tomasis7 Posted November 28, 2008 Share #141 Posted November 28, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Put me in the "mood" camp. I like them...especially the first. Keep working on it Guy...I hate flashes too. I like them too. Moody like in England under a rain day. Love it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 28, 2008 Posted November 28, 2008 Hi tomasis7, Take a look here Very Low Light Stuff . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tomasis7 Posted November 28, 2008 Share #142 Posted November 28, 2008 Here are a couple of them with some NeatImage and a bit of shadow opening. I found the original versions distractingly dark and contrasty. your corrections are very terrible! it is contrasty and dark in shadows. how funny that turned out to be Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 28, 2008 Share #143 Posted November 28, 2008 I played with the picture too. I added another light and was able to bring out a bit more detail in some of the faces. 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/69486-very-low-light-stuff/?do=findComment&comment=730643'>More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 29, 2008 Share #144 Posted November 29, 2008 this whole 'paint'...'draw'....terminology would surely make a few great photographers of the past and present turn in their graves/beds... andy Really...even Henry Fox Talbot (one of the inventors of the medium) who referred to photography as "The Pencil of Nature"? Perhaps Winogrand who thought of Titian as a great photographer? Maybe Cartier Bresson who turned from camera to paper and canvas late in his life? Samaras who was both painter and photographer? Which "great photographers" exactly have been against this notion? And note of course, we're not talking about pictorialism or imitation - we're talking about many of the core tasks that these visual mediums share. Strand and the F/64 group were making a statement against photography as an imitation of painting. I'm interested in the history of art in general and photography in specific so I'm curious to hear about these photographers you're thinking of who would "turn in their graves" at the idea of photography's relationship to drawing. I'm sure you've already thought through the cameras obscura and the fact that the first cameras were made specifically as aids to tracing and drawing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 29, 2008 Share #145 Posted November 29, 2008 I played with the picture too. I added another light and was able to bring out a bit more detail in some of the faces. What have you been drinking Alan? Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 29, 2008 Share #146 Posted November 29, 2008 What have you been drinking Alan? Cheers, Sean You don't think having a "fill" light is an improvement? And that crooked lampshade was really bugging me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalippe Posted November 29, 2008 Share #147 Posted November 29, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) lets face it , the 4 OP images are weak to say the least, technically poor and if I had shot them I would never dream of posting them here,,,,prefer to hit the 'delete' button and move on.(I recognize some great shots by the OP on his site but these are not comparable)andy Well I don't much care for the shots either, but I don't personally see any reason not to post them for other people's reactions or for suggestions about post-processing now that they've been taken. I regard the LUF as more of a place to learn than to show off. I've certainly shown pictures whose limitations I was quite aware of for various reasons. I don't think we should dissuade others from doing the same. Just my view of it..... David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalippe Posted November 29, 2008 Share #148 Posted November 29, 2008 With regard to the debate about whether a great photograph is art if the photographer didn't consciously control enough aspects of the photo, I think there are actually two different debates happening without anyone separating the issues. The first question is really linguistic and involves the definition of the word "art". The second is a question of the value of a photograph (or other artifact) and in particular how its value is related to the intentions of its creator. Regarding the first, can something produced by accident (or by monkeys at a typewriter) be art? It seems to me that the notion of art presupposes intentionality. We don't call even the most inspiring landscape (I mean the landscape itself, not a representation in painting or photograph) art. I think that is, at least in part, because it was not created with a visual intent or any other intent for that matter. It just happened. So if a photograph happens purely by accident (i.e., someone was just trying to move the camera and accidently hit the shutter release or a dog came along and stepped on the shutter release) then, no matter how beautiful/inspiring/interesting/moving/etc., it probably shouldn't be called a work of art. At the other extreme, it doesn't make sense to demand that every aspect of a photograph be intended for that photograph to be called art. After all, in many types of photography there is almost always some aspect of the scene we don't even notice let alone consciously incorporate into the photo. So, like many things, real photographs (and photographers) fall along a spectrum. I would guess the better photographers see and consciously incorporate more than others and that is part of why they produce good results with good regularity. But how much has to be intended before something can be art? Who knows? How many hairs does a person need to have before he isn't bald? There is always ambiguity when you describe a spectrum by its two sides. And in the end once you realize what the issue is, drawing a line isn't all that interesting anyway. But the above is some sense uninteresting because it is really about the definition of a word. What really seems to be at stake in the discussion is how the degree of intentionality affects the value of a photograph. Who cares if it is art? We can call it something else and that won't take away from the fact that it is inspiring/interesting/moving/etc. And who can deny that a photograph is unchanged by the story of its creation? Once I hang it on the wall it is what it is, and what I see when I look at it doesn't depend on how it was made. Isn't it irrational to worry about anything other than the finished product? Perhaps, but I think that in reality caring about other things is the rule rather than the exception. Because the fact is that for many people (and I suspect almost all serious art collectors), the value of a work goes beyond its physical form. When I read a great novel or play, it actually adds to my enjoyment when I imagine myself communing with the other human being (possibly long dead) who first had these thoughts and wrote these words. For important visual artists, the price of a piece of art is greater if it was produced during what is regarded as one of that artist's important periods even if it doesn't posses the qualities that made that period important. Most art collectors are interested in the history of art and value works partly by their place in that history. So, while in the abstract it seems sensible to demand that people only concentrate on the finished product, I don't think that is the natural tendency, and I don't think that upon further reflection the natural tendency is all that illogical. And for whatever it is worth, I would definitely pay *more* for a copy of Hamlet typed by a monkey randomly hitting keys than for an original Shakespeare edition precisely because of the way it was produced. That would be truly amazing! David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted November 29, 2008 Share #149 Posted November 29, 2008 I played with the picture too. I added another light and was able to bring out a bit more detail in some of the faces. LOL..that's awesome! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted November 29, 2008 Share #150 Posted November 29, 2008 Well I don't much care for the shots either, but I don't personally see any reason not to post them for other people's reactions or for suggestions about post-processing now that they've been taken. I regard the LUF as more of a place to learn than to show off. I've certainly shown pictures whose limitations I was quite aware of for various reasons. I don't think we should dissuade others from doing the same. Just my view of it..... David Fair enough....I take it back, apologies. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted November 29, 2008 Share #151 Posted November 29, 2008 It seems to me that the notion of art presupposes intentionality. We don't call even the most inspiring landscape (I mean the landscape itself, not a representation in painting or photograph) art. I think that is, at least in part, because it was not created with a visual intent or any other intent for that matter. It just happened. So if a photograph happens purely by accident (i.e., someone was just trying to move the camera and accidently hit the shutter release or a dog came along and stepped on the shutter release) then, no matter how beautiful/inspiring/interesting/moving/etc., it probably shouldn't be called a work of art. The landscape analogy is maybe better (or more problematic) than you thought. Many famous landscapes are the result of hard work precisely with a visual, aesthetic intent. Think André Le Nôtre, Capability Brown, Humphry Repton, Frederick Law Olmsted and many more. Yet I don't think we consider these landscapes to be intrinsically different from or better than ones that just growed. In other words intentionality isn't a factor (or is only a minor factor) in our appreciation of landscape. So why is it so important in our appreciation of art? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmz Posted November 29, 2008 Share #152 Posted November 29, 2008 lets face it , the 4 OP images are weak to say the least, technically poor and if I had shot them I would never dream of posting them here,,,, I am no expert but I am glad that he posted them. For my tastes a plasticy SLR would have been better, as I find banding really turns me off, so I don't care for the photos. I also see the banding at 1250 on my M8, so I shoot at <=640. I am glad I didn't post them, but the one thing that I learned is that the dfine looks like it does a great job of removing the banding. So it looks like the processing through the dfine or NN did make a world of difference. Personally I would have taken these with 1/30 or 1/15, rather than 1/60, and probably used the capture one highlight and shadow to suppress and bring out the respective ends of exposure. An f2.8 is giving up 1 or 2 stops that are needed over a f2 or f1.4. (plus you get another 2-3 stops with Canon or Nikon) Someone mentioned that it is hard to focus in low light, but you can always scale focus. I really am impressed with how the dfine helped that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalippe Posted November 29, 2008 Share #153 Posted November 29, 2008 The landscape analogy is maybe better (or more problematic) than you thought. Many famous landscapes are the result of hard work precisely with a visual, aesthetic intent. Think André Le Nôtre, Capability Brown, Humphry Repton, Frederick Law Olmsted and many more. Yet I don't think we consider these landscapes to be intrinsically different from or better than ones that just growed. In other words intentionality isn't a factor (or is only a minor factor) in our appreciation of landscape. So why is it so important in our appreciation of art? The part of my message you quoted was an argument that intentionality is part of the definition of the word "art" rather than an argument that it should play a role in our appreciation of aesthetically pleasing things. In that part of my post I was saying, without passing judgement on their relative merits, that it makes linguistic sense to call the landscapes you mention "art" but it is a misuse of the term to call the Grand Canyon "art." But there I'm just making a point about the meaning of the word "art" (as inferred from its common use) not passing judgement on the relative value of created vs. natural landscapes (or intentionally vs. accidently created artifacts). Admittedly the second part of my post (that you didn't quote) was making that point that intentionality (and plenty of other things extrinsic to the object itself) do in fact play a role in many people's appreciation of art. And I also made some attempt to say that while this might seem odd at first when you think about it in an armchair, it isn't really surprising or illogical on further reflection because most people have all kinds of interests that they don't cordon off from one another. But I don't want to argue that everybody should view art this way or that there is something wrong with a person who considers the object and only the object in assessing its value. Does that seem sensible to you? David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 29, 2008 Share #154 Posted November 29, 2008 You don't think having a "fill" light is an improvement? And that crooked lampshade was really bugging me. Does that fill light always project images of yourself into the room? Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalippe Posted November 29, 2008 Share #155 Posted November 29, 2008 The landscape analogy is maybe better (or more problematic) than you thought. Many famous landscapes are the result of hard work precisely with a visual, aesthetic intent. Think André Le Nôtre, Capability Brown, Humphry Repton, Frederick Law Olmsted and many more. Yet I don't think we consider these landscapes to be intrinsically different from or better than ones that just growed. In other words intentionality isn't a factor (or is only a minor factor) in our appreciation of landscape. So why is it so important in our appreciation of art? You're right, the landscape example is better than I thought. Just to make it clear that what I said doesn't come down to "more intentionality is better", let's return to the example of the created landscapes you mention vs. the Grand Canyon. It is easy to imagine an outdoor enthusiast or naturalist who has a much more profound experience when he visits the Grand Canyon than when he visits a garden by Capability Brown precisely because the former is the work of nature and the latter is intentional work of man. It is also easy to imagine an avid landscaper, artist or student of English history who will have a more profound experience when visiting one of Brown's gardens. Both cases make complete sense and I'm not favoring one over the other. I'm just pointing out that in cases like these (and I would guess in most cases), lots of facts about the aesthetic object, including the intentions, if any, of its creator, inform people's appreciation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted November 29, 2008 Share #156 Posted November 29, 2008 The part of my message you quoted was an argument that intentionality is part of the definition of the word "art" rather than an argument that it should play a role in our appreciation of aesthetically pleasing things. In that part of my post I was saying, without passing judgement on their relative merits, that it makes linguistic sense to call the landscapes you mention "art" but it is a misuse of the term to call the Grand Canyon "art." But there I'm just making a point about the meaning of the word "art" (as inferred from its common use) not passing judgement on the relative value of created vs. natural landscapes (or intentionally vs. accidently created artifacts). Admittedly the second part of my post (that you didn't quote) was making that point that intentionality (and plenty of other things extrinsic to the object itself) do in fact play a role in many people's appreciation of art. And I also made some attempt to say that while this might seem odd at first when you think about it in an armchair, it isn't really surprising or illogical on further reflection because most people have all kinds of interests that they don't cordon off from one another. But I don't want to argue that everybody should view art this way or that there is something wrong with a person who considers the object and only the object in assessing its value. Does that seem sensible to you? David Eminently sensible. Basically I agree that intentionality must be a factor in the definition of art - but not the only factor. So I'm profoundly uneasy at the sort of contemporary art where the only thing that separates art from science, craftmanship, randomness or lunacy is the intention of the artist (who must be an artist, can't just be Joe or Jane Blow). Think of Hirst's zoological specimens or Manzoni's faeces, to name but two. At best it's a good thought-provoking joke (Duchamp's urinal, Craig-Martin's An Oak Tree). At the same time I'd like to be a pure conceptual artist, too pure to spoil a concept by giving it a material form or even revealing it to anyone else. Do you reckon I could get an Arts Council grant? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehouseflogger Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share #157 Posted December 1, 2008 Well after all that has been said I think I have earnt the right to respond ! These pictures were part of the 500 odd that were delivered to my client. I think I only included a dozen taken with my M8 as I was unable to use it properly in the circumstances. All other shots during the day were taken with Canons and a 85mm f1.2, and a 35mm f1.4. Those posters who have kept on subject have given me lots of useful advice and shown the results of various plug ins in their attempts to sort the pictures out. Thank you. I have no idea what others would have achieved in the same situation - it seems that some could have produced miracles, I was only showing what I came up with. May I respecfully ask how others might have got better results without using flash, with an elmarit 24mm asph, in a busy atmosphere and a crowded room? This phase of the wedding was only about an hour long before dinner in a much better lit dining room so I had to work fast. Has anybody got the answer of how to minimise grain at 2500 in a well exposed and sharp photo at 1/60th without having to push the blacks, without any obvious detrimental effects to the overall photograph ? I think I am right in saying that a faster lens will have a narrower depth of field, so perhaps not the best choice for wide atmospheric shots of people groups. Since it is now December, and for all those not inclined an apology, but Happy Christmas to all. Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted December 2, 2008 Share #158 Posted December 2, 2008 Funny shit here. Some of the comments on this thread really are obnoxious. To say that these photographs are a reason to sue the photographer is one of the funniest things I've read here, or anywhere for that matter, in a long time. Lighten up folks it's a photography forum-not colon surgery. I haven't been around here in a while and this thread certainly reminds me why. I guess I could stop in to laugh at the angry, ridiculous comments and get a chuckle. I personally like the shots. You don't have to like them but you don't have to be ugly about it. I've seen some shots by some of the commentators here that I loved and some that I thought really sucked but I don't think crass, assholish comments are constructive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 2, 2008 Share #159 Posted December 2, 2008 Funny shit here. Some of the comments on this thread really are obnoxious. To say that these photographs are a reason to sue the photographer is one of the funniest things I've read here, or anywhere for that matter, in a long time... A wedding photographer will normally be contracted to record the event, and in cases of incompetence or negligence the family will definitely have a case to sue. Whether the images at the beginning of the thread would warrant that is obviously open to debate - I'm glad you liked them Brad. If they'd been images of my wedding, I would definitely have taken the photographer to court. I don't think crass, assholish comments are constructive. Thanks for that constructive comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 2, 2008 Share #160 Posted December 2, 2008 The whole thread started off wrongly. 1. The original images by no means represent the noise performance of the M8. To get that kind of image one has to underexpose by at least two stops. So we are seeing ISO 10000 images. 2. Guy was doing his job. If I were a wedding guest and the reception had been a murky affair, Guy's moody images may well reflect my memory, and thus be excellent. Confusing this with technical arguments is wrong. 3. The images could obviously not have been better given the circumstances- if the Summilux 21 or 24 had been available it would have been possible to expose correctly for the shadows at 2500 and the images would have looked differently, better in the technical appraisal of some - but those lenses were not available. 4.I can quite imagine that flash was not an option - just imagine permanent lightning flashes in that dark atmosphere - not quite the thing. And the photographs would just have been a record of who was present. 5.An alternative would have been to sacrifice field of view for lens speed by taking a Noctilux or Nokton 35 - but that is the photographers choice. So please stop the mudflinging - that has nothing to do with discussing the images, as Guy clearly intended doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.