Photo I took of my wife...

in the Edison Hotel.

This year

100% unedited other than being greatly reduced for posting


https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...26&oe=54B6E201



another one of my wife taken this year in our home

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...40825681_o.jpg


again 100% unedited other than reduction.

sunset

On 2014-10-17 14:28:20 +0000, philoÂ* said:

in the Edison Hotel.

This year

100% unedited other than being greatly reduced for posting


https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...26&oe=54B6E201

It

seems that you were aiming over the top of her head to the left, as her
face is OoF. Also your camera position with you standing over her makes
for a tad awkward pose. Better that you had come down some and she was
not looking up at you.

another one of my wife taken this year in our home

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...40825681_o.jpg

Here

the shot is ruined by bad lighting and shadows, with the result not
being particularly flattering. Once again you are shooting down at her.

again 100% unedited other than reduction.

sunset

For claiming that you take meticulous care in preparing for capturing
an image with regard to composition, and getting exposure right in
camera, you have managed to present us with two shots which don't come
anywhere close to that ideal.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/17/2014 10:21 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:28:20 -0500, philo wrote:

in the Edison Hotel.

This year

100% unedited other than being greatly reduced for posting


https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...26&oe=54B6E201


If there has been no editing, then you must have focused on the jacket
and not her face. The face, especially around the eyes, seems a bit
blurry. I would have attributed this to a very shallow depth of
field, but the green chair is too sharp for this to be the case.



snip


Correct, women over a certain age seem to prefer it that way.

50 years, wow! Happy Anniversary to you. I've got 17 years to go
before I celebrate that one and at the time I hope you are around to
celebrate your 67th.


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:28:20 -0500, philo wrote:

in the Edison Hotel.

This year

100% unedited other than being greatly reduced for posting


https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...26&oe=54B6E201


If there has been no editing, then you must have focused on the jacket
and not her face. The face, especially around the eyes, seems a bit
blurry. I would have attributed this to a very shallow depth of
field, but the green chair is too sharp for this to be the case.

The photo does give the impression that your wife has a good sense of
humor in being willing to pose this way. As a person who is
celebrating his 50th Wedding Anniversary today, I consider that a
necessary characteristic for a successful marriage.


another one of my wife taken this year in our home

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...40825681_o.jpg


again 100% unedited other than reduction.

sunset

I think I'd bin that one.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:21:47 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:28:20 -0500, philo* wrote:
:
: in the Edison Hotel.
:
: This year
:
: 100% unedited other than being greatly reduced for posting
:
:
: https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...26&oe=54B6E201
:
:
: If there has been no editing, then you must have focused on the jacket
: and not her face. The face, especially around the eyes, seems a bit
: blurry. I would have attributed this to a very shallow depth of
: field, but the green chair is too sharp for this to be the case.

I wondered about that too. The best I can come up with is a deep depth of
field but rather substantially backfocussed.

: The photo does give the impression that your wife has a good sense of
: humor in being willing to pose this way.

I dunno. I think it's pretty good of her, just technically flawed.

: As a person who is celebrating his 50th Wedding Anniversary today,
: I consider that a necessary characteristic for a successful marriage.

Congratulations, Tony!! My wife and I recently began our 49th year, so we're
more or less right behing ya!

: another one of my wife taken this year in our home
:
: https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...40825681_o.jpg
:
:
: again 100% unedited other than reduction.
:
: sunset
:
: I think I'd bin that one.

Naa. With that one, Philo's just practicing for Halloween. His wife will
understand. :^)

Bob

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:39:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2014-10-17 14:28:20 +0000, philo* said:
:
: in the Edison Hotel.
:
: This year
:
: 100% unedited other than being greatly reduced for posting
:
:
: https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...26&oe=54B6E201
:
:
: It seems that you were aiming over the top of her head to the left,
: as her face is OoF. Also your camera position with you standing over
: her makes for a tad awkward pose. Better that you had come down some
: and she was not looking up at you.

I don't think you'd say that if her face were in focus and the background were
suitably blurred. She has a nice expression, and the fact that she's looking
up at him works, IMO.

I might have tweaked the white balance a bit, though. I think the orange cast
is too strong when you can see it in the beadwork on her jacket.

Bob

On 10/17/2014 06:27 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:39:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2014-10-17 14:28:20 +0000, philo said:
:
: in the Edison Hotel.
:
: This year
:
: 100% unedited other than being greatly reduced for posting
:
:
: https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...26&oe=54B6E201
:
:
: It seems that you were aiming over the top of her head to the left,
: as her face is OoF. Also your camera position with you standing over
: her makes for a tad awkward pose. Better that you had come down some
: and she was not looking up at you.

I don't think you'd say that if her face were in focus and the background were
suitably blurred. She has a nice expression, and the fact that she's looking
up at him works, IMO.

I might have tweaked the white balance a bit, though. I think the orange cast
is too strong when you can see it in the beadwork on her jacket.

Bob



Well it's kind of a funny thing. I don't usually believe too much in
photo editing...though I of course do it if necessary,

Some of the folks here take decent enough photos...but /in my opinion/
tend to over-process them.

Anyway I posted those photos (which are just snapshots for my own
records)...just to illustrate the different effects one can
get...without using Photoshop.

I then headed out to the show I was hosting.


I brought my G1-X with me to lend to the photographer who was taking
photos of the event. His camera died...so I thought I better bring
something...however that base was taken when I got there and he did not
need to bother it.

Since I had the camera with me I also took a few shots of the
photographers in front of their work...and got one good one in
particular. After I got home I noticed that on my favorite shot, there
was a lot of glare from one of the framed photos in my image.


So right after I got done announcing here that I don't usually do any
appreciable photo editing...I have a photo that...yep ...I am going to
have to do a lot of work on!

On 10/17/2014 06:12 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:21:47 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:28:20 -0500, philo wrote:
:
: in the Edison Hotel.
:
: This year
:
: 100% unedited other than being greatly reduced for posting
:
:
: https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...26&oe=54B6E201
:
:
: If there has been no editing, then you must have focused on the jacket
: and not her face. The face, especially around the eyes, seems a bit
: blurry. I would have attributed this to a very shallow depth of
: field, but the green chair is too sharp for this to be the case.

I wondered about that too. The best I can come up with is a deep depth of
field but rather substantially backfocussed.

: The photo does give the impression that your wife has a good sense of
: humor in being willing to pose this way.

I dunno. I think it's pretty good of her, just technically flawed.

: As a person who is celebrating his 50th Wedding Anniversary today,
: I consider that a necessary characteristic for a successful marriage.

Congratulations, Tony!! My wife and I recently began our 49th year, so we're
more or less right behing ya!

: another one of my wife taken this year in our home
:
: https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...40825681_o.jpg
:
:
: again 100% unedited other than reduction.
:
: sunset
:
: I think I'd bin that one.

Big mistake to do that! My wife loves it and I took it for her not you.

Naa. With that one, Philo's just practicing for Halloween. His wife will
understand. :^)

Bob


Yep , her name is Colleen and I call this photo Colloween..

BTW none of these images are anything I'd put in a show,
just snapshots I did for my own fun


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...bf14ac8ce74d8c

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 02:43:44 -0500, philo* wrote:
: On 10/17/2014 06:27 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:39:44 -0700, Savageduck
: wrote:
: : On 2014-10-17 14:28:20 +0000, philo said:
: :
: : in the Edison Hotel.
: :
: : This year
: :
: : 100% unedited other than being greatly reduced for posting
: :
: :
: : https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...26&oe=54B6E201
: :
: :
: : It seems that you were aiming over the top of her head to the left,
: : as her face is OoF. Also your camera position with you standing over
: : her makes for a tad awkward pose. Better that you had come down some
: : and she was not looking up at you.
:
: I don't think you'd say that if her face were in focus and the background were
: suitably blurred. She has a nice expression, and the fact that she's looking
: up at him works, IMO.
:
: I might have tweaked the white balance a bit, though. I think the orange cast
: is too strong when you can see it in the beadwork on her jacket.
:
: Bob
:
:
:
: Well it's kind of a funny thing. I don't usually believe too much in
: photo editing...though I of course do it if necessary,
:
: Some of the folks here take decent enough photos...but /in my opinion/
: tend to over-process them.
:
: Anyway I posted those photos (which are just snapshots for my own
: records)...just to illustrate the different effects one can
: get...without using Photoshop.
:
: I then headed out to the show I was hosting.
:
:
: I brought my G1-X with me to lend to the photographer who was taking
: photos of the event. His camera died...so I thought I better bring
: something...however that base was taken when I got there and he did not
: need to bother it.
:
: Since I had the camera with me I also took a few shots of the
: photographers in front of their work...and got one good one in
: particular. After I got home I noticed that on my favorite shot, there
: was a lot of glare from one of the framed photos in my image.
:
:
: So right after I got done announcing here that I don't usually do any
: appreciable photo editing...I have a photo that...yep ...I am going to
: have to do a lot of work on!

Sometimes that's just how it is. And I know from experience that photographing
exhibits can be very tricky.

But I agree that some photographers habitually overedit their pictures. There
are two or three in this group who do it, and everybody knows who they are.
They'd argue that they're just exercising their artistic judgement, and they'd
be right. But overediting often results in a strikingly unnatural look that
some viewers find off-putting. My view is that sometimes the overediting works
and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it has no net artistic effect and is
merely a waste of time. And occasionally I do it myself - although never with
the commitment of effort and seriousness of purpose of a true Photoshoppe
zealot. :^)

But simple things like cropping, adjusting brightness and contrast, or
tweaking the white balance don't constitute overediting, IMO, and I see no
reason to hesitate to do those.

Bob

On 10/18/2014 07:05 AM, Robert Coe wrote:



snip

Sometimes that's just how it is. And I know from experience that photographing
exhibits can be very tricky.

But I agree that some photographers habitually overedit their pictures. There
are two or three in this group who do it, and everybody knows who they are.
They'd argue that they're just exercising their artistic judgement, and they'd
be right. But overediting often results in a strikingly unnatural look that
some viewers find off-putting. My view is that sometimes the overediting works
and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it has no net artistic effect and is
merely a waste of time. And occasionally I do it myself - although never with
the commitment of effort and seriousness of purpose of a true Photoshoppe
zealot. :^)

But simple things like cropping, adjusting brightness and contrast, or
tweaking the white balance don't constitute overediting, IMO, and I see no
reason to hesitate to do those.

Bob



I completely agree with you...
and I also realize their are a lot of philosophies behind this and there
are plenty of good reasons to do extensive Photoshop work which are too
long to go into here.


If the photo is properly taken in the first place (which I do every once
in a while) it should need no more than a few minor tweaks. Most of the
photos that I exhibit spent no more than a minute or so in a photo editor.

My specialty is low light and since the color rendition is usually so
poor I also need to convert to gray-scale or sepia.

Here is an example of perhaps the most extreme editing I've done. I call
this one "Electric" :


https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...00&oe=54E9C154



The original looks rather mundane, so I electronically solarized it in
GIMP. That's all I did and it took me just a few seconds to do.

FWIW: It was my biggest seller and I've made some money from it.

In my 40+ year "career" only within the past few years have I sold
anything at all.