What is wrong with this image?

[jimmyd]

Originally Posted by christian

As to your runny little pile of bullshyt about film - you might look around at the biggest shooters on the planet. We do gather in small groups... usually in editor's offices. Almost all of the biggest shooters are still using film... and since you don't know why... I'll let you educate yourself. What you don't know IS hurting you. If you can't make a strong image on slide film - you're not a photographer... you're a photoshopper.

just cuz they're the most successful shooters doesn't mean they have a clue why they're still shooting chromes other than equally clueless editors insist on it. The vast majority of chromes that are shot by that elite group are then scanned into digital files and photoshopped to the same degree as the stuff originating digitally. from that perspective, they all, ultimately, become digital files and whether the images began as chromes or digital files the differences between them have become less substantial. in fact, there's good arguments that say high-end digital trumps film in resolution these days, albeit film still trumps handling contrast.

[christian]

Originally Posted by jimmyd

just cuz they're the most successful shooters doesn't mean they have a clue why they're still shooting chromes other than equally clueless editors insist on it. The vast majority of chromes that are shot by that elite group are then scanned into digital files and photoshopped to the same degree as the stuff originating digitally. from that perspective, they all, ultimately, become digital files and whether the images began as chromes or digital files the differences between them have become less substantial. in fact, there's good arguments that say high-end digital trumps film in resolution these days, albeit film still trumps handling contrast.

You're not really under that impression are you? That they're all clueless? You don't really believe that an image coming out of a D2X is the same as a 6X7 scanned to a 100+meg file... or that the basic color profiles in a digi are the same as film - do you? Does that mean that Bruce, Patrick, Gilles, Peter... just have never had someone thrust a 1DS Mark III in their hands... or that Anna Wintour doesn't know the difference? I'm sure I just read that wrong.

Further, the arguement was that film shooters should... what was it? Oh yes, about film shooters... " the only ones left are the fanatics (who should meet in little groups, somewhat ashamed of their obsessions)." Now I've got some balls, but I wouldn't dare to say the same of the large format shooters who came before me and are still working with them.

Now if your position is to defend those who don't really understand the basics of photography - and shouldn't care to... let me know. If you agree that " The point is the image created, not the process of creating it." ( aka: enjoy the luck shot ) and that Auto clicking is being the best photographer you can be... let me know. If you don't think that learning to make a proper exposure will aide in a photographer's development... again, I'll side against you. I just don't think you're that guy. I don't think you believe that... do you?

christian

[TCProd]

I'm not going to venture into the film vs. digital debate. Yes, my sixth grade teacher showed me how to mix up a Kodak Tri-Chem Pack and I spent the next 30 years in one darkroom or another. Yes, we learned the basics -- the hard way -- trial and error and books. There was no WWW back then. Oh how I wish I could have just asked the question on a forum back then. I would be a much better shooter today.

But I would hope that in this community, when the OP asks a question requiring some basics, we would try to answer rather than just saying "learn the basics." (And some have.) Perhaps he is here to learn the basics. He (and everyone else in this thread I noticed) have invested cash in this forum, and it deserves a better reply than "Look it up."

I'm not trying to be the white knight here, and Igor is perfectly capable of standing on his own, but when I see responses like some of them, I wonder, if you're not going to help (and "learn the basics" isn't help) why answer at all?

[jimmyd]

Originally Posted by christian

You're not really under that impression are you? That they're all clueless? You don't really believe that an image coming out of a D2X is the same as a 6X7 scanned to a 100+meg file... or that the basic color profiles in a digi are the same as film - do you? Does that mean that Bruce, Patrick, Gilles, Peter... just have never had someone thrust a 1DS Mark III in their hands... or that Anna Wintour doesn't know the difference? I'm sure I just read that wrong.

I think the end-use of the image should dictate the technology required to produce that image. Do I think images bound for the pages of many rags need to be captured large format and scanned to a 100+ meg file? No, i don't. How about images headed for a gallery exhibition or billboard-sized use? Different matter. I also don't believe there's a plethora of photo editors who are all that technologically savvy. There are so many factors going into the choice of the (supposed) optimum recording medium for one specific use over another, elitism being ranked as high as technical pros and cons, it would take a book to cover them all.

Originally Posted by christian

Further, the arguement was that film shooters should... what was it? Oh yes, about film shooters... " the only ones left are the fanatics (who should meet in little groups, somewhat ashamed of their obsessions)." Now I've got some balls, but I wouldn't dare to say the same of the large format shooters who came before me and are still working with them.

again, i'll refer back to what i wrote above. simply put, the right tool for the job is the right tool for the job. There are very good reasons for shooting film and there are very good reasons for shooting digital and those reasons for each don't apply to every project. btw, how many of those shooters you mentioned above use alien bees? Probably none. Could they produce exceptional images with bees? I'm sure they could. Will that change them from using their current brand of light to alien bees? i doubt it.

Originally Posted by christian

Now if your position is to defend those who don't really understand the basics of photography - and shouldn't care to... let me know. If you agree that " The point is the image created, not the process of creating it." ( aka: enjoy the luck shot ) and that Auto clicking is being the best photographer you can be... let me know. If you don't think that learning to make a proper exposure will aide in a photographer's development... again, I'll side against you. I just don't think you're that guy. I don't think you believe that... do you?

christian

you're right. i'm not that guy. i've railed against such notions, on my blog, numerous times. in fact, just yesterday i wrote about something that covers a little bit of what you're talking about... some things you recently wrote, here on G1, are what motivated me to write about it. I'm a firm believer in paying ones dues... and learning ones craft is at the top of that dues-paying list.

keep challenging people, dude. it's refreshing.

[CatCynic]

Well, Christian, it's clear that you believe yourself to be stratospherically far above us. Perhaps you should go associate with your equals, and spare us your bile? You have no interest in helping people - you are just looking for opportunities to enjoy yourself deriding others. A real coach provides specific advice, not generic abuse.

----

Further to the discussion of digital, I suggest that shooting digital is an excellent way to learn more, and faster, even if one were to use film later. There is a considerable delay between shooting film and seeing the results, and this inhibits its use as a learning too. Moreover, one can shoot a long experimental sequence of shots using digital, some that can become expensive using film.

Taking the image of the Statue of Liberty, generously provided by our OP, as our example, we could shoot it with a variety of settings, and look at the results on a laptop (or at home in the evening). How to get the various settings? Try using Aperture Priority first, and take a series of shots of the same scene at different apertures: go from the lowest aperture number you have up to the highest - it doesn't take all that long to click through them all, and you don't have to worry about the cost (it's not like we're shooting film, after all!). While doing that, keep an eye on the shutter speed that is used with the various apertures. Then try using Manual mode, so you can combine a range of aperture settings with various shutter speeds - if you use a mid-range aperture (say f/8 or f/16) and try a variety of shutter speeds you can get a series of images ranging from horribly under-exposed through to ridiculously over-exposed. These are useful, not just as a learning tool in themselves, but also when practicing in PhotoShop in how to rescue a mis-exposed image. Also good for learning about the histograms, and recognising what the problem with an image may be.

Try another sequence using different metering modes - when using the partial and spot metering modes, make sure to try metering different parts of the scene (it is helpful, when doing this, to set your auto-focus point to the centre - it keeps things unambiguous).

One last series that can give interesting results is to use fully automatic mode, and run through the possible ISO settings - go as high as the camera can go (3200, perhaps). Looking at the same scene in different ISOs can also be illuminating.

This kind of experimentation is easy and essentially free when you are using a digital camera. It's also easy to see which settings lead to what results - the EXIF information recorded on each image tells you. This is one of the main reasons why I consider digital a much better learning tool than film. You can do the same thing with film, but it's more expensive, and you must keep meticulous notes on what settings were used for each frame.

[christian]

Originally Posted by TCProd

I'm not going to venture into the film vs. digital debate. Yes, my sixth grade teacher showed me how to mix up a Kodak Tri-Chem Pack and I spent the next 30 years in one darkroom or another. Yes, we learned the basics -- the hard way -- trial and error and books. There was no WWW back then. Oh how I wish I could have just asked the question on a forum back then. I would be a much better shooter today.

But I would hope that in this community, when the OP asks a question requiring some basics, we would try to answer rather than just saying "learn the basics." (And some have.) Perhaps he is here to learn the basics. He (and everyone else in this thread I noticed) have invested cash in this forum, and it deserves a better reply than "Look it up."

I'm not trying to be the white knight here, and Igor is perfectly capable of standing on his own, but when I see responses like some of them, I wonder, if you're not going to help (and "learn the basics" isn't help) why answer at all?

Now we're getting somewhere. " Learn the basics, " is the best way to help someone learn.

I give some of the most valuable information on this forum, but I need a reference point. I need a starting point.

Have you ever given directions to someone so they could find you? Isn't your first question, " Where are you coming from?" If neither of you know where they are - you can't even start. So you start by telling them to find something like a street sign... don't you?

An " Auto Shooter " has as much chance of improving as a person asking directions to you... that doesn't know where he is. You might help him " correct " one image, but the problem still exists... and the best he can do is " correct " again and again. The "basics" is like giving someone a gps. They know where they're starting and how to get where they're going. And if they don't, at least they have a reference point so that others can help them. The basics is the language we speak. You're not helping someone by correcting their mistakes - you help them when you teach them to avoid the mistakes. If you think that their " cash investment " is better served by bullshyting them and patting them on the back - you're sorely mistaken.

Some people love the way I teach - others hate it. Today, I love the teachers I used to hate... and for the same reasons.

[RonC]

OK,so Iam bored as hell,...I took the liberty of copying your photo into CS2 to play with.

I'm guessing you were facing S-SE, late afternoon, and snapped the shot with the sun behind a cloud, judging by the soft shadows on the front of building? Did you have the lens hood on?

Looking at the exif info, the first thing I see, is Spot Metering, which to me seems wrong for the scene,...Auto Exposure seemed to do ok,...W/B.., the clouds are white...And the histogram looks pretty good.

I suggest increasing the contrast, saturation, and sharpness settings in your camera for outside shots, as a couple of the other replies indicated.

In CS2, I used curves, unsharp mask, saturation, and Transform/Perspective, to straighten up the verticles some, and Shadows/Highlights, which brought out details in dark areas.
This is from a rank amature, so take with a helping of salt,
FWIW, I like the shot,..keep shooting!

[christian]

I enjoy reading your posts too Jimmy.

Originally Posted by CatCynic

Well, Christian, it's clear that you believe yourself to stratospherically far above us. Perhaps you should go associate with your equals, and spare us your bile? You have no interest in helping people - you are just looking for opportunities to enjoy yourself deriding others. A real coach provides specific advice, not generic abuse.

----

Further to the discussion of digital, I suggest that shooting digital is an excellent way to learn more, and faster, even if one were to use film later. There is a considerable delay between shooting film and seeing the results, and this inhibits its use as a learning too. Moreover, one can shoot a long experimental sequence of shots using digital, some that can become expensive using film.

Taking the image of the Statue of Liberty, generously provided by our OP, as our example, we could shoot it with a variety of settings, and look at the results on a laptop (or at home in the evening). How to get the various settings? Try using Aperture Priority first, and take a series of shots of the same scene at different apertures: go from the lowest aperture number you have up to the highest - it doesn't take all that long to click through them all, and you don't have to worry about the cost (it's not like we're shooting film, after all!). While doing that, keep an eye on the shutter speed that is used with the various apertures. Then try using Manual mode, so you can combine a range of aperture settings with various shutter speeds - if you use a mid-range aperture (say f/8 or f/16) and try a variety of shutter speeds you can get a series of images ranging from horribly under-exposed through to ridiculously over-exposed. These are useful, not just as a learning tool in themselves, but also when practicing in PhotoShop in how to rescue a mis-exposed image. Also good for learning about the histograms, and recognising what the problem with an image may be.

Try another sequence using different metering modes - when using the partial and spot metering modes, make sure to try metering different parts of the scene (it is helpful, when doing this, to set your auto-focus point to the centre - it keeps things unambiguous).

One last series that can give interesting results is to use fully automatic mode, and run through the possible ISO settings - go as high as the camera can go (3200, perhaps). Looking at the same scene in different ISOs can also be illuminating.

This kind of experimentation is easy and essentially free when you are using a digital camera. It's also easy to see which settings lead to what results - the EXIF information recorded on each image tells you. This is one of the main reasons why I consider digital a much better learning tool than film. You can do the same thing with film, but it's more expensive, and you must keep meticulous notes on what settings were used for each frame.

Now come on toots... don't fall apart on me already. We're just starting.

There's a big difference between us... and I'm gonna clue you in as to what that thing is. I know what I'm shooting before the shoot starts. I decide before I pick up the camera how fast it needs to be, how much depth I'll allow, what film/digital profile will work best for it, where the model will be, what she'll be wearing, how her make-up will look, how the background will be lit, etc... I decide because I'm not just thinking about one image. I'm thinking through a series of images - and they don't just tie themselves together - I have to connect them ( I hope one day you know why ). When I set out with the shot in my head, I don't need many frames to get it.

I teach that method. Think through the image - rather than click and hope. See it in your head - then look at the film. Do they match? If they do - you are controlling your camera. If you click and hope for "something," you might get "something," but how much is you and how much is Canon? In my opinion, "Paint by numbers " isn't the same thing as starting with a blank canvas? I'm not as impressed by someone singing karaoke as the person who wrote the music and lyrics? My point is this: I MAKE THE IMAGE - I don't take pictures. Priority features are meant to enhance and speed up people who understand what they're doing... they're not meant to control the shoot.

If you think that teaching this method makes me a snob - you're right, you're not in my league. You're not even playing the same game.

[ffppro]

Originally Posted by RonC

Did you have the lens hood on?

OMG! How could I have been so stupid! What a difference the hood makes! THANK YOU!

To everyone else:

Thank you all for some great feedback, especially Mr. Smith for the technical details that I really needed to know.

For some background, I have been shooting film since I was 12 Years old, with an old Russian Leica Rangefinder knock off. For years I shot only B&W and my own Lab work, since I had no 1hr photo labs in Russia. When I finally started shooting color (not until I moved to the US), I started using professional labs to develop for me, since I had no clew how to work with color. This was great, because all my PP was done for me. At this time I was shooting with an old Leika IIIc rangefinder, because I could not afford anything modern.

I started shooting digital in 2003 with an Olympus DSLR (cant remember the model) that my wife got me as a gift, and never looked back. The only problem I have with digital is that I am terrible with photoshop / raw processors / etc, and I so miss the photo lab doing the PP for me.

So for those of you that made the comments that I should learn by going back to old school, I did my grunt work over the past 30 years. Maybe I never became the great photographer that I wanted to, but I have shot my tens of thousands of pictures over the years with a fully manual camera, and LOVE the convenience of the modern digital bodies. What I really need now is to learn how to get it right in digital, and how to PP the images. I hate Photoshop, because I just don't get it. I tried Nikon NX, Capture One, among others for Raw processing, but again, I just cant get it right, and it's frustrating.

I use Aperture to store and organize my images. I also do light PP in it to adjust exposure, highlights, shadows, saturation and cropping, but that is it. I am a very technical person. I am a CIO of a pretty large firm, and have been working with computers my whole life, but I just don't get digital PP.

I am here to learn, I have spent my entire life learning photography, and I don't appreciate people bashing me before getting some background.

I love the feedback that I get from some of you guys, because you really do know what you are talking about, and I want to thank you all for that.

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by ffppro

I hate Photoshop, because I just don't get it. ... I just don't get digital PP.

I will skip suggesting a few good books and suggest taking a hands-on class. Not just a few hours at some seminar but a real, semester long class. Many community colleges have photography or art departments that have clases on Photoshop.

I was at our local monthly Photo Salon meeting last week where a member who is a very experienced and talanted film shooter was asking some very basic questions about digital processing. Attempts by people to describe how to do what he wanted left an obvious look of confusion on his face. Fortunately, I had my computer in my car that night, so I took him aside and showed him in about 3 minutes what several people had not been able to explain in 15 minutes and he had not been able to figure out on his own in a few hours. Sometimes, people need to see it happen, hear the explanation and be able to ask questions simultaneously to learn something unfamiliar.

That being said, if there are specific things that you just "don't get" about Photoshop, ask away here.