE.jpeg>
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 07:46:20 -0700, Savageduck
> wrote:

>On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
>(in article >):
>
><<Snip>>
>>
>> I did not remove any noise, because I did not want to.
>
>That’s OK if you could pass the noise off for grain. However, with that
>image the noise does not have the quality or character of genuine grain, or
>pseudo grain digitally produced by apps such as NIK Silver Efex Pro2, or
>Exposure X2.
>
>Anyway, it is your image. It is a great capture of a perfect moment, which
>for me is spoilt by the noise issue.

But grain is but another form of noise, inherent in the film
technology. It has become so accepted that in many cases it is now
regarded as an essential part of the image. Why should digital noise
be considered unacceptable and chemical be considered desirable?
>
>> Here is an image from a nearby location taken on a different day. To me it's nothing but
>> a picture postcard.
>>
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/zfnoczxji8vmryu/bow%20bridge.jpg?dl=0>
>
>Agreed. That is very much a postcard image. That said, sometimes postcard
>images can be quite good.
>>
>> The faux color image, was processed by warming the RAW and the doing a
>> color channel switch. To my way of thinking one of the neat things about
>> photography is that there is no need for all of us to agree.
>
>...and my response just proves that point.

ditto. :-)
>>
>> Having said that, when does photography end and digital art begin. Or
>> are we going back to the f64 discussions.
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/esqa284w6tmxt7s/_DSC6534%20distorted%20and%20turned.jpg?dl=0>
>
>Personal taste is the overriding factor here. That sort of image is not in my
>photography wheelhouse, and is just way too gimmicky, and obviously heavily
>stepped on with process for me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN[_7_]]

On 6/24/2017 4:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> On 6/24/2017 1:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to
>>> understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go
>>> about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my
>>> taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost,
>>> mostly due to a poor choice in camera.
>>
>> As I stated earlier, the object of the shoot, which had ben planned a
>> few weeks earlier, was to shoot IR. I used what I have. Whatever
>> happened, we would shoot it. Yes we did have a model, but I was not at
>> all happy with our model shoots.
>
> You had a model!
> So this wasn’t exactly street, or candid photography, but an
> arranged/planned club, or whatever outing. Now did you say you were not happy
> with the groups’ model shots, does that mean the girl in your image
> wasn’t a model?
>

The girls in my posted image shots were not models. Yes, We had a model,
but few of us were happy with the results. No model shots have been
posted, and most likely will be deleted,m at least by me.

--
PeterN

[PeterN[_7_]]

On 6/24/2017 6:38 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 15:53:47 -0400, PeterN >
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2017 1:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to
>>> understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go
>>> about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my
>>> taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost,
>>> mostly due to a poor choice in camera.
>>>
>>
>> As I stated earlier, the object of the shoot, which had ben planned a
>> few weeks earlier, was to shoot IR. I used what I have. Whatever
>> happened, we would shoot it. Yes we did have a model, but I was not at
>> all happy with our model shoots.
>
> Was this a Deb Sandidge outing?
>

No. But had she been available, it might have been.

--
PeterN

[PeterN[_7_]]

On 6/25/2017 3:57 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 June 2017 12:30:57 UTC-4, PeterN wrote:
>> On 6/24/2017 1:58 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:14:34 -0700, Savageduck
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
>>>> (in >):
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:21:37 -0700, Savageduck
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
>>>>>> (in >):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
>>>>>>>> (in . com>):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
>>>>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
>>>>>>>>>> Got this street shot in the rain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the
>>>>>>>>> subject the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at
>>>>>>>>> the image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no
>>>>>>>>> matter how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an
>>>>>>>>> old Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
>>>>>>>>> questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
>>>>>>>>> difference. A great opportunity wasted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your
>>>>>>>>> FF Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400
>>>>>>>>> there was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
>>>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest,
>>>>>>> but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract,
>>>>>>> in my opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually the noise does detract for me. It’s that taste, and opinion thing
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>> Why would I have to add something?
>>>>>
>>>>> A change in what was done adds a new view of the original. Not an
>>>>> object.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The subject, and the capture of the moment speak for themselves, all that is
>>>>>> needed is some denoising.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A little - just a little - dodging of the face might have improved the
>>>>>>> shot since her face seems to be a hidden asset in the shot. I'd like
>>>>>>> to see more of her expression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose a few tweaks would be in order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would prefer something such as this?
>>>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8urdthvbsgr3tm/20170617_1923LE.jpeg>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's over-done, it shows what there but makes it too noticeable.
>>>>> Maybe that's because I knew what was there before. I might not have
>>>>> noticed it as much if this had been the first version.
>>>>
>>>> Oh well...
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I prefer letting the photographer present *his* image as
>>>>> he sees it. I've never viewed photography as a group effort.
>>>>
>>>> That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to
>>>> understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go
>>>> about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my
>>>> taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost,
>>>> mostly due to a poor choice in camera.
>>>
>>> It seems that what you are saying is that any image that does not meet
>>> with your approval is a "problem" image. I think there's a word for
>>> that.
>>>
>>> I don't know what Peter was up to that day, but I can understand going
>>> out with one camera and seeing what can be done with that camera that
>>> day. That's a rather good self-imposed challenge to any photographer.
>>>
>>> Years ago I went on a field trip with a pro photographer who made us
>>> use only a 50mm lens or, if we had only a zoom lens, we had to tape
>>> the lens at that setting. His instructions were to get the best
>>> photos possible with that lens. We probably had some lost
>>> opportunities because of lack of lens choice, but it was a good
>>> exercise in finding what would work under those conditions. I think
>>> Peter did exactly that.
>>>
>>> Peter could have carried the Coolpix, his Nikon, three lenses, his
>>> extension set, and still have "lost opportunities" in street shooting.
>>> The subjects don't tend to wait around in good poses while the
>>> photographer changes lenses or switches cameras.
>>>
>> You hit the nail on the head. The plan that day was to shoot nothing but
>> IR, and seeing what we would get. From a personal shooting point, I am
>> thinking of converting my D300 to IR, and if so which near IR do I like
>> best. When i put up the original image, I of course knew what the Duck's
>> comment would be.
>>
>> --
>> PeterN
>
> It's a tough choice here.
> -Convert to an over-sensor IR filter, you can use a DSLR viewfinder still, but are restricted to black and white IR and only at the bandpass that particular filter allows.
> -Convert to a transparent over-sensor filter and use on-lens IR filters, you need a hotshoe viewfinder to "aim" the camera since you can't see through the filter to aim or focus. But at least you can vary the wavelenghts of the IR filters (750-1000+ nm). Also, you can shoot colour IR by leaving a lens filter off. Also, old manual lenses tend to work best with IR owing to their passing more IR light than new lenses, so "zone" focusing using the lens distance scale becomes important.
>

Indeed there are a lot of considerations in doing an IR conversion. You
have mentioned just some of them. The least expensive way would be to
buy a filter, compose and focus then mount it in front of the lens for
shooting. But that is not what I want to do.


--
PeterN