# really raw



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

*NOW THIS IS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.*​There was a thread in one of the galleries that got me thinking about the old days. For years us old guys shot picture with little or no post processing. I go back and look at what I did back then and except for a little cropping most of them didn't need any. Now I'm working from the negatives not the prints after the lab did their thing so they really are raw.​ 
So here is what I propose... I am going to shoot pictures for a while with only minimal post processing. All about knowing what your equipment will do and how you see things originally. Everyone is invited to put their images here as well. Rules are simple.... Clone only to remove dust, No burning or dodging, no photoshoppe of any kind. No cropping allowed at all. What you see is what you get. If you use layers you should be able to eat them. See how close to a finished picture you can shoot directly from your camera.  

I promise sometime today I'll shoot one and then I can see if I still have it. *So here is your chance to get even if you need to. You are on your honor to follow the rules no monitor here.*​


----------



## PNA (Jun 29, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> *NOW THIS IS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.*​
> There was a thread in one of the galleries that got me thinking about the old days. For years us old guys shot picture with little or no post processing. I go back and look at what I did back then and except for a little cropping most of them didn't need any. Now I'm working from the negatives not the prints after the lab did their thing so they really are raw.​
> So here is what I propose... I am going to shoot pictures for a while with only minimal post processing. All about knowing what your equipment will do and how you see things originally. Everyone is invited to put their images here as well. Rules are simple.... Clone only to remove dust, No burning or dodging, no photoshoppe of any kind. No cropping allowed at all. What you see is what you get. If you use layers you should be able to eat them. See how close to a finished picture you can shoot directly from your camera.​
> 
> I promise sometime today I'll shoot one and then I can see if I still have it. *So here is your chance to get even if you need to. You are on your honor to follow the rules no monitor here.*​


 


*Freedom at last....!!!!!*


----------



## nabero (Jun 29, 2007)

i'm looking forward to this!


----------



## usayit (Jun 29, 2007)

How about in camera white balance?


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 29, 2007)

usayit said:


> How about in camera white balance?



this is the same like putting a filter onto your front lens. of course that should be allowed.

Although, for me it is a bit hard to contribute since I shoot RAW exclusively, so there is always the step of "developing" from RAW to JPG which is some sort of processing. of course I could leave out the photoshop step after that.

And for film, there is always the scanning which is done with certain settings like grain reduction, contrast whatever .... not sure where to draw the line here either.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

My thinking is to do just the amount of work that would be done by a one hour lab.
start digital or film but do no more than they would do at a lab.... thats how we did freelance mostly in the old days. You can white blance yes of course. What you cant do is custom work.

no burning dodging or even custom cropping. However a full frame crop to print size is allowed. For instand in a 35mm and probably the standard digital you lose a little off the edges you can crop for that. 

Since im scanning im going to scan as they would at a lab to print just set it pretty much auto and go with it. That's how proof and print was done in the old days.

Back in those days if you camera readied it when you shot it, you could buy an 8x10 at $1 each. You had to take the whole roll but we got anywhere for 10 to 20 bucks each for them. You sold a package with like 36 but sold 50 because they were on the table for them to choose from. "Hey tell you what lois I'll make you a deal on the 14 you didn't chose. How about a hundred bucks for all of them." that's how you paid the real expenses, so all the package price was profit. At least that's how they did it where I'm from.

Hell let's really do it like we used to. Make the image as full frame as possible (no cropping for content) but crop to a standard 8x10 size canvas. I got mine shot and it's gonna be hard to beat im telling you now. It's washing as we type.

It's also black and white on a 2x3 negative from a camera I cobbled together.  I am putting myself at a disadvantage.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 29, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> My thinking is to do just the amount of work that would be done by a one hour lab.
> start digital or film but do no more than they would do at a lab.... thats how we did freelance mostly in the old days. You can white blance yes of course. What you cant do is custom work.
> 
> no burning dodging or even custom cropping. However a full frame crop to print size is allowed. For instand in a 35mm and probably the standard digital you lose a little off the edges you can crop for that.
> ...



ok, I think I understand ... that means using rather standard settings for the scanning and the RAW to jpg conversion or for the scanning. no extreme push in contrast, and certainly no selective operations on any part of the image.

Yes, i could join in here ... actually some of the images I posted on the forum are processed that way anyway. In particular those taken on film.


----------



## Peniole (Jun 29, 2007)

Multiple pictures allowed  ??

btw love the idea

here they come...


----------



## Tangerini (Jun 29, 2007)

This sounds very promising


----------



## Peniole (Jun 29, 2007)

These are all as is, JPG from the camera, nothing done at all except for resizing (Not cropping) to post...

To start flowers
#1






#2





San Francisco
#3 you lookin' at me? (he's behind a glass shield btw)





Aerospace mueseum
#4





#5





Tons more, but I thought these would do without overcrowding the thread.

Did I mention how much I love this idea :hugs:


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I love it...

Now tell me knowing what you know people do the little hot spots really bother you.... And honestly how much would cropping help the images. Damn fine job. I might have over estimated how hard it is going to be to beat my image.

there are two that just jump out at me on an old school tech style. One is the bird that looks like he is just plain curious. that is the kind of thing you shoot and to hell with composition... and the verticle tree. Veritcle is perfect the frame of the image it follows the lines of the tree branches... Now that's what meatball photography is about. Make the best use of what you have on hand. Bravo.


----------



## Peniole (Jun 29, 2007)

Thanks that means a lot to me


----------



## Naturegirl (Jun 29, 2007)

I don't even have photoshop so this should be easy for me 

Peniole, those are great!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

Well welcome aboard... I don't have photoshow either. I have a ton of freeware programs that do a little of this and a little of that. I'll be glad to pass on the name to download if you would like.


----------



## Naturegirl (Jun 29, 2007)




----------



## Naturegirl (Jun 29, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Well welcome aboard... I don't have photoshow either. I have a ton of freeware programs that do a little of this and a little of that. I'll be glad to pass on the name to download if you would like.


At the moment I don't even have my laptop hooked up at home (long story)
/me may or may not be at work right now.

And thanks for the welcome


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

for anyone who is interested this is a program that will give you a full frame crop tool for standard print sizes.  Its what I plan to use to crop for this thread. I use it all the time anyway.. http://ekot.dk/programmer/JPEGCrops/ its freeware of course...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

Very nice photogirl.. In the old school meatball style let me tell you the very best thing about that shot. You find the right crop in the camera. First of all yes it's a horizontal image thats good first step. But you also have that disagonal tree branch on the right which is an important enough element to warrent extending the frame over to it. Now if you knew that when you shot it you are a genius. If you didn't it is one of those "better to be lucky than good shots." If you were to crop it you would lose about 30percent of your interest. Nice job.

And it goes without saying that the flower needed the anchor at the bottom and you have it. Just a damn fine composition right in the camera.  And again how much do the hot spots really bother anyone here.


----------



## Peniole (Jun 29, 2007)

I agree extending the shot to the right to include the branch is brilliant.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

In my way of thinking extending a frame it just fine as long as there is a reason. Just to do it to make the image fit some imaginary rule of composition is stupid.

Now if you look at your bird shot you will see the logic of it again. If you didn't extend it your man would have been cut in half a rather troubles thing for the image, as well as the man... You did exactly the right thing. Where would the real improvement be in editing that shot.

I should mention again... You guys are so good I'm getting nervous about my one shot of the day.


----------



## Peniole (Jun 29, 2007)

Then I should mention ---> I'm dying to see it!! Out with it already. Kidding take your time


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I need to go down stairs and put in my cake icing photo drying cabinet lol.


----------



## Naturegirl (Jun 29, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Very nice photogirl.. In the old school meatball style let me tell you the very best thing about that shot. You find the right crop in the camera. First of all yes it's a horizontal image thats good first step. But you also have that disagonal tree branch on the right which is an important enough element to warrent extending the frame over to it. Now if you knew that when you shot it you are a genius. If you didn't it is one of those "better to be lucky than good shots." If you were to crop it you would lose about 30percent of your interest. Nice job.
> 
> And it goes without saying that the flower needed the anchor at the bottom and you have it. Just a damn fine composition right in the camera. And again how much do the hot spots really bother anyone here.


 


Peniole said:


> I agree extending the shot to the right to include the branch is brilliant.


Thanks both of you, but unfortunately I'm no genius  I did purposely include the branch that the flower is growing out of though. And I was trying hard to include the blue sky behind the pink flower. The diagonal branch at the left works well too, eh?

This picture was also taken in auto mode. 

Thanks again


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

Nothing wrong with auto stuff.  I just bought two auto focus film cameras because my eyes wont work well in low light.  I don't think that makes me less of a photographer.  If helps to know what your camera did and why so if you need to you can do it yourself.  But auto everything is less important being able to see what is important.  You can do more things if you can work with manual settings but it isn't necessary to shoot a good picture.

If you understand what why your camera did what it did, so that if you want to create the same look later when the light isnt the same, then you are in good shape.  As long as I don't have a funky lighting situation I shoot aperture priority which is simply auto exposure with a little control over which setting is constant.  You can vary the aperture but the camera choses the best shutter speed.  Works good unless you have a backlight, then it sets the shutter for the stronger light and you wind up with a dark person.  Also have to be careful that it doesn't set a shutter speed so low you get camera shake, but all that is easy to get used to.

Shooting good images all begins with how you see things, then moves on to equipment and seeing better.  Nice work on the flower no matter how it happened.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 29, 2007)

This is totally easy for me, since I almost never post-process, I don't enjoy fussing with photoshop or other processing programs, I enjoy taking pictures.

Here are a few:


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I think I have created a monster that is going to eat me alive. You guys have some great out of camera shots. The repeat of the flamingo in the water is classic. 

Whatever that bird with the growth on it's beak is speaks volumes to what I keep saying. You expose for the subject and let the devil take the rest. I love them all. Great shots.

Welcome to the thread it aint much but we call it home...


----------



## DRodgers (Jun 29, 2007)

I seldom pp I have some to post I'll get them up when I get home ..


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

Would love to have you join us....  Some really scary good stuff showing up...I had no idea so many people still knew how to compose in camera with all this digital editing going on.  I may have to change my opinion.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jun 29, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> My thinking is to do just the amount of work that would be done by a one hour lab.
> start digital or film but do no more than they would do at a lab.... thats how we did freelance mostly in the old days. You can white blance yes of course. What you cant do is custom work.


 
My experience with one hour labs is that they can really screw up your work.  Many of them have this brilliant technology that "automatically enhances" your pics and really messes up what you did.  My local cvs is the worst.

Since I don't have photoshop (well I actually now have a 30 day trial of it but won't be buying it unless dh wins the lottery which is impossible because he doesn't play), I have almost always done minimal editing to my pictures.  Some I love, many I hate.  My kodak was actually pretty good with color.  I have to adjust the nikon often.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jun 29, 2007)

Sabbath is that dear looking animal deformed or are my eyes not seeing correctly?


----------



## Peniole (Jun 29, 2007)

Sabat999 the last one is just adorable. What is it? The nose looks a bit wierd so I figured it probably wasn't a dear, head shape is right either, beautiful big eyes. Lovely shot. The last two have some sadness in their eyes, moreso in the one before last.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I shoot film so I cant relate.  My one hour lab did my professional proofs and even some of my prints for albums.  However they were willing to listen to me and redo what they had done wrong.  I kinda understand color and stuff so it wasn't that hard to get it right.

That said, they had film profiles that could not be changed.  Fuji was always red if you didnt force them to correct for it.   kodak looked like yellow jaundice.  I had the correction formula written on a piece of paper in my wallet.  If they started there any variations were caused by lighting and I just lived with it.  

Now my son in law sets custom color on every shot.  Im too lazy for that.  I have a cheapo program that post processes color balance but I wont be using it on this thread.  I also intend to do a lot of black and white here lol.


----------



## tempra (Jun 29, 2007)

One from the weekend, converted from raw, resized, uploaded.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I would guess mule deer...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

On the building I like it but if I had the time and was thinking which I'm usually not. I think i would have not included anything on the right of the building. I can't see that it adds anything but it is still a very beautiful shot. 

I have the worst time with extra stuff showing up in my negatives. I have no idea where they come from. I mean it's an slr for gods sake where do those stop signs and such come from. I know I've gotten even more lazy.  lets see what some other people think about that...

Just a non professional critique opinion.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

Okay, I promised i wouldn't do anything they wouldn't do at a one hour photo so here it is. it was shot on film at f4.5 at 1/25 of a second on 2x3 cut film. The only crop was to a full frame 8x10 image which is old school. It isn't as good as I hoped but it's okay i guess. I think there might have a been too slight a breeze to give me good movement but enough to soften it up. Oh Well always next time. Even in my eyes I lose this round. 

Looks like i might also have a smudge on the lens.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 29, 2007)

I'll see what I can muster up today, I'll shoot Jpeg, so that way, all the processing would be done in camera as far as saturation, contrast, etc..


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

Sounds good, I'm going to see what the devil is wrong with that lens.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 29, 2007)

Can I just check one point. Is it OK to convert from colour to B+W, so long as that's it, or must I use the B+W setting the camera (350D) provides?


----------



## DRodgers (Jun 29, 2007)

Heres a couple I grabbed last night on a country drive , liked the cloud formation usually my contrast is better but i used a kit lens.
all raw just jpeg conversion.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 29, 2007)

Mkay, shot in Jpeg, and I just set my speedlight off ot the side and used it as the key light while the daylight was the fill. Underexposed the background about a 3/4 of a stop for seperation. Not much contrast, but hey, Could only resize it so..


----------



## DRodgers (Jun 29, 2007)

correct me if i'm wrong but shooting in jpeg has in camera processing settings by default or can they be turned off and work like a raw image?


----------



## ann (Jun 29, 2007)

i don't do post processing, except for infrared which i change to black and white, but only with one click of the mouse in nikon editor.

i don't know how to post photos here, but if intereted you can check here for some digital photos.

under disclosure, the bench has been cropped a bit at the top.

http://aclancyphotography.com/portfolios/digital/page01.html


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I would say shoot black and white as black and white...  Just an opinion anyone can do whatever you want here as long as you stay in the spirit of it.  

I mean if I didn't "Fix' that shot of mine ....


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

Tomorrow I'm going to shoot a fairly new retro camera.... I should shoot color film so I don';t have to process it, but I'm going to do what I can with what I have.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I think in camera is fine.  Film would come out a standard setting and the lab would make some corrections to print it and we are going with one hour lab type images.  If you give them your memory card right from the camera and they print it is the standard we are using I think.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I like the clouds but I really like the tools. One thing I think I have noticed about digital you really have to have good light to have good contrast right from the camera. With film you can sorta make up for the quality of the light by giving it more exposure but I think the actual intensity of the light might have something to do with digital. Hell that is just a guess. But the tool with the burned wood is a dynamite image.

Switch tell me something do you like that crop now that you have seen it outside the camera. I'm more curious than anything else. Looks to me to be a bit topheavy to make a print from. But then I don't know what youi had in mind. One thing though it is great fill lighting. I do love strobe lights. Not only the exposure but the contrast on the subject is right on for me.  the only think stopping the subject for being perfect is the two hot spots on his glass and I say SO F'n WHAT.  Mama would love it just like it is.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 29, 2007)

DRodgers said:


> correct me if i'm wrong but shooting in jpeg has in camera processing settings by default or can they be turned off and work like a raw image?



no, you need settings to convert raw data into an image. no processing, no image (jpg or tiff).

you cannot visualize raw data without a conversion with some settings.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 29, 2007)

in any case i cannot contribute at the moment since I am too tired to take a picture and too far from my archives (2400 km) to post one from them


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

*OKAY LISTEN UP.... NEW SUGGESTION  .. PLEASE COMMENT ON THE IMAGE ABOVE YOURS...*

well Alex we will hold our breath for you... Wait a minute if I do that I wont have to post a picture and be humiliated again.  There are some good things to holding your breath after all.


----------



## DRodgers (Jun 29, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> you really have to have good light to have good contrast right from the camera. With film you can sorta make up for the quality of the light by giving it more exposure but I think the actual intensity of the light might have something to do with digital. Hell that is just a guess.



I've come to notice that light is a major problem with digital .Myself I find the best shots come from overcast days with the digital and I can get some great ones on well lit days on film even in harsh midday, but the digital blows out too easy.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I was wondering about the lack of contrast I see in a lot of digital shots made without strobe.  Seems there is enough lite to make the image, but it is muddy looking.  Film you get that but it's because it is under exposed.  I just wonder if giving a low intensity light source more exposure would actually increase the contrast.  It will for film I'm pretty sure.  At least as sure as my spotty memory allows me to be.

Which also brings me to a point about cameras like the panasonic fz series.  If you use it like a film camera with an off camera strobe most of the time would you have that noise people talk about.  My only other problem with that class camera is they look like toys they are so small.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I reshot this with a point and shoot $50 digital camera I use for ebay. So this isn't really what I want, but it gives you an idea of the composition I had in mind on the original one. With a real camera I would have used a smaller larger aperture and killed that house in the background.  See that car on the right, remember me saying things slip into my shots.  I swear that wasn't there but there it is.


----------



## PNA (Jun 29, 2007)

When I shoot, er....shot, film I normally had the pictures scanned to disk (jpg) at the lab and then into the computer, no prints.

Question: Under you guidelines is that permissible? or do you want prints then scanned from the flatbed into the computer? Does it make any difference?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

mine are negative scanned to the computer file same as you are saying so sure they are fine they don't do any heavy processing.  Just post the image as scanned by the lab.  No photoshopping.


----------



## Puscas (Jun 29, 2007)

Two I took recently. Click, usb-hook up and right onto TPF. No funny stuff in between...















pascal


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

You know I really like the first one.  Has almost a sci fi look about it.  Very nice also the bottom one has a slightly cluttered look but its still better than my shot lol.


----------



## Puscas (Jun 29, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> bottom one has a slightly cluttered look but its still better than my shot lol.




slightly cluttered? It's a mess! (I couldn't find a way to get fewer ropes in the pic)





pascal


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I tell you what if you can find that three master alone in a frame it would make a hell of a shot.  I would love to shoot one of those undersail even it it were a small one.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jun 29, 2007)

Here's a cloud pic I took recently and haven't edited at all.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

I like it what do you think it needs... Im curious..


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 29, 2007)

I think it needs more contrast, if the darker areas of the clouds were really dark it would give it more depth. 



mysteryscribe said:


> Switch tell me something do you like that crop now that you have seen it outside the camera. I'm more curious than anything else. Looks to me to be a bit topheavy to make a print from. But then I don't know what youi had in mind. One thing though it is great fill lighting. I do love strobe lights. Not only the exposure but the contrast on the subject is right on for me. the only think stopping the subject for being perfect is the two hot spots on his glass and I say SO F'n WHAT. Mama would love it just like it is.


 
It is very off balanced, but I just wanted to illustrate something that demonstrated the use of strobes at high noon to counteract the sun. I've been telling people that they should do it, but haven't shown any examples of it at work. I didn't use any fancy lights or umbrellas or reflectors, I just put my SB-600 up top of two buckets, set it to slave, turned off TTL, put my camera up on a tripod, did a little math for my exposure, and let'er rip. As for the composition, meh, whatever. I wasn't going for anythign GREAT, just as long as I had something bright that was darker than the subject. And the glare on my glasses, exactly, "whatever".


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

Yep i had a feeling it was a strobe thing. I picked up on that right away cause I'm a strobe kinds guy. Most of the people here think strobe is a dirty word.... I made a living with them for years. you can use a strobe anytime at all. When i make portraits outside in dayling I usually expose for the strobe if i cant get it up past the sunlight.

You are right about the cloud thing but since this is a camera only thing it is still nice but it needs the contrast way up,


----------



## crownlaurel (Jun 29, 2007)

YOu know I didn't know for sure what it may need.  I may play with contrast before my photoshop trial runs out, but for now it remains in my file 13 (which is a HUGE file right now).   I think I have four shots of that cloud.  I shoot the sky a lot just to see what the different settings get me.  I've been pretty shy of photoshop, not just for the money issue but I feel like I'm cheating if I do a whole lot (and I know that's not always true but where's the line?).  

With that pic I didn't do anything because it was just sky and I wasn't sure if it was interesting enough without any foreground (which was a parking lot btw).  I'd love to be able to get that umph I want without having to change levels or colors or whatever after the fact. 

What I do most often is crop.  My old camera shoots some weird aspect ratio almost square, close to 8X10 but even that shaves a little off and I lost a great deal of my composition if I wanted 4X6 prints, so I would often compose for the crop on purpose.  The Nikon I think is shooting straight 4X6 ratio, which is great if all I want is 4X6 prints, but if I want to get anything bigger, I either have to lose a portion of the sides or I have to place some sort of top and bottom border, so I am having to learn a new way to compose so I can later decide if I want bigger prints without losing the feeling of the picture.  Does any of that make sense?


----------



## PNA (Jun 29, 2007)

OK,  you teased me enough.....I'm dusting off the F3 and going for a shoot tomorow. You have thrown down the guanlet and I'm picking it up.

Rule: shots from only tomorrow, you and me Charlie, film only!We let the the members pick the winner......

What say?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

down load the free version of this... Lots of tools to play with,.,.

http://www.photofiltre.com/


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

Fair enough and I'll even shoot an old russian lieca to give you the upper hand.  Color or black and white you pick it


----------



## PNA (Jun 29, 2007)

How 'bout one of each......


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

All the crop things make sense ... I never could get my son in law to leave a little on the edges for a crop to 8x10 I think he does now


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

not on the same day out of the camera pick one


----------



## PNA (Jun 29, 2007)

color!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

suits me I didn't want to go into the darkroom anyway.  Color it is and this time I will be more carefull.  lol


----------



## PNA (Jun 29, 2007)

You better cinch up you belt or your pants may be beaten off.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

after that garbage I shot today I would not be surprised.  I probably should carry a real camera with real glass out there.  I think I will so I wont ahve any excuse if you whip my butt.


----------



## PNA (Jun 29, 2007)

Only tomorrow or shall we call it the 4th of July shoot out.....and post our shots then????


----------



## DRodgers (Jun 29, 2007)

I ran into an interesting situation tonight I took some shots of a early evening
moon with the cast reflection from the sun awesome I thought but when I got home there were all bad.
I shot on a tripod with a 1 sec exposure at 250 iso (i hate noise) and the camera got confused I have noise ,artifacts The whole nine yards and when I tryed to correct with pp it made it worse to the point I can see the streaks on my ccd from cleaning.
I am a bit set back by this I'm thinking about buying an old hasselblad for special shooting and keep the digital for day shooting.

MY point I cant even post a raw image its that bad

my bad I found one that looks ok but has no subject matter no processing. Raw to web conversion


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 29, 2007)

well lab time and all so yeah lets shoot between now and the forth... Call it Indepence day shoot out lol. Has a nice ring to it since this is the alternate gallery.

Hell DR didn't you see  the crap I posted come on stick something up and lets see what you thought you were going to get its what I did lol.


----------



## el_shorty (Jun 29, 2007)

I shot these photos a couple of years ago with Fujichrome Velvia, they were scanned with a Nikon 5000 scanner and only pp done was to clone out dust.


----------



## DRodgers (Jun 29, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> LOL  here ya go if you process that to highlight the shadows youll see how messed up my ccd is lol :blushing:
> 
> in fact you can see some horizontal streaking in raw


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 30, 2007)

Shorty nice work but the one that is outstanding is the ducks shot. I guess they are ducks.  I have never seen anything quite the same as that.  the color and texture is super to me.

Yeah but DR you don't see it here.  That is part of the beauty also most people see even less than us and I don't see a thing.  The fact that you have to work for the bottom make it even more important to me somehow.  I'm going out to shoot a film camera that is probably from the eighties today.  Nothing much goes wrong with those junkers.   Now the ones I build is a different story all together.  Im about to store all those I built and go for a tlr that is built like a tank.  Gonna give up my love for the picky leaf shutter and go for a focal plane shutter (spit)


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 30, 2007)

This is the very first negative I scanned.  Just pulled it out randomly.  Im going to post it then scan the rest of the roll in to search for the killer one.  I did a white balance, and that's about it oh yeah I'm going to do a full frame 8x10 crop before I upload it.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 30, 2007)

Well, I got invited to come in here and join in on the discussion, and I felt the challenge and immediately went to my "Original Files"-folder to randomly pick a few that I took from there and only resized. Nothing else done at all. Maybe they can compete? Keep in mind they are picked very randomly.

Let`s start with some flowers (when they show in the garden, I just cannot restrain myself, never, although year after year I swear to myself I shall stop it at last)

Or, oh, hang on - this is the part where I must say something about the photo of the poster right before me, ie. yours, Charlie?
Well, if this were mine and it were digital, I would work on the whites, I find them too shiny and bright and the contrasts are extreme, but this is from film, and I know next to nothing about film (I only ever use the cheapest I can get in the supermarket, sorry...), so I cannot say if you chose a film that will produce these contrasts on purpose? You may well have, so when I now say that to my eyes the bright whites are hurting, this might have been JUST what you wanted. OK, no, I would not think you went out to take a pic with the idea "Let's hurt Corinna's eyes with this!" You did not do that!!! But these very bright whites may well have been what you wanted!?!?!

To my pics then, flowers first:

1.





2.





3.





Our newest pet:

4.





The moon one evening:

5.




In reality, the sky was still even brighter than shows here

My daughter on her Confirmation Day

6.





A bit of play of light and shadow in my kitchen one morning when the sun shone in from the window facing east

7.





And an all unedited photo from my latest commission (photographing the rehearsals to the dance performance on the music of Carmina Burana by Carl Orff):

8.





And as you can imagine, this frame needed a bit of cropping before it could be printed and later showed in the exhibition like this:

(warning: this pic is not totally raw!)
8a.





Is this posted in the way you thought, Charlie? Or are there too many pics now?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 30, 2007)

Now this is what I have been trying to do.






negative scanned white balance and cropped for 8x10 full negative used resized to fit here but still proportional


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 30, 2007)

Glad to see you added some from the dance. I like those. I like the flowers as well. 

The shot you are talking about was done with the scanner software and yeah it hurts my eyes as well I have a different software I used for the last one.

I can only wish there was an apple hanging above the snake's head. Well done.  Post all you want till they stop us there are no moderators here except you now.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 30, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> ...there are no moderators here except you now.


 



Curious to see some more from the dance then?
But I would post those in the General Gallery and I would there post the ones that went into the exhibition like that (some are edited more than would be allowed for HERE, you know ... and with some I HAD to do more editing after I had ordered my first batch of prints and found out the dynamic range was too large for my camera to capture it and many of the girls' faces were waaay too dark against the bright backgrounds, so I had to rework over 90 pics and re-order them*).

And hey, I do like the backlit pansies and flag and plants, I am a sucker for anything backlit, you know??? (My flower pics might tell you as much? )


ETA: * or much rather: too large a dynamic range for the PRINTING machine settings ... they looked good on my screen as they first were, but horrible in print, so the versions I then mailed in to be printed now look awful on my screen......!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 30, 2007)

I ran into that 'look good' on the computer and 'crap' from the printer but the printer was a lazer jet from office depot though. I am determinted to learn how to shoot for that thing. It is so cheap to make prints. Might not be album quality but they are certainly that photo coffee table book quality and then some.

Yes I like the dance even when it was harsh. Flowers are more for others I like people shots. I can appreciate a rose, but I'm not sure I fully appreciate the picture of a rose.

As for the back lit flag... It has a front hit from a tiny strobe I use as a trigger for my studio light set.  The amount of output is probaby guide number 20.  Just enough to fill in the front a little.  I think, I can use it for a fill light and simply disregard it completely when doing the meter reading of the scene.  For portraits outdoors I mean.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 30, 2007)

I call this shot how many rules can you break before the composition poolice come to kick you out of the forum.












Damn stamped again


----------



## Garbz (Jul 1, 2007)

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The only time I reach for adjustment sliders is when I made a mistake.

In this case I didn't and it was the best photo from the buddah festival.:


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

It's a very nice shot. I don't know that there is a fuss about anything. 

I did it to see if I could do it without touching an editor. Other people just seemed to be drawn to the thread. This isnt a gallery after all, just some people showing what they can do with straight from the camera images. 

Personally I'm shooting mine brand new and the good the bad and the ugly show up. Others seem to be pulling things from the past to show what can be done. Since in my case it's film I can't delete and shoot for better images. Just have to go with what I shot. It is challenging though. That I guess is the appeal for me.






Okay it could use a little streightening of the horizon but I think I could live with this.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

film


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

Did you shoot gregory peck as mcarthur?  that is an very very nice portrait.  The ohters are equally well done.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

P&S (no photoshop)


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

flowers are great.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Did you shoot gregory peck as mcarthur?  that is an very very nice portrait.  The ohters are equally well done.



Yep ... studying his script between scenes on the USS Los Angeles.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> flowers are great.



Thanks ... from my backyard with a P&S before I purchased a dSLR.

Gary


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

Makes me wonder how much more a dslr can do than one of the so called bridge cameras.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 1, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> For years us old guys shot picture with little or no post processing.



Apparently you've never read Ansel Adam's "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print".  The term post processing wasn't used, but the zone system, and processing and printing control in the darkroom is most definately post exposure processing.  90% of what I do in Photoshop I also know how to do in the traditional film darkroom (it's even called the same thing); the difference is that much of it takes minutes in PS, while it would take me days in my darkroom.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Makes me wonder how much more a dslr can do than one of the so called bridge cameras.



A dSLR isn't for everybody. People who don't know how to shift would get much more use and be much better off with a Lincoln than a Ferrari.

I see a lot of people with dSLRs ana kit lens (Mom's and Dad's) .. I think it's a status symbol like a SUV.  Most of those people would get more keepers and much better images with a high end P&S than a dSLR and the kit lens.

Gary


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> Apparently you've never read Ansel Adam's "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print".  The term post processing wasn't used, but the zone system, and processing and printing control in the darkroom is most definately post exposure processing.  90% of what I do in Photoshop I also know how to do in the traditional film darkroom (it's even called the same thing); the difference is that much of it takes minutes in PS, while it would take me days in my darkroom.



Not to be argumentative but (the big but), while AA typically took as much time in the darkroom as he took in the field ... he also believed in previsualization.  The more you can do in the camera, the more time in tuning the camera to reproduce what your mind's eye sees ... the more of "getting it right" on film/sensor, the better off you are in the darkroom/computer. This thread sorta alludes to that concept of getting it right in the camera.

Gary


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

Actually no Im not a big adams fan... I go more for Edward Weston...

I am basing that statement on having worked as a freelance photographer and various photo day jobs over the years. We didn't do much of our own processing, since we worked for money. Just can't charge 200 (todays money) an hour for most open to the public jobs. Most of the work went to a prolab who did very little. You shot pretty much what you wanted and you got pretty much what you shot. Strictly meatball I know by your and some of the other guys standards here, but alas it was what was available to me at the time. Or I should what I chose to do at the time. Adams and Weston were far from the average photographer of their day.

If I had been in a different market I might have thought differently.  But I think most really classic photographers still compose in their cameras or do they wait to get back to the computer these days.  I don't really know since I still shoot film.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

See it's like this... I think that photography should be for everyone, I know that is sometimes a bit of a radical thought.  I also think that we need to help the people who are never going to be pros but who want to make pictures that look good on their walls.  Informed supports is what I have always tried to give people.  Everyone doesn't need to know what dynamic tension is.  Some of them just want to know why their pictures don't look as good as someone else's.  Hell I'm toying with the idea of shooting all disposable cameras next thread.


----------



## newrmdmike (Jul 1, 2007)

seefutlong your film shots were AMAZING, would love to see you post more of those bad boys.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

I thought they were as well.  I love the balloons with the hint of a horizon.  really nice effects.  The guy in the boat I couldn't get into but the other two were dynamite to me.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

newrmdmike said:


> seefutlong your film shots were AMAZING, would love to see you post more of those bad boys.



per your request


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

Well looking at kenedy gives away the age of that one at least.  Nice work by the way.


----------



## newrmdmike (Jul 1, 2007)

i love looking at dated shots like those.

also, mystery i'm with you, the balloons and portrait of general x took the cake out of that batch.

very cool shots. (authentic back patting)


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

Nothing wrong with an atta boy that is deserved.  I think knowing the difference is the trick here. And these are deserved.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

thanks guys ... cold ones are on moi. 
more here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/665619#28693854

and here:
http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/1939275#28689827

I think you would really like the last gallery ... all taken on Broadway Street during the 70s in Los Angeles. (Remember these were when auto was a car ... not a setting on a lens or camera ... so be kind.)

Gary


----------



## newrmdmike (Jul 1, 2007)

wow, man, instant respect for these shots.  i'll make sure to keep an eye out for your future posts.


----------



## newrmdmike (Jul 1, 2007)

that gallery you said you thought i would enjoy . . . i did. and it really makes me feel like i missed out on not being alive for the 70's


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

Very important images.  Sometimes I think there needs to be a real living time capsule somewhere.. .I wasn't there but I was alive and a grown man at the time.  Some of it was amazing and some of it was gritty, but it was never boring. It really isn't now I'm just not a part of this time.  I was invoved in the sixties, seventies,  eighties, and a bit of the nineties.


----------



## danalec99 (Jul 1, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> thanks guys ... cold ones are on moi.
> more here:
> http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/665619#28693854
> 
> ...


I've visited your site several times over the past few weeks and I'm a huge fan!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

To leave the good stuff and back to the not even close stuff. I am always amazed at how things just pop up out of nowhere in a negative. I know I must have seen this whole massive distracting mess, but my feeble old brain just disregarded it. Anyway there is a lesson in it.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

newrmdmike said:


> that gallery you said you thought i would enjoy . . . i did. and it really makes me feel like i missed out on not being alive for the 70's



Thanks ... photography is a slice of life ... an instant frozen ... (some slices are worth freezing ... and some ... LOL)

G


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Very important images.  Sometimes I think there needs to be a real living time capsule somewhere.. .I wasn't there but I was alive and a grown man at the time.  Some of it was amazing and some of it was gritty, but it was never boring. It really isn't now I'm just not a part of this time.  I was invoved in the sixties, seventies,  eighties, and a bit of the nineties.



Thanks for the kind comments ... when I was doing photography professionally I really haven't any snaps to call my own as they all belonged to the paper or wire service ... then there's a gap of some 20 years when I didn't even own a camera ... a few years ago I got a P&S ... then a dSLR ... and I feel whole again ... just shooting stuff for myself ... and it is grand ... I love this stuff and I love taking snaps.

Gary


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

Me too but if you get bored like I did you can go back in it just for fun.  Without the pressure I'm looking forward to dealing with customers again.

This shot is a public service post


----------



## DRodgers (Jul 1, 2007)

I shot one just for you mystery(my favorite classic) just posted it up in the black and white forum.

out of the camera converted to b&W and a bit of contrast


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

Very nice what does the lens fit.  I'm pretty sure it's a leaf lens but could from a fie or even a tlr.


----------



## DRodgers (Jul 1, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Very nice what does the lens fit.  I'm pretty sure it's a leaf lens but could from a fie or even a tlr.




Its a Balda Baldinette


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

Ive heard of them but never seen one does it shoot well.


----------



## DRodgers (Jul 1, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Ive heard of them but never seen one does it shoot well.




Its one of the nicest 35mm I've used nice bokeh and takes well to being set wrong the first time i used it I had no light meter and was guessing  at distance and most of the  prints were usable.
Theres a couple on ebay for 10 bucks but most grab a hundred or more ..


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

I have given up on very vintage cameras.  I thought the balda was mostly 120 folders.  Oh well I guess they changed with the times.


----------



## gordon77 (Jul 2, 2007)

i have been taking a small amount of shots for a few years and only recently got a dslr so im takin heaps more  anyway here is one i really like and took with a grad nd filter (dunno if that breaks rules) and failed to notice vignetting/light pole on the  left :blushing: . shot in raw and converted straight to jpeg for posting...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

Looks good to me and the slight flaws are what makes it interesting to me.  filter is fine as along as it was done when shot.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

Proof positive that I am indeed bringing them in right from the camera.  This was shot with my minolta xg7 and a 300 mm no name lens hand held.  Everything that could be wrong is wrong but it had a hat interest for me so I kept it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

Still more from the sat shoot to get an image for the great indepencance day shootout.  Before you tell me this is out of focus, i was shooting for the phone book.  I shot it as I found it which I most often do.  Direct from the camera to the scanner color balanced and then cropped to 8x10 which is about what a one hour lab would do.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 2, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> ... he also believed in previsualization.  The more you can do in the camera, the more time in tuning the camera to reproduce what your mind's eye sees ... the more of "getting it right" on film/sensor, the better off you are in the darkroom/computer. This thread sorta alludes to that concept of getting it right in the camera.



Previsualization takes into account the entire procedure from before the exposure to the final print.  What occurs in/at the camera is vital, but the processing is just as important to the final product.  Tonal range cannot be contracted or expanded "in the camera", at least with film.  Exposure and development must be considered as one.  Paper contrast grade must also be considered.  AA did extensive "post processing".  Just compare a straight print of his most popular image, "Full Moon over Hernandez, NM", to the finished print.  An example is either in the books mentioned above, or in "The Making of 40 Photographs".  The difference is significant.  As Ansel said himself,

"I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster."

"The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance."

"You don't take a photograph, you make it." 

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships!"

"We must remember that a photograph can hold just as much as we put into it, and no one has ever approached the full possibilities of the medium."

"When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without." 

AA was a serious post-processor.     

The concept of most of the work in creating a photograph being finished immediately after the exposure originates when economical, highly automated photo labs began to be common, and in photojournalism.  Anyone who has explored beyond Darkroom 101 and fine art printing should be familiar with the concepts behind many of the tools available in Photoshop.  Several generations of photogs have forgotten about the possibilities of processing because they've been outsourcing the it to folks who have a vested interest in standardizing the work for more economy.  I, for one, am glad to see the possibilities of creative exploration of the entire process becoming popular again.

What does the term post-processing mean?  Does it mean processing after processing?  Like if I have a second piece of pie then it's post-desert?  No, it means processing post exposure.  They had to make up a new word for processing, because the word "processing" had come to mean dropping film off at the lab.


----------



## Big_Bird (Jul 2, 2007)

I hope no one minds me chiming in, i also only do raw pics, mainly because im a college student who cant afford PS, lol.

#1




#2




#3


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

There are a lot of freeware editors that will do post processing.  Personally I'm enjoying the quirks of unprocessed images on here.  Of course most of the quirks are in my images everybody else seems to be shooting camera images better than me.

Could it be I am really a hack photographer lol.  Well I always knew I was.  But I can live with that.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

Well for me this is all just for fun. I don't know why every image has to be something to hang on the wall. If so your walls must be awfully crowded. If someone shoots their kid's soccer game do they need to post process it to perfection before they send it to grandma. I just don't see it.

Before you say it SNAPSHOT is not a curse to me. Nor are images that sell to customers which were not post processed by me. It's just a different view of the craft.  ah oh another stamp coming i know.





yep got it...


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 2, 2007)

I shot these when I thought I was going to be brave enough to enter June's challenge, but I wasn't, so I didn't.  I haven't done anything but upload them (uploader resizes).

Cheesy, not what I wanted but with dh at the door asking what in the world I was doing, no time to get what I wanted...













Blew out the sky, but the suncatcher caught it, LOL...






Then he had a chat with his friend...












Now you can see why I didn't bother to enter the contest.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

First of all I like them all. The suncatcher is a good example of way too much blew out the shy bs on this forum.... there is nothing repeat NOTHING wrong with that image. If you supposed this was twenty years ago and you didn't have access to all the toys that are out there now, this would be a perfectly exceptable image and it is for me anyway.

If you just have to have the sky look like sky then you can always do what we did... Expose for the sky and toss in a little fill light for the front of the subject.  Can be strobe of lamp if you have a desk lamp with a cone shade or a ten dollar trouble light from the hardware store.

I have no idea what the contest judges look for but I like the images.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 2, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Well for me this is all just for fun. I don't know why every image has to be something to hang on the wall. If so your walls must be awfully crowded. If someone shoots their kid's soccer game do they need to post process it to perfection before they send it to grandma. I just don't see it. ...


 
I disagree. For me it also is fun ... but everything I do reflects upon me and who I am ... so the pix I send Grandma reflects my skill and experience and desire to be my best and I think Grandma ... although she may not be capable of appreciating my best ... does appreciate that I think she is deserving of my best.

Gary


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

NOthign wrong with that I just dont agree.... Most people in the world see photography as a way to capture a moment not much more. I tend to go along with that thinking. I think I do it better than most but still it's all I think I'm really doing.  I will post process to the gross corrections but that all.  

I might clone out a factory sign or I might change the density or the crop but thats about all I do to them.  Straighten a horizon now and then.  Otherwise it's pretty much how I shot it and how I saw it.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 2, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> ... Tonal range cannot be contracted or expanded "in the camera", at least with film. Exposure and development must be considered as one. Paper contrast grade must also be considered. AA did extensive "post processing". Just compare a straight print of his most popular image, "Full Moon over Hernandez, NM", to the finished print. An example is either in the books mentioned above, or in "The Making of 40 Photographs". The difference is significant. As Ansel said himself,
> 
> ...
> 
> The concept of most of the work in creating a photograph being finished immediately after the exposure originates when economical, highly automated photo labs began to be common, and in photojournalism. Anyone who has explored beyond Darkroom 101 and fine art printing should be familiar with the concepts behind many of the tools available in Photoshop. Several generations of photogs have forgotten about the possibilities of processing because they've been outsourcing the it to folks who have a vested interest in standardizing the work for more economy. I, for one, am glad to see the possibilities of creative exploration of the entire process becoming popular again. ...


 
"Tonal range cannot be contracted or expanded "in the camera", at least with film."  

While film has a fixed range of tones ... the number of zones captured can be manipulated by over/under exposing a particular zone.  By doing doing so you will shift your range up or down thereby truncating the tonal zones on the opposite end.

Thank you for all the AA quotes ... but I have met the man and had some indepth discussions while doing a story near the end of his career/life.

The out-sourcing of processing stems from the commercialization of photography away from journalism and art and into a commercial business. 

Your referance to the automation and of photo journalism in the same sentance is unclear.  Are you stating that the image/print in photo journalism is quickly performed ... or that photo journalism is automated ... or both?  My decade and a half personal experience in photo journalism is somewhat different than what you have stated.  

Firstly, it all depends on the publication, (assuming this is all about print), magazines like NG takes months from assignment to print, while large market daily newspapers may/will have multiple deadlines a day.  I have shot for magazines which took weeks and daily's which required that I often would have to print from the wet negative.  But in all cases the process was not automated.  Example: The Rose Bowl Game- Film was gathered after each quarter and a messenager scooted the unprocessed film from Pasadena to the photo department in downtown LA for processing.  Each photographer would write specific instruction for developing ... those instructions reflected the shooting and development style of the individual photog. 

So while photo journalism may require immediate results ... my personal experience was that the process was never automated from development to printing.  Each and every step was performed by hand and usually by the photographer who shot the assignment. 

Gary


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 2, 2007)

OK, these_are_really_raw and I ONLY took them for nothing BUT fun-fun-fun. 
They don't serve ANY real purpose (other than to let people guess what I wanted them to guess in that thread, but the answer is already out now).


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

Well i cant read german but it looks like you are arranging an affair to me...


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 2, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> NOthign wrong with that I just dont agree.... Most people in the world see photography as a way to capture a moment not much more. I tend to go along with that thinking. I think I do it better than most but still it's all I think I'm really doing. I will post process to the gross corrections but that all.
> 
> I might clone out a factory sign or I might change the density or the crop but thats about all I do to them. Straighten a horizon now and then. Otherwise it's pretty much how I shot it and how I saw it.


 
I color correct, convert to monochrome and/or shrapen in my RAW processing.

I limit my photoshop processing mainly to polishing and base my tool usage to what I could do in a wet darkroom.  Correcting horizon, dodging, burning, contrast, crop and dust removal.  Using those rules and tools I attempt to make the best image my skills and experience can muster ... just as I would do in a wet darkroom. (I won't clone out a factory sign.)

Gary


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

except for the cloning out that isn't more than my prolab would have done in the old days.  I find that not really editing the image.  Cloning okay that I will go with as a real edit.  I just do that cause I usually find things that slip into the negative that I didn't notice.  Sometimes though the factory sing will show up in a wedding shot and I have no problem tossing it.


----------



## nabero (Jul 2, 2007)

Lots of great stuff made it's way in here   I feel a little silly posting mine...but here are a few --totally untouched-- photos from a few days ago.  Technically sound? Eh....not so much...but they are still my favorites.


----------



## WDodd (Jul 2, 2007)

Here's my try from yesterday. Just like they would be if I took my CF to the lab.






Trees are a little fuzzy and I noticed a spot on my lens but I'm still happy with it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

Im impressed with all the shots I have seen.. I am a desaturation freak and I love that shot of the two people with the green beer bottle.  I know it isn't meant to be a desaturation but it looks like one to me.  That is classic of everything I think here.  Images that are good just because they are real'  I also like the band shots..

The smokestacks are my favorite of the last two.  Kind of heavy lines kind of thing going on.


----------



## thebeginning (Jul 2, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> I disagree. For me it also is fun ... but everything I do reflects upon me and who I am ... so the pix I send Grandma reflects my skill and experience and desire to be my best and I think Grandma ... although she may not be capable of appreciating my best ... does appreciate that I think she is deserving of my best.
> 
> Gary




i completely agree.  I can see how this can change from person to person, but  I like to maintain a certain level of quality and style to all my shots, whether they be fun snaps or serious work shots.


top notch images by the way gary, solid work.


----------



## thebeginning (Jul 2, 2007)

I think this is a neat idea, actually.  It's good to look at your photos that way.

I don't have anything that I've shot just for this, but here's a few of my most recent bridal portraits:

(no cropping, dodging or burning, cloning, layers, or custom work.  only processing is in-camera stuff like contrast, saturation, and WB...and of course a quick sharpen after resizing).


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 2, 2007)

Wow ... those are very well exposed .. I would have blown out the dress and/or the sky in all those shots ... nicely done.  

Gary


----------



## WDodd (Jul 2, 2007)

Love the last one Daniel. Great great great shots!!!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

It's good to disagree.....but there is room for those who see it differently in the craft as well. Nothing wrong with either view as far as I can see. 

The little lady who bought the digital camera while I was waiting for my negs to soup. Has a place in photography just like the perfectionist. 

I stand by every image doesn't have to go on a wall somewhere. Some are just shots of a soccer game. But hey thats me. I haven't seen an image on this unedited file that I don't think I would send to my mother.

Although there are things that could be improved on a lot of them, mostly mine.  She would enjoy them all as opposed to trashing them cause they aren't perfect.


----------



## usayit (Jul 2, 2007)

Quick trip to enjoy a nice day outside with the family.  As always, I had a camera with me and decided to participate in this thread.

All shot in Raw, Auto White Balance, Aperture Priority, with old-fashioned bracketing (bright sunny day with the sun in the wrong direction).  Then converted to JPEG using "as shot"/default settings.
Absolutely nothing else.. not even sharpening.  

1) Me hanging out the window.  Yeh.. a bit cliched.






2) I'm a bit out of practice with "drive by shooting".  A bit of a challenge with a manual camera.  Only good one out of the trip to the Clinton, NJ.  






3)






4) Tough lighting... The sun is in front of me behind the mill with lots of bright spots from water and in foreground.  The mill is in shade.  This shot was bracketed a couple 1/2 stops above and below the camera's metered exposure... didn't have much time as the girl didn't stay very long and soon ran off to join her friends playing under the bridge.






5) Quick shot of my wife and son across the street from where I was shooting the above photo.






I'm one of those fellows that walk on both sides.  When I shoot digital, I don't hesitate to correct and "transform" each and every photo.  When I shoot film, I am much more careful and think everything through more thoroughly.  This is the number one reason why I still love and enjoy film.  Digital on the other hand is fun in of itself for the flexibility and power of technology.  I for one liked this thread as I shot digital but forcing myself to  pretend I was shooting film.

As always suggestions are welcome.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

I like that you have the verticle composition in the right places that is an important thing for photographers to know i think.....  Also the lighting looks fine to me.


----------



## usayit (Jul 2, 2007)

Daniel.. the first one of the bride smiling is the one I like best.  Shows the brides face and smile.  Tells a hint of a story starting with a Bride on her happiest day.  Exposure is spot on.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

On the brides, I would have composed the last one differently but it's just a matter of opinion.  As it is it's a very nice shot.  The first one is very cute indeed. and the second one appears to be a very nice shot as well.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

I had almost decided to use this in the shoot out but changed my mind so here it is....  One I consider to be a good shot.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

This was also in the running for the shoot out but alas it was runer up as well...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

Another loser from last saturday's shoot of images for the independance day shoot out.  ie see coming to a thread near you.


----------



## Naturegirl (Jul 3, 2007)

I am LOVING this thread. 

Great shots everyone.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

Talk about things growing out of heads she had a picnic shelter out of hers. Was intent on the daughter sitting by the water.





Really poor composition all over.  Should have cropped in camera for the two trees to be the left and right border.  Just didn't see it at the time.


----------



## PhotoPhoenix (Jul 3, 2007)

so is black and white a go or no go in this thread?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

Anything direct from the camera is a go.  If you have black and white output sure.  Just minimum corrections and no custom editing.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

The parade of losers continues...  this one I call Hats.  If you look close you will see why.  Too bad I wasn't closer.  Ah well.


----------



## PhotoPhoenix (Jul 3, 2007)

awesome. i'll mess around with iPhoto in a little bit. i have not gotten the chance to install CS3 on my new Macbook so i am limited with photo-editing as it is.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

THEN YOU ARE ALL SET....

I can only figure the hat on this lady fascinated me she is in a lot of images.  image was also a loser..


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

another loser...

Did you ever have a shot that appealed to you but you had no idea why? Well this one is like that to me. Not much going on but I liked it at the time I shot it. Not really awful not just not special either.






If Me posting all these loser shots from Saturday gets too boring tell me and I'll stop


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

Out of the camera with just a color correction and a density correction which could easily be done at a one hour lab. the strong contrast was from the camera no idea what caused it.  It's that hat thing again


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

Signs-signs everywhere a sign...

had to replace the boat it was a double post..


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

Only in a town where I live would have a cemetary in the park.  There is a childrens playground about fifty feet away, and picnic shelters starting about the same distance.  something just downright strange about that.


----------



## usayit (Jul 3, 2007)

MysteryScribe.. I like the strong density one of the two fishing.  I think it is a successful composition... east (chinese hat) meets west (cowboy hat).  I wonder what gave it such a strong contrast.

oooooooOOOooo... Tombstones.  I like tombstones.... Had fun with that subject in my first photoclass project.  The Princeton Cemetery is much the same way... the locals use it as a park too.

645 Pentax with Tmax 100 and traditional wet darkroom processing.  Nothing fancy.. no burning.. no dodging.. just typical printing.  Scanned from my project book... just a few from the series.  (honestly.. I was rushed for the deadline so I didn't do anything special) 


















MAN DO I WISH I had more time to spend in the darkroom... thats another thing about digital that makes it flexible.  I can play around with my images while I'm on the computer working (I work from home.. don't tell the boss).


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

I have found that digital darkroom is a fair compromise for me as well. Not heavy creative editing but just simple darkroom techniques with any small editor seems to fit me.

I would like to say this.... I have shouted for my time on this site that blown out highlights just don't bother me.  I find you bright tombstones more than acceptable I like them that way.


----------



## Sweetsomedays (Jul 3, 2007)

I am loving this thread and everyones photos!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

I like the horse.  I would have cropped it in the camera without so much empt space on the right but it is a really nice shot and that is just my taste not too many would agree.


----------



## Stretch Armstrong (Jul 3, 2007)

Ok, mystery, here is my go at it. This was shot in jpeg and downloaded to computer. Nothing else was done to. 

This is the Alte Oper in Frankfurt, Germany. It was taken in April.











Ok, can we have a moment for the village idiot. Why wont my pictures launch directly into the post? Please help.


----------



## usayit (Jul 3, 2007)

Sweetsomedays said:


> I am loving this thread and everyones photos!



Nice capture.  The hardest thing I ran into when photographing horses is getting them to keep their ears forward... lol.  The lighting from the side and the profile are nice.


----------



## usayit (Jul 3, 2007)

Stretch Armstrong said:


> Ok, can we have a moment for the village idiot. Why wont my pictures launch directly into the post? Please help.








clip off everything after "jpg" in the url of the image.


----------



## Stretch Armstrong (Jul 3, 2007)

usayit--Thank you. I tried my darnedest to figure that out. 

Thanks.:hugs:


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

usayit said:


> Nice capture. The hardest thing I ran into when photographing horses is getting them to keep their ears forward... lol. The lighting from the side and the profile are nice.


 
Most of the problem i had was getting their legs positioned correctly.


----------



## Sweetsomedays (Jul 3, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Most of the problem i had was getting their legs positioned correctly.



Could you elaborate please?


----------



## newrmdmike (Jul 4, 2007)

ok. . . i cropped this, its from a iq lab scan off a 6x4.5 neg (fuji 400 h) no artificial lighting . . . dead nuts color, i cropped so you could see those sweet catchlights.  it was the last shot on the roll . . . i was anxious to get it developed, so here is the shot i took tokill the roll.


----------



## newrmdmike (Jul 4, 2007)

geez dude, that looks like the aftermath of a bomb or something. mist and a dam right?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

The jericho scenario.....very nice though.  

The horse thing.  The owners of the horses would not buy a print in which the horse's legs were not in the same positions.  the front to had to be sid by side and the rear side by side and all four straight to the ground no angles.  

Did a couple of horse shows and man I waited and waited while the blocked the horses.  I think that is what they called it.  I would have about ten seconds to shoot the horse after the position was obtained.  My hardest thing to do was to get that shot off before the horse moved again.  Even when I got ten shots of the horse standing in the right position sometimes there was ear problems as well.  I really wasn't charging enough.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

*FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GREAT INDEPENDENCE DAD SHOOTOUT. POST YOUR IMAGES BY MIDNIGHT AT INDEPENDENCE INDEPENDENCE *
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86365 BEGIN VOTING TOMORROW AND VOTE ANYTIME THOUGHT MIDNIGHT THE 6TH EASTERN STANDARD TIME.

Images must have been made ON FILM since last Saturday and today. color images only straight from the camera of no more than a one our lad could have done easily.  One image only allowed.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

Since I have posted my one image I have a lot more losers from the second roll on Sunday.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

Another loser from Sundays Roll... By the way Saturday I went to the Marina where there were fishermen.  On Sunday I went very early to the city park before the families arrived.  Twenty four exposures on Saturday and 36 on Sunday,  All these images and several more are from a total of sixty shots.  I find that a bit interesting.  That you can wander around with a camera for sixty exposures and get more or less usable shots in a high percentage of the cases if you are just shooting for content.







The broken window is from a very early quaker meeting house inside the park.  The broken window isn't just lazy recrational dept employees.  Im sure they are waiting for antique glass.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

I found this to be a humorous shot.  This image was taken on that quarter acre of historic area where the church and cemetary are located,  They couldn't hide this or put it somewhere else, they just had to stick it in almost the center of the compound.






Even better if you look close and realize that one of the wires has been cut and is hanging loose.  What were they thinking.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

Take a careful look and you will see the carousel right on the edge of the historic church grounds. I thought it made a nice contrast of subject matter. It is of course another reject.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

Wonder how many shots like this most film shooters have.  A little interesting not much though and shot on one of the last two frames on the roll.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

This is a case where you would have just said damn, I have the wrong kind of film.  Needed slide film worser n hell.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

yep needed slide film so tempted to slide the contrast bar up.  but this is old school meatball photography so what you see is what you get.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

carousel also nothing much interesting but enough to shoot.




What little contrast there is came from running the gamma down which is a one hour lab control.  Couldn't just run the contrast up since I don't think a one hour lab can do that.  so I ran the exposure down which I know a one hour lab can do.  You can always ask for a print to be darkened or lightened.  Any repectable lab will do that for you.  along with changing the color a bit.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

You will be happy to know that I put away the images from the weekend... You will probably be less happy to know that I have an image from a test of a modern (to me)camera. This is from a minolta 7000 one of the first autofocus 35mm cameras. My eyes are not good in low light so I felt like I needed this. So during the test I shot a photograph of AG Bear. It was my 27 year old daughter's teddy bear. He occupies a place of honor in our house. He resides on the hearth of our unused fireplace. I give you AGBEAR





iso 50 arista 35mm film from a hundred foot roll. From the camera shot cloned out the dust and that's all. It is full flash from high above AG same as I plan to continue using for weddings.  As to the shadow on the face, I can only hope I don't have a bride with a snout, but you never know.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 4, 2007)

It's been fascinating watching things pass through this thread, with mixed results I'm sure some would agree. Anyway, off the back of reading an article tonight on B+W conversions, I thought of a shot I took a couple of months back that I thought might suit such treatment, but before I do that, here's a re-size exactly as it left the camera. Not perfect, but it does suggest that things can still be done in the camera (at least I think so)






5 minutes with PS, and this is kind of where I'm thinking this one is going - B+W version


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

sorry but your link didnt work for me.  It's a nice enough image in color don't know how much improvement going black and white will do.


----------



## avcabob (Jul 4, 2007)

Thought I'd finally join the fun. 

1.





2.





3.





4.





5.





6.





7.





8.





9.





Sorry about being so many.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

No such thing as too many look at all the junk I have put up here.  Where is that last shot.  I actually like it best.


----------



## Chronicle (Jul 4, 2007)

I love the shots I am seeing.


----------



## avcabob (Jul 4, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> No such thing as too many look at all the junk I have put up here.  Where is that last shot.  I actually like it best.



The last 2 are from San Francisco.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

I thought maybe so but they also had a look like they might be from south america I don't know why I got that impression but I did.


----------



## PNA (Jul 5, 2007)

Shot today, right out of the camera, film......I just liked the comp of this.

Any comments


----------



## avcabob (Jul 5, 2007)

I like the composition a lot also. If anything, I would like the tree on the left to be gone as it kinda blends into the main tree a little, but there's not much you can do about that.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 5, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> sorry but your link didnt work for me. It's a nice enough image in color don't know how much improvement going black and white will do.


 
Sorry about that, slight faux pas with the hyperlinking - try this instead


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 5, 2007)

If it had been posible and it probably isn't for a number of reasons I would have shot the complete house.  It's like shooting half a person to me.  But having been a meatball photographer for thirty years my guess it you either couldnt do it or you wanted to emphasize the flag.

As is it's a very nice image


----------



## PNA (Jul 5, 2007)

avcabob said:


> I like the composition a lot also. If anything, I would like the tree on the left to be gone as it kinda blends into the main tree a little, but there's not much you can do about that.


 
Once I moved, left or right, I lost the "framing " of the flag.



mysteryscribe said:


> wanted to emphasize the flag.
> 
> As is it's a very nice image


 


Thanks.....


----------



## Peniole (Jul 5, 2007)

Here's another hot of the camera so to say...


----------



## WDodd (Jul 5, 2007)

Love your image Peniole!

Heres another one of mine.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 5, 2007)

Okay tell me why you exposed for the shy and not the building in the shadow camera meter fool you or were you trying to keep the ocean's exposure, Im just curious now since with real camera raw it is one or the other and you have to decide before you shoot it. Either way probably would have worked as well.

And the night shot is beautiful. I always wonder what that kind of shot would have looked like with more exposure to show the sky's details as well. Beautiful shot anyway.


----------



## WDodd (Jul 5, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Okay tell me why you exposed for the shy and not the building in the shadow camera meter fool you or were you trying to keep the ocean's exposure, Im just curious now since with real camera raw it is one or the other and you have to decide before you shoot it. Either way probably would have worked as well.
> 
> And the night shot is beautiful. I always wonder what that kind of shot would have looked like with more exposure to show the sky's details as well. Beautiful shot anyway.



I have one both ways!!!! Will post the building exposure momentarily.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 5, 2007)

cool beans I would love to see the difference.


----------



## WDodd (Jul 5, 2007)

The other version. How did I do on the lighthouse exposure?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 5, 2007)

Sorry but the second one is the winner for me. I know everybody here hates blown out everything but I love the second one it is so shockingly in you face.

That said if we are using my standards (what a one hour lab could do) you could take that down about half a stop get your light house with full exposure and still get a little more of the ocean I think. If not go with Two.   In my opinion..


----------



## WDodd (Jul 5, 2007)

Don't apologize, I like them both! I don't mind the blown out stuff sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Thats just my opinion. 

I'm going back to that spot today if it doesn't rain and I will take a couple more shots with different settings.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 5, 2007)

yes work it till you have fully expored it, then you can come back in a year and shoot it again because things will be totally different.  That why I have a love hate relationship with the craft.  It keeps changing on me.


----------



## WDodd (Jul 5, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> yes work it till you have fully expored it, then you can come back in a year and shoot it again because things will be totally different.  That why I have a love hate relationship with the craft.  It keeps changing on me.



I can't say that is too terrible of a thing. Keeps things interesting.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 5, 2007)

Yeah that's the love part...

Ps hard to believe but 150 more views and this thread will have had more views than the read me sticky..


----------



## Peniole (Jul 5, 2007)

Glad you liked it , thanks for the comments. I do have a slightly longer exposure but it didn't conform to this thread since it had a bit too much black top and bottom so I cropped, but here's the link if you want to have a look...

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86867

There wasn't much detail in the sky other than pollution so I went with a cleaner look so to say. The one here is still a 15" exposure @ISO100 and f/13.

Wdodd I like the second one too, the moored (if that's the right word) anchor seems more pominent and imposing.


----------



## XJBaylor (Jul 6, 2007)

Actually taken with a DSC-T1, no post.


----------



## WDodd (Jul 6, 2007)

Man I love the first shot there XJ!!!


----------



## PNA (Jul 6, 2007)

Well, we lost MysteryScribe's input. He has decided to leave the forum for principled reasons. His humor and valued opinions will be sorely missed.

I urge all of you to message him with support to reconsider his decision.


----------



## WDodd (Jul 7, 2007)

Its not the same posting in this thread if I can't look forward to his, sometimes immediate, responses.


----------



## LittleMan (Jul 7, 2007)

I thought I would try this out.  I even used manual focus & manual settings... even though it was 20d I figured I'd go 'old school' as much as I could. 

I went out to the garden to see what I could find, looks like I got lucky!(if you don't count the swarms of mosquitoes!!!)






Different angle/closer





Trying to hide from me... (camera shy maybe?)





All I did was crop about 1/8" off of the sides to center the images since the 20d doesn't have a 100% viewable area in the viewfinder.... I really wish it did though.

Tell me what y'all think.


----------



## PNA (Jul 7, 2007)

WDodd said:


> Its not the same posting in this thread if I can't look forward to his, sometimes immediate, responses.


 
I'm asking those who value his humor, wit and input to please message/email him to reconsider.


----------



## WDodd (Jul 7, 2007)

Littleman, great pictures would be curious to see what they looked like in color. I'm assuming the flower is yellow??? Just doesn't have the contrast for a black and white IMHO. But still great work!

PNA: I had already sent mysteryscribe a PM, but decided to email him as he probably wouldn't get the PM if he doesn't come back to the forum. Hope to see him return, it would be a shame if threads like this one didn't have his input anymore.


----------



## WDodd (Jul 7, 2007)

Retired ship that was turned into a museum and is docked next to the Rock & Roll hall of fame in Cleveland. 






I have some film versions too that I need to go get developed here one of these days.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 7, 2007)

Nice ship photo and the way you shot it, it looks like we could just walk up the sidewalk to the ship.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 7, 2007)

I sent a message via email.


----------



## WDodd (Jul 7, 2007)

crownlaurel said:


> Nice ship photo and the way you shot it, it looks like we could just walk up the sidewalk to the ship.



Thanks you.



			
				crownlaurel said:
			
		

> I sent a message via email.



Hope it helps!


----------



## Proteus617 (Jul 8, 2007)

From the first roll I ever shot with an SLR.  C41 B+W, drugstore processed, scanned from the print.  Vintage effects due only to ineptitude.  But still, I kinda like it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 14, 2007)

*I HAVE ENJOYED THIS THREAD VERY MUCH SO I HAVE OPENED ONE JUST LIKE IT ON A FORUM I CREATED.  *

*IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS THIS KIND OF GALLERY POSTING PLEASE JOIN ME THERE ANYONE IS WELCOME THIS FORUM IS ALL ABOUT IMAGES... *

*IF YOU CAN LEAVE YOUR EGO AT THE DOOR, COME JOIN ME IN THE POSTING OF IMAGES.  *

*IT IS MORE OR LESS UNMODERATED EXCEPT BY ME AND ALL I CARE ABOUT ARE THE IMAGES.  *

*ANYWAY TAKE A LOOK THERE MIGHT BE A GOOD FIT FOR YOU OR MAYBE NOT.*

http://basicphotoforum.bbfast.com/


----------

