Post your medium format photos!

aeros · 09-13-2011, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by tuco

If you want to post the image here, simply click on the picture in your Flickr stream. Above it two buttons should appear. One is called "Action" and the other "Share".

Click on the Share button. A window will pop up with options.
Click on the Grab the HTML/BBCode menu item.
Check the BBCode radio button option
Select the image size you want from the available options in the drop down list.
Highlight the formatted BBCode that should appear and copy it.
Come here and paste it into a comment box.

Your image will show up here without having to follow a link. Yes, the good ol' days of being in the right place at the right time to capture unique moments in nature - the hallmark and challenge of the landscape photographer - are gone. Today it's just fabricated photos.

So Ansel Adams didn't do any darkroom editing, dodging and burning? "Just fabricated photos" I would be glad to send you a full size file and I defy you to find any tooling or atifacting. I spent hours of detail correction on this image, it deserves a more qualified critique than you are prepared to give.

It's too easy to be a critc but that's why no one ever bulit a statue of one. I am well prepared to put my work out for genuine constructve critiques, and take what comes good or bad, but the least I expect is a qualified opinion. Photo editing has opened up for me an entirely new option for image making and at my advanced age (68) I welcome this new technology not because it covers my lack of skill, rather it lets me expand my skills. If you want to stay in the stone age, that's your choice. And thanks for the technical advice re: posting images, tried it and still doesn't work, guess it's too technical for me.

Last edited by aeros; 09-13-2011 at 10:14 PM. Reason: added comment

aeros · 09-13-2011, 09:49 PM

Warterton-pan2skyFB | Flickr - Photo Sharing! here goes Tuco, but I tried this two times in previous posts.

lbenac · 09-13-2011, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by aeros

So Ansel Adams didn't do any darkroom editing, dodging and burning?

He did and he was very good at it to boot...

I think that Tuco was just pulling your leg for two reasons:
1) the tones on the "new" sky do not really match all the parts of the original image so it looks a little bit strange
2) Waterton is such a superb place that you would likely be able to shoot in better conditions that you would not have to go extreme and clone a sky in
In any case digital and color are out of my sphere so...:ugh:

Cheers,

Luc

aeros · 09-13-2011, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by lbenac

He did and he was very good at it to boot...

I think that Tuco was just pulling your leg for two reasons:
1) the tones on the "new" sky do not really match all the parts of the original image so it looks a little bit strange
2) Waterton is such a superb place that you would likely be able to shoot in better conditions that you would not have to go extreme and clone a sky in
In any case digital and color are out of my sphere so...:ugh:

Cheers,

Luc

I'm sure he is a cool guy, he did at least try to help me post which I do appreciate even if I failed to get it to work. As for your comments, the tonal differences are intentional. some folks like it some don't, I'm not trying to be all things to all people. As a painter I create images with complete freedom to express via colour and form. I intend to do the same and better with this new art form. I have had nothing but good comments from fellow painters, but so far it's thumbs down from the photography community. It's a never ending debate between camera/ film purists and the digital magic crowd.
2) Waterton is such a superb place that you would likely be able to shoot in better conditions that you would not have to go extreme and clone a sky in
In any case digital and color are out of my sphere so...:ugh: I had one day to shoot and could not order up the sky conditions, so I inovated. I will continue to do so when needed. Thanks for your comments, there's value in all information.

Cheers, bottoms up.

tuco · 09-13-2011, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by aeros

So Ansel Adams didn't do any darkroom editing, dodging and burning? "Just fabricated photos" I would be glad to send you a full size file and I defy you to find any tooling or atifacting. I spent hours of detail correction on this image, it deserves a more qualified critique than you are prepared to give.

I didn't mean too critical. But it does look a little strange, no? I'd say burning, dodging, curve adjustments are not even in the same league as replacing parts of a scene that didn't even exist when the picture was taken, IMHO.

Not knowing what the original sky looked like it seems odd that you'd have the problem. The 645D is reported to have 12.6 EV of dynamic range by DxOMark. I don't know where they get those numbers and judging by the amount of HDR blending people do, those numbers must be more theoretical than actual.

12EV - stops - of light is not that easy to find outdoors in a landscape without looking toward the sun, having reflective surfaces or be in a dark cave with bright outside or something. Have you considered taking two shots one exposed of the sky and one for the land and blend them or use HDR software? I think you'd get a more natural looking scene.

goddo31 · 09-14-2011, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by aeros

Warterton-pan2skyFB | Flickr - Photo Sharing! here goes Tuco, but I tried this two times in previous posts.

Not sure what happened, as tuco's instructions for posting the image here were pretty much spot on.
But you can link to the photo directly too (however a link back to Flickr is in the terms and conditions I believe). Here you go:

Warterton-pan2skyFB by Aeros4

itshimitis · 09-14-2011, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by aeros

So Ansel Adams didn't do any darkroom editing, dodging and burning? "Just fabricated photos" I would be glad to send you a full size file and I defy you to find any tooling or atifacting. I spent hours of detail correction on this image, it deserves a more qualified critique than you are prepared to give.

It's too easy to be a critc but that's why no one ever bulit a statue of one. I am well prepared to put my work out for genuine constructve critiques, and take what comes good or bad, but the least I expect is a qualified opinion. Photo editing has opened up for me an entirely new option for image making and at my advanced age (68) I welcome this new technology not because it covers my lack of skill, rather it lets me expand my skills. If you want to stay in the stone age, that's your choice. And thanks for the technical advice re: posting images, tried it and still doesn't work, guess it's too technical for me.

I also have the Pentax 645D and sometimes blend images when part of the scene has too much shadow. I think that the Dynamic Range isn't exactly as advertised, or else I'm simply not understanding enough about the technicalities of taking a photo ( I suspect it's a bit of both). All that being said, I believe that photography and painting have differences. With a painting you can smooth the edges of the mountain to make them merge with the sky. With photography it can be more clinical. You can smooth the edges, but generally still see the mountain as a 'cardboard cut out'.

For me, and this is just my opinion, and I'm still learning about photography and post processing, it's not the most drastic of sky swapping I've seen, and that could be the problem with it. IMO the sky is a bit placid for it to be an artistic juxtaposition. You'd want something more dramatic, and then I probably wouldn't like it, as to my taste, photography should be trying to reflect something you can see. All people's taste is different, I just don't like the drastic HDRs that you see around and about. I've taken lots of photographs with my 645D and in some situations I have ended up binning the results as they just didn't make the cut. I personally wouldn't want to swap the sky for another one, but it takes all sorts to make a world.

Cuchulainn · 09-14-2011, 04:19 AM - **1 Like**

I cleaned up a 45mm lens from some very light fungus and brought it with me on a trip to Wales last week. I think it worked out well...

Pentax 645N, A 45mm, Portra 160NC

Yamanobori · 09-14-2011, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by tuco

I didn't mean too critical. But it does look a little strange, no? I'd say burning, dodging, curve adjustments are not even in the same league as replacing parts of a scene that didn't even exist when the picture was taken, IMHO.

Not knowing what the original sky looked like it seems odd that you'd have the problem. The 645D is reported to have 12.6 EV of dynamic range by DxOMark. I don't know where they get those numbers and judging by the amount of HDR blending people do, those numbers must be more theoretical than actual.

12EV - stops - of light is not that easy to find outdoors in a landscape without looking toward the sun, having reflective surfaces or be in a dark cave with bright outside or something. Have you considered taking two shots one exposed of the sky and one for the land and blend them or use HDR software? I think you'd get a more natural looking scene.

DxO numbers are actual. 12EV will really not catch the dynamic range of a contrasty scene and this is quite common to find an outdoor scene exceeding this. Black and white film can have a much greater range than 12EV.

Yamanobori · 09-14-2011, 06:46 AM

There is no such thing as a "correct" approach to an art--that is simply a personal opinion. Every photographer has a right to approach his or her work as they see fit--it does not matter if you agree with it or not. Certainly we can give feedback, but not abusive or condescending "feedback."

Aeros, welcome to the forum. I am another 645D shooter.

BTW, can you post the image with the actual sky? I do find the added sky unnatural as it does not have the same perspective as the landscape. Also because the new sky is relatively dark, the highlights on the ridge give a cutout feeling--I do a ot of studio photography where objects are shot for cutouts and if the background does not have the same tonal/color value as the object will appear on, then the cutout will not appear natural. Also, the clouds are not reflecting the lighting direction of the sun. I am wondering if there is a way to process the original sky to make it more interesting.

**Fontan** · 09-14-2011, 07:21 AM

No matter what the criticisms are, or how they are put, if one's reaction to it is more or less "defensive" in nature, then I say one ought not to subject him/herself to any criticisms at all. To me it is silly.

goddo31 · 09-14-2011, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Yamanobori

BTW, can you post the image with the actual sky? I do find the added sky unnatural as it does not have the same perspective as the landscape. Also because the new sky is relatively dark, the highlights on the ridge give a cutout feeling--I do a ot of studio photography where objects are shot for cutouts and if the background does not have the same tonal/color value as the object will appear on, then the cutout will not appear natural. Also, the clouds are not reflecting the lighting direction of the sun. I am wondering if there is a way to process the original sky to make it more interesting.

+1. I would like to see the original sky too, if possible. The sky does look a little odd to me too, in the way that Yamanobori mentions.

And welcome Aeros. No need to take things too seriously on here

We all like different things.

Yamanobori · 09-14-2011, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Fontan

No matter what the criticisms are, or how they are put, if one's reaction to it is more or less "defensive" in nature, then I say one ought not to subject him/herself to any criticisms at all. To me it is silly.

Aeros did not state he was looking for criticism. He just posted to show his image.

tuco · 09-14-2011, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Yamanobori

DxO numbers are actual. 12EV will really not catch the dynamic range of a contrasty scene and this is quite common to find an outdoor scene exceeding this. Black and white film can have a much greater range than 12EV.

I've wondered what they are measuring. One day I'll have to look into it because my one-degree spot meter reads EV so a 12EV range would translate to what I measure on the scene.

A few posts of mine back you can see I did a highlight compression test and I was looking for 15+ stop scene on a bright, sunny day. I could not find it outdoors without pointing toward the sun. I had to go inside a dark building with a bright sun out the window. If you measure the blue sky looking away from the sun, it is typically EV15 or EV16. White clouds can be up to EV17 or 18. Shadows from trees and buildings are EV10ish. That falls short of 12EV outside. Given clouds at, say, EV17 your dark areas would have to be EV5 to get that range and that is pretty dark area to encounter in a landscape situation though certainly possible.

aeros · 09-14-2011, 08:41 AM

Thanks for your welcome and wisdom Yamanobori, they are gratefully received.I fully understand and am aware of what you wrote, I was well aware of theapparent differences re: perspective and light. I did not want to go with anoverstated dramatic sky. I preferred to leave the drama in the mountain whereit belongs. When I decide to change the sky as is done by many landscapephotographers, I do what I believe the picture needs according to myperspective as an individual image maker. I have another version of this imagewith the sky colour much closer to what would be described as"Natural" and comparing the two, I prefer the darker sky. I want tothank everyone for taking the time to comment. BTW I have seen these contrastedsky conditions many times in this type of country during the time I spent bushflying. I have witnessed skyscapes that would defy description so it begs thequestion. Natural compared to what?

09-13-2011, 09:39 PM	#2716
aeros Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: EDMONTON Posts: 105	Originally posted by tuco If you want to post the image here, simply click on the picture in your Flickr stream. Above it two buttons should appear. One is called "Action" and the other "Share". Click on the Share button. A window will pop up with options. Click on the Grab the HTML/BBCode menu item. Check the BBCode radio button option Select the image size you want from the available options in the drop down list. Highlight the formatted BBCode that should appear and copy it. Come here and paste it into a comment box. Your image will show up here without having to follow a link. Yes, the good ol' days of being in the right place at the right time to capture unique moments in nature - the hallmark and challenge of the landscape photographer - are gone. Today it's just fabricated photos. So Ansel Adams didn't do any darkroom editing, dodging and burning? "Just fabricated photos" I would be glad to send you a full size file and I defy you to find any tooling or atifacting. I spent hours of detail correction on this image, it deserves a more qualified critique than you are prepared to give. It's too easy to be a critc but that's why no one ever bulit a statue of one. I am well prepared to put my work out for genuine constructve critiques, and take what comes good or bad, but the least I expect is a qualified opinion. Photo editing has opened up for me an entirely new option for image making and at my advanced age (68) I welcome this new technology not because it covers my lack of skill, rather it lets me expand my skills. If you want to stay in the stone age, that's your choice. And thanks for the technical advice re: posting images, tried it and still doesn't work, guess it's too technical for me. Last edited by aeros; 09-13-2011 at 10:14 PM. Reason: added comment

09-13-2011, 11:14 PM	#2720
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,030	Originally posted by aeros So Ansel Adams didn't do any darkroom editing, dodging and burning? "Just fabricated photos" I would be glad to send you a full size file and I defy you to find any tooling or atifacting. I spent hours of detail correction on this image, it deserves a more qualified critique than you are prepared to give. I didn't mean too critical. But it does look a little strange, no? I'd say burning, dodging, curve adjustments are not even in the same league as replacing parts of a scene that didn't even exist when the picture was taken, IMHO. Not knowing what the original sky looked like it seems odd that you'd have the problem. The 645D is reported to have 12.6 EV of dynamic range by DxOMark. I don't know where they get those numbers and judging by the amount of HDR blending people do, those numbers must be more theoretical than actual. 12EV - stops - of light is not that easy to find outdoors in a landscape without looking toward the sun, having reflective surfaces or be in a dark cave with bright outside or something. Have you considered taking two shots one exposed of the sky and one for the land and blend them or use HDR software? I think you'd get a more natural looking scene. Last edited by tuco; 09-14-2011 at 12:49 AM.

09-14-2011, 08:24 AM	#2729
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,030	Originally posted by Yamanobori DxO numbers are actual. 12EV will really not catch the dynamic range of a contrasty scene and this is quite common to find an outdoor scene exceeding this. Black and white film can have a much greater range than 12EV. I've wondered what they are measuring. One day I'll have to look into it because my one-degree spot meter reads EV so a 12EV range would translate to what I measure on the scene. A few posts of mine back you can see I did a highlight compression test and I was looking for 15+ stop scene on a bright, sunny day. I could not find it outdoors without pointing toward the sun. I had to go inside a dark building with a bright sun out the window. If you measure the blue sky looking away from the sun, it is typically EV15 or EV16. White clouds can be up to EV17 or 18. Shadows from trees and buildings are EV10ish. That falls short of 12EV outside. Given clouds at, say, EV17 your dark areas would have to be EV5 to get that range and that is pretty dark area to encounter in a landscape situation though certainly possible. Last edited by tuco; 09-14-2011 at 08:59 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First Medium Format	straightshooter	Pentax Medium Format	7	12-02-2019 10:11 PM
Medium format...	D4rknezz	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	04-06-2010 03:59 PM
Medium Format Soon?	k100d	Pentax News and Rumors	0	03-04-2009 12:09 PM
Medium Format	Buffy	Pentax Medium Format	5	03-19-2008 12:04 AM

09-13-2011, 09:49 PM	#2717
aeros Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: EDMONTON Posts: 105	Warterton-pan2skyFB \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! here goes Tuco, but I tried this two times in previous posts.

09-13-2011, 10:05 PM	#2718
lbenac Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Burnaby, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,313	Originally posted by aeros So Ansel Adams didn't do any darkroom editing, dodging and burning? He did and he was very good at it to boot... I think that Tuco was just pulling your leg for two reasons: 1) the tones on the "new" sky do not really match all the parts of the original image so it looks a little bit strange 2) Waterton is such a superb place that you would likely be able to shoot in better conditions that you would not have to go extreme and clone a sky in In any case digital and color are out of my sphere so...:ugh: Cheers, Luc

09-13-2011, 10:37 PM	#2719
aeros Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: EDMONTON Posts: 105	Originally posted by lbenac He did and he was very good at it to boot... I think that Tuco was just pulling your leg for two reasons: 1) the tones on the "new" sky do not really match all the parts of the original image so it looks a little bit strange 2) Waterton is such a superb place that you would likely be able to shoot in better conditions that you would not have to go extreme and clone a sky in In any case digital and color are out of my sphere so...:ugh: Cheers, Luc I'm sure he is a cool guy, he did at least try to help me post which I do appreciate even if I failed to get it to work. As for your comments, the tonal differences are intentional. some folks like it some don't, I'm not trying to be all things to all people. As a painter I create images with complete freedom to express via colour and form. I intend to do the same and better with this new art form. I have had nothing but good comments from fellow painters, but so far it's thumbs down from the photography community. It's a never ending debate between camera/ film purists and the digital magic crowd. 2) Waterton is such a superb place that you would likely be able to shoot in better conditions that you would not have to go extreme and clone a sky in In any case digital and color are out of my sphere so...:ugh: I had one day to shoot and could not order up the sky conditions, so I inovated. I will continue to do so when needed. Thanks for your comments, there's value in all information. Cheers, bottoms up.

09-14-2011, 12:46 AM	#2721
goddo31 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,576	Originally posted by aeros Warterton-pan2skyFB \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! here goes Tuco, but I tried this two times in previous posts. Not sure what happened, as tuco's instructions for posting the image here were pretty much spot on. But you can link to the photo directly too (however a link back to Flickr is in the terms and conditions I believe). Here you go: Warterton-pan2skyFB by Aeros4

09-14-2011, 03:09 AM	#2722
itshimitis Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: All over the place Posts: 3,535	Originally posted by aeros So Ansel Adams didn't do any darkroom editing, dodging and burning? "Just fabricated photos" I would be glad to send you a full size file and I defy you to find any tooling or atifacting. I spent hours of detail correction on this image, it deserves a more qualified critique than you are prepared to give. It's too easy to be a critc but that's why no one ever bulit a statue of one. I am well prepared to put my work out for genuine constructve critiques, and take what comes good or bad, but the least I expect is a qualified opinion. Photo editing has opened up for me an entirely new option for image making and at my advanced age (68) I welcome this new technology not because it covers my lack of skill, rather it lets me expand my skills. If you want to stay in the stone age, that's your choice. And thanks for the technical advice re: posting images, tried it and still doesn't work, guess it's too technical for me. I also have the Pentax 645D and sometimes blend images when part of the scene has too much shadow. I think that the Dynamic Range isn't exactly as advertised, or else I'm simply not understanding enough about the technicalities of taking a photo ( I suspect it's a bit of both). All that being said, I believe that photography and painting have differences. With a painting you can smooth the edges of the mountain to make them merge with the sky. With photography it can be more clinical. You can smooth the edges, but generally still see the mountain as a 'cardboard cut out'. For me, and this is just my opinion, and I'm still learning about photography and post processing, it's not the most drastic of sky swapping I've seen, and that could be the problem with it. IMO the sky is a bit placid for it to be an artistic juxtaposition. You'd want something more dramatic, and then I probably wouldn't like it, as to my taste, photography should be trying to reflect something you can see. All people's taste is different, I just don't like the drastic HDRs that you see around and about. I've taken lots of photographs with my 645D and in some situations I have ended up binning the results as they just didn't make the cut. I personally wouldn't want to swap the sky for another one, but it takes all sorts to make a world.

09-14-2011, 04:19 AM - 1 Like	#2723
Cuchulainn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 153	I cleaned up a 45mm lens from some very light fungus and brought it with me on a trip to Wales last week. I think it worked out well... Pentax 645N, A 45mm, Portra 160NC

09-14-2011, 06:34 AM	#2724
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	Originally posted by tuco I didn't mean too critical. But it does look a little strange, no? I'd say burning, dodging, curve adjustments are not even in the same league as replacing parts of a scene that didn't even exist when the picture was taken, IMHO. Not knowing what the original sky looked like it seems odd that you'd have the problem. The 645D is reported to have 12.6 EV of dynamic range by DxOMark. I don't know where they get those numbers and judging by the amount of HDR blending people do, those numbers must be more theoretical than actual. 12EV - stops - of light is not that easy to find outdoors in a landscape without looking toward the sun, having reflective surfaces or be in a dark cave with bright outside or something. Have you considered taking two shots one exposed of the sky and one for the land and blend them or use HDR software? I think you'd get a more natural looking scene. DxO numbers are actual. 12EV will really not catch the dynamic range of a contrasty scene and this is quite common to find an outdoor scene exceeding this. Black and white film can have a much greater range than 12EV.

09-14-2011, 06:46 AM	#2725
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	There is no such thing as a "correct" approach to an art--that is simply a personal opinion. Every photographer has a right to approach his or her work as they see fit--it does not matter if you agree with it or not. Certainly we can give feedback, but not abusive or condescending "feedback." Aeros, welcome to the forum. I am another 645D shooter. BTW, can you post the image with the actual sky? I do find the added sky unnatural as it does not have the same perspective as the landscape. Also because the new sky is relatively dark, the highlights on the ridge give a cutout feeling--I do a ot of studio photography where objects are shot for cutouts and if the background does not have the same tonal/color value as the object will appear on, then the cutout will not appear natural. Also, the clouds are not reflecting the lighting direction of the sun. I am wondering if there is a way to process the original sky to make it more interesting.

09-14-2011, 07:21 AM	#2726
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	No matter what the criticisms are, or how they are put, if one's reaction to it is more or less "defensive" in nature, then I say one ought not to subject him/herself to any criticisms at all. To me it is silly.

09-14-2011, 07:27 AM	#2727
goddo31 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,576	Originally posted by Yamanobori BTW, can you post the image with the actual sky? I do find the added sky unnatural as it does not have the same perspective as the landscape. Also because the new sky is relatively dark, the highlights on the ridge give a cutout feeling--I do a ot of studio photography where objects are shot for cutouts and if the background does not have the same tonal/color value as the object will appear on, then the cutout will not appear natural. Also, the clouds are not reflecting the lighting direction of the sun. I am wondering if there is a way to process the original sky to make it more interesting. +1. I would like to see the original sky too, if possible. The sky does look a little odd to me too, in the way that Yamanobori mentions. And welcome Aeros. No need to take things too seriously on here We all like different things.

09-14-2011, 07:59 AM	#2728
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	Originally posted by Fontan No matter what the criticisms are, or how they are put, if one's reaction to it is more or less "defensive" in nature, then I say one ought not to subject him/herself to any criticisms at all. To me it is silly. Aeros did not state he was looking for criticism. He just posted to show his image.

09-14-2011, 08:41 AM	#2730
aeros Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: EDMONTON Posts: 105	Thanks for your welcome and wisdom Yamanobori, they are gratefully received.I fully understand and am aware of what you wrote, I was well aware of theapparent differences re: perspective and light. I did not want to go with anoverstated dramatic sky. I preferred to leave the drama in the mountain whereit belongs. When I decide to change the sky as is done by many landscapephotographers, I do what I believe the picture needs according to myperspective as an individual image maker. I have another version of this imagewith the sky colour much closer to what would be described as"Natural" and comparing the two, I prefer the darker sky. I want tothank everyone for taking the time to comment. BTW I have seen these contrastedsky conditions many times in this type of country during the time I spent bushflying. I have witnessed skyscapes that would defy description so it begs thequestion. Natural compared to what?