# C&C and Vote on which on you like the best, if any, and why?



## mdsphotography (Jan 31, 2018)

Greetings,

The following four photos are all of the same still life entitled: "The Chips are Down". Each has been edited in different ways and manners and I like each in their own way. As an amateur photographer I like and appreciate others thoughts and C&C. Thus this Poll.

Thanks in advance.

Mark




 


 


 


 
© All Rights and Contents Reserved MDS Photography 2018


----------



## Designer (Jan 31, 2018)

The only thing that is different are the colors.


----------



## Nintendoeats (Jan 31, 2018)

#1 is alright, if weirdly blurry around the prints on the out of focus chips (this applies to all four versions).

#2 looks like a photograph that was kept in somebodies attic for 40 years. That could be a nice effect except that the colour banding also makes it look like it is a badly scanned copy of said photograph.

The speckling in the bottom of #3 is distracting from the  rest of the image, it's all I can look at. The dull tones of the chips are quite pleasing to me (the colourblind person). I would remove the speckley bits by hand myself.

The darkening at the edges of #4 is nice, but the artifacting on the white chip is really bad.

The original image may have less pronounced artifacting, which would make a big difference.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 31, 2018)

I like #3. Why? Because it's the most-graphic shot.


----------



## mdsphotography (Feb 1, 2018)

Designer said:


> The only thing that is different are the colors.


Designer,

There are some more difference in relation to there contrast and definition and thanks for your post.

Mark


----------



## SquarePeg (Feb 1, 2018)

#3 is the clear winner for me.  Better detail and more pop.


----------



## Designer (Feb 1, 2018)

mdsphotography said:


> There are some more difference in relation to there contrast and definition and thanks for your post.


Right.  

I got that, but it's still the same photograph tweaked to four slightly different versions.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 1, 2018)

Not trying to be ugly, but even the best of the bunch, is sadly lacking. You're profile says not okay to edit, so I won't post a corrected image, instead I'll tell you what I found on the one I checked #4. WB is off, it's underexposed by a full stop, and contrast is lacking. If you have LR, try these settings and see the difference.


----------



## mdsphotography (Feb 1, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Not trying to be ugly, but even the best of the bunch, is sadly lacking. You're profile says not okay to edit, so I won't post a corrected image, instead I'll tell you what I found on the one I checked #4. WB is off, it's underexposed by a full stop, and contrast is lacking. If you have LR, try these settings and see the difference.
> 
> View attachment 153137 View attachment 153138 View attachment 153139 View attachment 153140



I appreciate the input and I do have LR. This was edited in Snapseed from a photo taken with my Android. I will take your advise and try it. May be limited due to it not being shot in raw.

Mark


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 1, 2018)

mdsphotography said:


> May be limited due to it not being shot in raw.



I was just working with your posted low resolution image, and still it made a substantial difference.


----------



## KmH (Feb 1, 2018)

I didn't like any of them, basically for the reasons smoke665 mentioned - underexposure and white balance.
I would add the lighting is from to small a source, making the shadow edges to sharp, and harsh.

With much of the frame being dark the in the camera meter may have been fooled since the meter is calibrated for  an average reflectance of 12% to 18% from an scene that has an average range of colors equal to a medium gray.
We have to use plus when a scene is dominated by low reflectance (like a pile of poker chips that have low reflectance) exposure compensation, or minus exposure compensation when a scene is dominated by high reflectance (like fresh snow).


----------



## mdsphotography (Feb 2, 2018)

smoke665

Okay. I have taken your suggested LR settings an the following is the result. I have also tried to include the original photo as taken by my phone but I keep getting an error and not sure why. I can the difference and the improvement based upon your suggestions.

Thanks!


----------



## Derrel (Feb 2, 2018)

"Correcting" the white balance makes this much less-attractive than any of the originals.


----------



## mdsphotography (Feb 2, 2018)

I guess it brings about the old saying, "One man's trash is another man's treasure". Comes down to an individuals personal preference and I appreciate all of the feedback.

Mark


----------



## SquarePeg (Feb 2, 2018)

I agree with Derrel  You've lost a lot of the texture in that last edit.  I still prefer #3.


----------



## KmH (Feb 2, 2018)

The texture can be recovered by boosting the mid-tone contrast.
Using Lr that can done on the Basic panel with the Clarity slider.

The Basic panel Clarity, Vibrance, and Saturation sliders are collectively known as _Presence_ sliders .


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 2, 2018)

I was working off your posted image, and you have the original, so there's a little difference. On my monitor, it looks like you could back off the exposure slightly, lower the shadow slider just a bit and follow KmH's suggestion to adjust the clarity, vibrance and saturation sliders slightly. You can also bring out more of the midtones, by pulling the middle mark on the tone curve down just a bit more.


----------



## Designer (Feb 2, 2018)

mdsphotography said:


> Comes down to an individuals personal preference and I appreciate all of the feedback.


If you're at ease with with multiple opinions, and if every opinion is valid, then why do a poll?  Just keep the one you like best and call it a day.


----------



## mdsphotography (Feb 2, 2018)

Designer said:


> mdsphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Comes down to an individuals personal preference and I appreciate all of the feedback.
> ...



Designer,

Mainly as I am an amateur and I appreciate and respect the opinions of others and those more experienced/advanced than I am. I enjoy and appreciate photography but want to be better than I am going forward as I want to create something that is enjoyed by the masses.

Mark


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 3, 2018)

Derrel said:


> "Correcting" the white balance makes this much less-attractive than any of the originals.


I am not sure how it is possible to say that the white balance is out in the first place. Do we actually know that any part of the image was white, rather than ivory, say, or smoke stained or just plain grubby? If we did know that, is that relevant to be the final picture?

 I also like version 3 in the opening post.


----------



## weepete (Feb 3, 2018)

I prefer the first edit, it's the least aggressive with the processing im my eyes.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 3, 2018)

john.margetts said:


> I am not sure how it is possible to say that the white balance is out in the first place.



Considering that 4 out of 4 show a white chip, 3 out of 4 show  red and green, and only one shows a blue, I think its a safe bet that the WB is off. That was confirmed with a sampling off several areas using the eye dropper on LR. 

While there is nothing wrong with altering the WB or exposure for artistic purposes, it's always wise to know what you're starting with before you make those alterations.


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 3, 2018)

My point was that you cannot know that it is a white chip rather than a whitish/cream/dirty/etc chip.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 3, 2018)

john.margetts said:


> My point was that you cannot know that it is a white chip rather than a whitish/cream/dirty/etc chip.



Without benefit of a target card in the scene, all WB settings,are subjective in nature the trick is to look for a neutral value (containing equal RGB values). When dealing with an unknown,  I first click on the eye dropper, then click on the value box next to the temperature slider (as if I were going to add a manual value), leave it highlighted and waiting, then move the eye dropper over the image. As I do I watch the readings for RGB, and the values in the box change. When I find a spot where the RGB is equal and as close to the  18% gray value for the color space (118,118,118 for Adobe up to 128, 128, 128 for sRGB) I'm in, I click to set WB. At that point it's a judgement call to adjust if necessary.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 3, 2018)

So,* a short rant on color and white balancing* images:

My opinion has long been that color-correcting to mathematically-derived formulas results in boring pictures that have nothing but "correct" color as the basis for "quality" of the final picture. It's the picture that counts, not the numerical values that some eyedropper tool spews out. People are tired of predictable, boring, and "accurate" color.

People want color-toning that suits the mood of the picture. If a shot is made in a sidewalk cafe outdoors at twilight, and some 75-watt incandescent lightbulbs from inside the restaurant show up as yellowishly-tinged against cool, blue-toned evening light, we get the idea that we're seeing *incandescent light*. When the blue hour comes in landscape photography, we expect to see blue-toned stuff. When we shoot a sunrise or sunset, we do NOT "white balance away" the color tones created by that not-noon-in-Washington,D.C., 5,000 degrees Kelvin "daylight". The idea that "daylight" light ought to be 5,000 degrees Kelvin, and not 4,800 or even 5,600, is also absurd. On indoor, poker table shots? What poker world has 5,000 degrees Kelvin lights?


----------

