I know the photograph looks good but for some reason it seems to be pushed processed to place emphasis on the story. Or is it that good of a photo (lighting, detail, etc.) with minimum editing.
I saw that pic on the charter.net homepage earlier. It looked a little strange in a thumbnail size. The black outlines stood out, as if it had some additional contrast and sharpening beyond the one you posted.
I notice you live in Georgia, where I'm guessing such scenes aren't common. Looks perfectly natural to me. If anything, it looks as though it wasn't processed at all.
So the consensus is that the picture is natural with minimum editing. And your right I'm from Georgia and the last time I seen show like that was in 1973 when we received 16" of snow. So your right I'm not used to seeing a winter wonderland like this.
I give the photographer of this photo props. A very nice photograph!
I think it's been processed; the contrast has definitely been played around with.. maybe a touch of hdr?
It's the way the dust bin looks just a little bit off.. The shadows don't seem to be falling right... the more I look at it the more I'm convinced.. but it's done in a sympathetic way so it looks great and manages to make the picture pop without being obvious.
I think it's been processed; the contrast has definitely been played around with.. maybe a touch of hdr?
It's the way the dust bin looks just a little bit off.. The shadows don't seem to be falling right... the more I look at it the more I'm convinced.. but it's done in a sympathetic way so it looks great and manages to make the picture pop without being obvious.
You hit on what I was thinking when I first viewed the picture, HDR! The bin looks odd to me, like the focus (DOF) is larger than it should/could be in this situation. Maybe HDR using multiple exposures with different Av settings. But what do I know. LOL
You people are whacko! Jejeje™ Photo-conspiracy-nuts. Certifiable...
What's this about the DOF being "larger than it should be in this situation"? What situation is "this"? The image is wide angle, and the figures in the BG aren't as sharp as the binocs in the foreground; I'm guessing f/8 on FF 20mm or its cropped equivalent. Seems normal DOF to me.
As for the dustbin and the "shadow not quite falling right", there's barely a ghost of a shadow at all. The only thing that looks odd is the black on both edges of the dustbin, vs only on one edge of the pedestals, and that's easily understood when you look at the changing angle of view near the edges of the ultrawide. The wind, when it was blowing during the storm, came from directly behind the photographer's POV, and the snow on the uprights is pasted there by the blizzard.
But I'm sure nobody wants to hear any of this.
And oh, yeah, there's some added contrast for sure, possibly in-camera even, that's all I can see for PP.
Looks to me like a good hard wind blew the snow straight at the binoculars / trash cans and plastered the one side. Momma nature don't need no PS skillz!
You people are whacko! Jejeje™ Photo-conspiracy-nuts. Certifiable...
What's this about the DOF being "larger than it should be in this situation"? What situation is "this"? The image is wide angle, and the figures in the BG aren't as sharp as the binocs in the foreground; I'm guessing f/8 on FF 20mm or its cropped equivalent. Seems normal DOF to me.
As for the dustbin and the "shadow not quite falling right", there's barely a ghost of a shadow at all. The only thing that looks odd is the black on both edges of the dustbin, vs only on one edge of the pedestals, and that's easily understood when you look at the changing angle of view near the edges of the ultrawide. The wind, when it was blowing during the storm, came from directly behind the photographer's POV, and the snow on the uprights is pasted there by the blizzard.
But I'm sure nobody wants to hear any of this.
And oh, yeah, there's some added contrast for sure, possibly in-camera even, that's all I can see for PP.
R.
WOW! a pretty harsh post for just a question asked. I don't know a fraction of what you know about photography, especially taken in these extreme weather conditions which I'm not accustom to in the south.
I did give the photographer credit and admitted that it looked very good. I was asking was the process pushed to achieve the look or was it natural. That's all - nothing more / nothing less - and by far not a whacko! nor a Photo-conspiracy-nut.
But I guess that what I get by asking a question hoping it would help me learn a little.
I don't think its over processed, maybe just a boost on contrast. The white balance is off though. The highlights are pushing the blue quite high. When you balance it, it does look like USM has been applied with a high radius. Whether you consider this over processed or not, then, perhaps, but more so for USM.
I saw this in the ITPC data:
"** RETRANSMISSION FOR IMPROVED QUALITY **Telescope viewers are covered in snow overlooking Lighthouse Beach Sunday in Chatham, Mass. Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009, during the first major snowstorm of the season. (AP Photo/Julia Cumes)"
There was also an ID number for the first transmission. One wonders whether the quality was improved by editing the image, or... do they still send these things via fax where quality may degrade with communications quality. Something we don't have to worry about with digital communication techniques.
I didn't think Roberts post was all that harsh. Heck, he prefaced it with a JeJeJe, which is the Spanish version of my heheheheh. The lighting in the shot is extremely diffuse as you would expect in a snowstorm. While no time was given for image creation I suspect it was local noon plus or minus one hour. Noon light diffused through snow would show almost no well defined shadows. Maybe someone could email Ms. Cumes and inquire about the details of the image.
Update: I did find both versions of the image in an AP database. Couldn't tell any difference between them when viewed large because.... I love it..... wait for it..... they plastered huge AP watermarks all over the large images. hehehehehehehehjejejejejejejeje!!!!!
(right hand most two images, top row)
Further update: If you click on the magnifying glass, rather than double-clicking the image as I did, the resulting large image only has one watermark superimposed. LOL
It's over Burned in the shadows. Given the other end is pure white that probably accounts for it's strange uneven look.
eta: there's also vignetting or something in the top corners that looks like it hit the viewer on the far left, which might be another thing giving the image an odd balance.
It's not a fraction as over-burned as this image but you can clearly see the similar affect beginning to take place in the AP shot...
So the consensus is that the picture is natural with minimum editing. And your right I'm from Georgia and the last time I seen show like that was in 1973 when we received 16" of snow. So your right I'm not used to seeing a winter wonderland like this.
I give the photographer of this photo props. A very nice photograph!
16 inches??? Around here, someone sneezes we get 16 inches. :) Of course the other day my wife was talking a friend in Louisiana and my wife told her we'd gotten 47 inches of snow out of our last storm and there was this long pause and my wife's friend just said, "you mean four inches." "No," my wife said "forty seven, as in one inch short of four feet."
Of course the other day my wife was talking a friend in Louisiana and my wife told her we'd gotten 47 inches of snow out of our last storm and there was this long pause and my wife's friend just said, "you mean four inches." "No," my wife said "forty seven, as in one inch short of four feet."
Of course not that long ago the conversation might have been reversed: "We've got ten feet of rainwater in the streets." "You mean ten inches?" "No ..."
Of course the other day my wife was talking a friend in Louisiana and my wife told her we'd gotten 47 inches of snow out of our last storm and there was this long pause and my wife's friend just said, "you mean four inches." "No," my wife said "forty seven, as in one inch short of four feet."
Of course not that long ago the conversation might have been reversed: "We've got ten feet of rainwater in the streets." "You mean ten inches?" "No ..."
Sounds like here. Our average yearly rainfall is 46", we currently sit at 79+" with precipitation expected this week. We surpassed our previous record of 76" a few days ago.
It looks like a pretty normal winter picture to me. I have seen many days like that. Too Many actually. Reminds me of what I am not missing back in Wisconsin right now.
It looks like a pretty normal winter picture to me. I have seen many days like that. Too Many actually. Reminds me of what I am not missing back in Wisconsin right now.
I agree. I don't see the 'over processed-ness'. ??
You people are whacko! Jejeje™ Photo-conspiracy-nuts. Certifiable...
WOW! a pretty harsh post for just a question asked.
I didn't mean it harshly at all. I thought I was being humorous. I thought you and I "knew" each other well enough that I could do this :-) My apologies if I upset you. Perfectly reasonable question, and I thought I was providing reasonable answers as well.
Incidentally, for what it's worth, those binocular viewers are at Lighthouse Beach at Chatham, just down he road from me and Whiterook's backyard. A number of my challenge entries have come from there, including one shot of the these actual binocular viewrs, and this spot, on a bluff, is where Whiterook shoots his "Sara" gull shots mostly, I believe.
For what it is worth, Jejeje™ translates to lol or haha, which means Bear was just joking around. oops my bad, I didn't read all of firebirds post.
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You people are whacko! Jejeje™ Photo-conspiracy-nuts. Certifiable...
What's this about the DOF being "larger than it should be in this situation"? What situation is "this"? The image is wide angle, and the figures in the BG aren't as sharp as the binocs in the foreground; I'm guessing f/8 on FF 20mm or its cropped equivalent. Seems normal DOF to me.
As for the dustbin and the "shadow not quite falling right", there's barely a ghost of a shadow at all. The only thing that looks odd is the black on both edges of the dustbin, vs only on one edge of the pedestals, and that's easily understood when you look at the changing angle of view near the edges of the ultrawide. The wind, when it was blowing during the storm, came from directly behind the photographer's POV, and the snow on the uprights is pasted there by the blizzard.
But I'm sure nobody wants to hear any of this.
And oh, yeah, there's some added contrast for sure, possibly in-camera even, that's all I can see for PP.
R.
WOW! a pretty harsh post for just a question asked. I don't know a fraction of what you know about photography, especially taken in these extreme weather conditions which I'm not accustom to in the south.
I did give the photographer credit and admitted that it looked very good. I was asking was the process pushed to achieve the look or was it natural. That's all - nothing more / nothing less - and by far not a whacko! nor a Photo-conspiracy-nut.
But I guess that what I get by asking a question hoping it would help me learn a little.
You people are whacko! Jejeje™ Photo-conspiracy-nuts. Certifiable...
WOW! a pretty harsh post for just a question asked.
I didn't mean it harshly at all. I thought I was being humorous. I thought you and I "knew" each other well enough that I could do this :-) My apologies if I upset you. Perfectly reasonable question, and I thought I was providing reasonable answers as well.
Incidentally, for what it's worth, those binocular viewers are at Lighthouse Beach at Chatham, just down he road from me and Whiterook's backyard. A number of my challenge entries have come from there, including one shot of the these actual binocular viewrs, and this spot, on a bluff, is where Whiterook shoots his "Sara" gull shots mostly, I believe.
R.
Robert I have know you for many years and respect you. I knew that the way I took it didn't seem like you. Unfortunately I didn't understand what you Jejeje stood for but FireBird posted what it meant.
Sorry for taking your post the wrong way and thank you for clarifying your post. No harm done, please accept my apology.
Thanks,
Scott
