Rona!d Posted January 20, 2007 Share #21 Posted January 20, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) M? If there is a grad filter there, then it's been very well handled given that it was shot on an M. That must be incrdibly difficult to get right. Rolo, somehow i prefer the second (original) blue version although it also has this obvious borderline of the gradual filter. Maybe i´m a little fussy or it´s just a matter of taste. If most people like it, why not. Which camera did you use? Hasselblad? The photo itself -as most of your other shots- is really good, no doubt. I enjoy them! cheers, Ron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2007 Posted January 20, 2007 Hi Rona!d, Take a look here Magic Moment . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rolo Posted January 20, 2007 Author Share #22 Posted January 20, 2007 Obviously I didn't want the filter line to show, but with Cokin, as this was, it can be difficult to hide when stopped down. I use Lee filters (Hard Grad) with other formats, but am restricted to Cokin when using the Leicas because of the adapter ring. Many photographers don't use Cokin/Lee filters with rangefinders because they can't see through the lens. That's not sufficient reason in my book as the positioning of the filter is fairly obvious from the front and the value of a grad is often worth taking the chance. Besides, shooting a couple of frames after moving the filter is hardly a chore, but the original position nearly always is the right one. SRB will make the adapter rings for you and most of the Leica sizes are in stock. For someone who might not be aware, not aimed at you Ron, a grey grad will capture the sky detail on the film and save too many bald skies in your pics. When scanned into Photoshop, there is then meat in the image to bend and twist. It's also a massive advantage to me in handling dull foregrounds with a bright sky. Using zone readings for sky and foreground might show an acceptable 6 stop difference, but most of the zones are in the sky, so beautiful sky, crap flat foreground. Put a 2 stop grad on, now you've got 4 stops and with increased film development (B&W) the foreground can increase from less than 2 zones to 4 and become really lively. Works for colour just as well, but without the extra dev opportunity. Aplogies for going on. just trying to help. Was going to talk about the Leica M and square pictures, but another time maybe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rona!d Posted January 21, 2007 Share #23 Posted January 21, 2007 Rolo, i know the advantages of grad filters for the sky and have also a huge range of these "poor quality" plastic filters from Cokin since the early 80´s. I never used them since the last 12 years or so. As a user of Photoshop i go the other way and take two (or more) different exposures and combine them later. It´s less work and i have the full quality of my lenses without the disadvantage of these scratch sensitive plastic Cokin equipment. With the full software-control different apertures have no influence on the result (hard grad-line when stopped down the lens while using Cokin filters) and i don´t need a complete horizont-line from left edge to right edge, but can also care for mountains which crosses the grad-line for example. Have a look at mountains when a photographer uses a grad filter on the lens - terrible! I think i´m a little fuzzy, most people love this 80´s style. So you crop all your Leica-shots to square? Interesting. regards, Ron edit ---> p.s. Back to my last point: Mountains. I noticed that your photo also shows one and that´s the point. The sky close to the horizont-line above the mountain is brighter than the upper rest, have a look at the water-reflections from the mountain-"picture" - NO grad there. That´s unnatural, isn´t it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 21, 2007 Author Share #24 Posted January 21, 2007 Rolo, I think i´m a little fuzzy, most people love this 80´s style. regards, Ron The sky close to the horizont-line above the mountain is brighter than the upper rest, have a look at the water-reflections from the mountain-"picture" - NO grad there. That´s unnatural, isn´t it? Ron. "most people love this 80´s style", take it that's meant to be an insult ! Not sure iI understand your last point, but think you are saying the reflection in the water should show evidence of a grad as well.. If you are the answer is - no. Think about it. Off to see what period your images are locked into. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambroving Posted January 21, 2007 Share #25 Posted January 21, 2007 Ron. "most people love this 80´s style", take it that's meant to be an insult ! Not sure iI understand your last point, but think you are saying the reflection in the water should show evidence of a grad as well.. If you are the answer is - no. Think about it. Off to see what period your images are locked into. Rolo, Bit of a language barrier here. Ron is a graphic artist and PS whiz and doesn't enjoy this effect. He has no problem with the shot itself, only with you putting a piece of cheap plastic in front of a Leica lens. I'm less bothered, but I take his point when better means are available..., not that I could do it on a bet! Now, what's with this Hassy biz?! :-) BTW, Ron loves to tone his B&W's too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rona!d Posted January 22, 2007 Share #26 Posted January 22, 2007 William, thanks for clearing this point. Rolo, not meant as an insult, please! You got this wrong. ONLY the obvious use of a grad. color filter is 80´s style for me. You remember all these cheap landscape postcards? Sure i don´t expect a grad in the water when a grad.-filter is used in the sky (not possible with single standard grad.-filters), i only expect the sky in the reflection looks natural, so similar to the original.When the upper sky has a nice (fake) color-gradiant and the reflection in the water uncovers the "lie", i dislike that. To illustrate my point of view I show you some examples why i dislike these filters (a little extreme from the effect, overexpressed just to show what i mean). Excuse the poor quality of the shots, i simply copied them from a guys lowresolution jpeg-compressed webpage (don´t worry: mine) without using the original files: 1) original without filter (though it looks a bit like with a reverse blue center-spot) 2) typical effect most poeple use grad-filters 3) well, acceptable, though not my thing 4) original (yes, poor sky) 5) well, not my cup of tea Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/13875-magic-moment/?do=findComment&comment=148910'>More sharing options...
dotandcom Posted January 23, 2007 Share #27 Posted January 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Rolo, I've become a great admirer of your work, as have so many forum members. You set a (far-off) standard to which I aspire. I haven't commented before because I'm reluctant to post a series of 'me-too' type messages as one superb shot follows another, and I wouldn't presume to offer advice. I just quietly doff my cap each time. My reason for commenting now is to beg you and Ron not to worry about 'going on'. Aspirational types like me are eager to profit from your knowledge and experience and find this sort of discussion enlightening. Please do go on, at length. You don't offer weekend workshops, do you?! Please keep the work coming, and the discussions. All the best, Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 23, 2007 Share #28 Posted January 23, 2007 Ron You know this, I am sure... You will get a better sky in the last shot if you use a reverse black grad filter in PS and then, having adjusted the start point of the effect, reduce the opacity until the effect is as you like. Provided you haven't completely blown out the sky, this works extremely well. I am definitely not a fan of coloured grad filters at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted January 23, 2007 Share #29 Posted January 23, 2007 Do you think a filter was used here? http://homepage.mac.com/billh96007/.Pictures/Flower%20calendar/Dec-05,-scene.jpg and here, http://homepage.mac.com/billh96007/.Pictures/Flower%20calendar/Jan-05,-scene.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 23, 2007 Share #30 Posted January 23, 2007 I would guess not because nature is wonderful (So the answer is probably yes...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 23, 2007 Author Share #31 Posted January 23, 2007 Ron I am definitely not a fan of coloured grad filters at all. That's OK Andy, Photoshop can provide whatever's wanted. I don't like badly used grads and I've never liked the fancy ones, but more than that I dislike underexposed skies and there's plenty of those about. Digital can be worse and whilst it's fine to take two images of the same thing, it requires a tripod - so what does one do without a tripod - blown skies, gone forever ! I use grads very frequently albeit generally neutral grey grads, 1,2 & 3, but also blue and amber on occasion. How do you get a nice sky with B&W film without using a red filter thereby crapping the foreground ? Answer - an amber grad. I often use two grads at once, either 1 leading into a 2 for the sky, or a 1 for the foreground and a 2 for the sky. If nothing else grads give you something for Photoshop to grip onto. I'll add colour via a filter because it makes it different maybe from the last shot. Clients often choose an image with an obvious grad because it stands out in their brochure. This tree image isn't very old, but it pre-dates me having a quality scanner and improved photoshop skills. It makes an exhibition quality print in the enlarger that's at least a match for any digital print I recall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 23, 2007 Author Share #32 Posted January 23, 2007 Rolo, I haven't commented before because I'm reluctant to post a series of 'me-too' type messages as one superb shot follows another, and I wouldn't presume to offer advice. I just quietly doff my cap each time. My reason for commenting now is to beg you and Ron not to worry about 'going on'. Aspirational types like me are eager to profit from your knowledge and experience and find this sort of discussion enlightening. Please do go on, at length. You don't offer weekend workshops, do you?! Please keep the work coming, and the discussions. All the best, Chris Very, very kind words Chris. Thankyou. comments are very important to me and to other posters I presume and I would encourage you to comment whenever you feel it's appropriate. Images are displayed for a number or personal reasons I presume, but all show their work for others to see and comment on. Every piece takes time to prepare and whenthe poster sits there without comments it undermines the confidence in that image, so I encourage you to speak out because your voice will be well recieved. We're all experts at looking at photographs, because we see so many images of a very high standard. Want to see terrific portarit photography, pick up a copy of Vogue ..... What I saying is, your opinion as a viewer is fairly advanced so please do tap those keys. "Going on" not sure what you mean unless it's continue with the discussion ..... There's no problem in that except, we all tend to be casual in our responses and then one gets misinterpreted and it turns quickly into a squabble. See above for a classic example. Again, because other people chose not to get involved it appears like a dogfight. I like to think of Forums as a chat in a pub, where you can say something without choosing your words so carefully and there's chance to repeat. Weekend workshops ? I do mention camera and Photoshop workshops on my website, but haven't had any takers. I'm up for it, either one-on-on, or in groups. Perhaps you can drop me an email and we can discuss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_peter_m Posted January 23, 2007 Share #33 Posted January 23, 2007 I am with Chris, this is a most interesting thread to me with lots of good information and I been reading trough it a few times. I will just have do dig out them grads again and do some experimenting Rolo, I agree discussions on the board should be like a good visit in a pup but we all know things can take an other direction once someone comes along and figures he has the only right way of doing it. Is there a right or wrong way? In the end it is the result that counts and if the image is what the photographer wanted it is perfect no mater what anyone else says. Of course if you shooting for customers it is a bit different. I do like both of the versions of the landscape but I must say I do prefer the original printed version. Thank you for the great topic and Ron as well for his input and samples. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dotandcom Posted January 23, 2007 Share #34 Posted January 23, 2007 Yes, Peter is right. When I say that I want you to go on going on, Rolo, I mean explaining how you spotted the potential in a shot and then set out to achieve it. I don't have in mind a series of textbook-type prescriptive 'first do this, then do that' lessons: why should you give your professional expertise away free? I learn best just by eavesdropping on the sort of debate we have had in this thread. The occasional challenge or alternative perspective from someone as accomplished as Ron merely adds to the learning curve as far as I am concerned. It may be tempting fate, but compared to most forums we are relatively free here from the invincibly ignorant types who wreck discussions elsewhere. By the way, can you provide me with a link to your website? I haven't been able to find it mentioned in your posts here. Thanks. All the best, Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 24, 2007 Author Share #35 Posted January 24, 2007 Thanks guys, Peter, Absolutely agree with your points. This is a 'nice' forum and everybody shares and apart from some on the Digital Forum, I haven't seen any flaming which is quite unusual. I've never put out so much information about my images, but I do so because I think it's welcomed. I've no desire, or incentive, to lecture and can go away just as easily as I came because I take photographs for me. However, I've learned so much from the work of other photgraphers that you're welcome to the little bit that I have to offer. You say "Shooting for customers is different" !? Let me encourage you to change that mindset and you'll grow immediately. Imagine, two photographers are in a hotel the night before going to shoot photos of the above lake. One is a competent amateur photographer, there because he likes taking pics, the other is a professional of the same competence being paid by a client for his travel, accom, materials and wages. Which one has to come back with good images and can't afford to be lucky? So, IF you want to be serious, and you may NOT want that, say to yourself "I've been paid £1,000 for my pics of this hotel/monument/landscape.... and what I've got isn't good enough yet, what do I need to do.....?". The time/effort/investment/knowledge of an 'amateur' is no less than a professional, it's the approach/commitment that I find to be different. Become your own customer and blossom. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macos Posted January 24, 2007 Share #36 Posted January 24, 2007 Rolo, a very intrigueing shot. BTW I prefer the very first version. I am not sure, perhaps because it is a real classic, but it reminds me of the front cover of Bruce Dickinson's Skunkworks album. This was not accidentally created with your involvement ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rona!d Posted January 24, 2007 Share #37 Posted January 24, 2007 Right ! The time/effort/investment/knowledge of an 'amateur' is no less than a professional, it's the approach/commitment that I find to be different. Become your own customer and blossom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_peter_m Posted January 26, 2007 Share #38 Posted January 26, 2007 Rolo, " Shooting for customers is different" .............. I agree completely with what you wrote, we always ( at least if you are series) try to improve, we learn and our photographs improve and we or I ( I cant speak for everyone just what I try to do but I am sure we are on the same wavelength) always push ourselves to get a bit closer to perfection. The way I see the " Shooting for customers is different" is, The competed amateur only has to follow his own vision in what he wants to capture. The professional who is working for a client also has to consider the clients wishes and if things are ideal they both go down the same path but sometimes you may have to adjust because you know the client wants a image just a bit different then you would shoot it or see it. That I think isn't a bad thing by the way because I would think you will learn something. Discussions like this do help me a lot and it is great you and some of the other members here take the time to help us out. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.