Bring back the Buffalo

Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,116
Location
Miami, Florida, USA.
I am going to give you my opinion. It is just my opinion but it tends to reflect how I work with b&w, which is not the same way somebody else does.
I honestly think it is a great shot but for my taste it needs improvement.
I believe the sepia toning is too strong for the subject. A duotone would have been better and still you had the warming and "antique" mood preserved.
There is no detail in the buffalo in the background. That surely takes away from the photograph, especially in competition. The picture, perhaps because of the strong sepia toning is slightly underexposed. I saw an improvement when I opened the shadows.
When I face subjects like this I tend to use my spot meter if time allows. I meter from the darkest subject and then I close two stops from that meter reading. I am always ready during editing to open the shadow areas if needed.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
6,091
Location
Alberta
Thanks you guys..

William.. I dont know what to say, other than... It's a digital file in B+W so in my mind.. It's always going to be lacking.. :smile:


Yes it's underexposed, cause I hate blow out highlights in digtial.. Even so.. I think I lost detail in the snow....


And the shot was taken with a lowly OM-D and kit lens so.. really with that combo .. I am not going to get the ultimate IQ :tongue:..
Slighty better than a I-phone..hahaha

I had hoped to have darkroom up and running .. And I do have all the peices including a buitfull 4X5 durst enlarger and three lenes, but I now looking for a new place to live.. Hopefully very soon..



So I can get back to "just shooting film.


Still got both of my Leica M2 with lots of film being shot just not souped at this point in time..




Gregory
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,116
Location
Miami, Florida, USA.
Thanks you guys..

William.. I dont know what to say, other than... It's a digital file in B+W so in my mind.. It's always going to be lacking.. :smile:


Yes it's underexposed, cause I hate blow out highlights in digtial.. Even so.. I think I lost detail in the snow....


And the shot was taken with a lowly OM-D and kit lens so.. really with that combo .. I am not going to get the ultimate IQ :tongue:..
Slighty better than a I-phone..hahaha

I had hoped to have darkroom up and running .. And I do have all the peices including a buitfull 4X5 durst enlarger and three lenes, but I now looking for a new place to live.. Hopefully very soon..



So I can get back to "just shooting film.


Still got both of my Leica M2 with lots of film being shot just not souped at this point in time..




Gregory

Gregory, although a digital conversion "lacks" compared to a b&w negative that has been converted (or printed) there are solutions to improve on quality. To begin with there are today excellent softwares to make conversions and they do an excellent job.
Let me address, if I may, the exposure problem. The tendency with the new cameras is to use matrix exclusively. It saves time and it can give you a great exposure many times but matrix tends to compensate the exposure and the problem here is that nobody knows by how much.
I tend to use center weighted and spot most of the time because I do know how they work and I learned what I have to do to get to the "right" exposure.
When I am confronted with important highlights I take a meter reading from them. Bright highlights will require 2 stops open from a spot or a center weighted reading to bring back the brightness. I do the same for an important dark object or subject but this time I close 2 stops. There are subtle differences in tonalities for both subjects but that requires experience to arrive at the proper exposure. With digital the histogram is your best friend.
I like the sepia toning but in the case of the buffaloes it was my feeling that it was too much. Up to what point it made the image underexposed that I do not really know. That buffalo in the background simply lacks detail and as such it takes interest away from the shot. It is not an easy exposure though.
Using film and planning my shots I surely do not use matrix, preferring to use conventional metering like center weighted or spot knowing beforehand that I know what to do to arrive at the proper exposure, in this case, without the help of the histogram.

William.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
6,091
Location
Alberta
Thanks William..

I am pretty sure I know how to meter..

But when your shooting on "P" for professional and shooting J-pegs like I do 90 % of the time with the OM-D.. the point is lost ..

What is a histogram.. :confused:

Dont know, dont care.. :biggrin:

And if I get stuck I have gossen Meter with me at all times..

I use it for my film Leica's ..




The problem isnt with the exposer of this image.. The latitude is beyond the range of the digital sensor.. Period..

There is no exposer that I could have down that would have given me detail in the dark buffalo and the white snow.

Or as like to say.. Digtial still sucks...:tongue:


Correct me if I am wrong but there is no softwear on the planet that bring back a blown highlight in digital...

Nothing there to retrieve..:rolleyes:

Like you say the digtial image "lacks" in comparison to B+W film..

And since I am still shooting film.. I dont really worry about the digtial files..


There just for fun.. And I accept the limitations of the media and see it for what it is..



Gregory
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,116
Location
Miami, Florida, USA.
I am sure you know how to meter and I did not question that, I just said HOW I meter.
It is obvious, if you are not using digital you do not have the histogram available as a tool. Believe me, the histogram is the digital photographer best friend when it comes to exposure, especially the color histogram.
When I referred to b&w conversions I was talking about softwares to do that better than it can be done with the softwares we use on a daily basis to edit our images. You are right, there is no software that will bring back details in clipped bright areas and the main reason why I always meter from an important highlight. I simply make sure that my highlights are going to be properly exposed.
Digital sensors of the early 2000's had a more limited dynamic range than the new ones. I cannot tell you exactly how much more but I agree they do not have the dynamic range of film although they are getting close. To extend that dynamic range I meter my highlight, compensate accordingly and then in Photoshop or Capture NX2, I open the shadows nicely to make that dynamic range more useful to me and it worked with your image also.
You know Gregory, for one reason or another the images shot with digital have more tonalities, especially shooting Adobe RGB, which I never use, than when using film but for reasons that I cannot explain the tonalities of film look better when printed on fiber base paper. In my case, they look more natural to me.
I want to thank you for your interest in participating in this brief discussion.

William.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
3,298
Location
Florida
I am pretty sure I know how to meter..

What is a histogram..Dont know, dont care..

The problem isnt with the exposer of this image.. The latitude is beyond the range of the digital sensor.. Period..

3 strikes....you're out. sorry

Will, you're wasting your time. I've tried, and only got grief for my efforts. Greg, you might try listening just a little bit. All we are trying to do is help. Fact is you are simply incorrect on a great many things when it comes to this....and they are easily remedied, but not until you stop being defensive and listen to those that actually know what they are talking about.

Funny you said you dont have time to put the actual image here, just a link (which actually takes just as long) yet you have time to post 15 images a day, including song lyrics and answer every post? Seriously, it does not take any longer to paste in an image itself compared to pasting in a link to it. It does however take your viewers an extra step. Its called forum etiquette. I can make you a video on it if you like :biggrin:

by FAR, the biggest barrier to photographic improvement was and is "what folks think they know". Once they have it in their heads they think they know something, they switch off to the whole learning process. Very hard to pry that can back open. However, once open....the learning process can move with amazing speed on an eager mind. Hmmmmmmmmm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
6,091
Location
Alberta
Brad what part of "I dont value your opinion in any shape or form do you not get".. ?

Why do you even care.. move on .. Nothing for you here..


It offends me when you piggy back my threads..


I dont mind that look at my work.. Just keep it to your self..

Thanks

Gregory
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
3,298
Location
Florida
I did not comment on your work at all Greg, I commented on Williams post. If you dont konw how to post just the image..just as quickly as posting the link itself....please ask someone. Do everyone a favor and stop posting links to images.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
6,091
Location
Alberta
Thank Dossy..

I apprecaite you taking the time to comment..


It's funny, several days before I saw these magnificant beast.. I was going around saying ..

Cut down all the fences and

"Bring back the Buffalo" LOL


Gregory
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom