Critique Welcomed And so it ends...

John Allen

John Allen

Well-Known Member
not with a bang but a whimper. It died out quite a bit before expected, so we only got about 8 inches (20cm). It could have been a lot worse. There were storms and tornados both to the south and to the east.

Tried something a little different with this one. The main difference is an orange filter and a little vignette. Too dark?
feb252016.jpg

Nikon D7200 | Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 @ 37mm equiv. | f/5.6, 1/640, ISO 100 | Aperture Priority +0.3 ev |
PP = LR, PS, Topaz Labs BW Effects 2
 
Pete Askew said:
I like the mood your choice has created. However, I miss the contrast and sparkle that snow often brings though.
Click to expand...
B&W film would have done a better job than a digital camera. Digital cameras always seem to struggle with brightly lit scenes with lots of highlights.
 
Rob MacKillop said:
Nice scene, John. Not too dark for me, but it could have more contrast. Run it through LR again?
Click to expand...
I'll have to do something about the white side of that house on the corner. That is whiter than the snow, which means my colors are off somewhere. That's one of the drawbacks I've run into of shooting digital and then converting to b&w. I just double-checked and that house is not white. It's a beige or cream color in the photo. Must be the orange filter that is causing it to look lighter than the snow.
 
I also think it is dark enough and it gives me a very nice feeling. The sparkling has to do with the light and yes I think the filter you used may have something to do with it? But the white part of the shovelled snow is white enough and natural to my eye and if it is turned whiter, you may burn it out. Again, a very good documented image. I hope you do not mind, but I tried and made a go at it, just to see if one is able to pull more sparkle from it. I don't think I succeeded, but here is my attempt. Scold on me if I did something wrong. It is all a matter of taste.
feb252016[1].jpg
 
Last edited:
No, not bothered in the least. Critiques are always welcome on any of my posts. Your version is better in some ways, but getting dangerously close to blowing out the brightest highlights. Of course, you were hampered by having to work with my already edited photo. I'm going to keep practicing.
 
I promise not to do this again John, but I had an idea as I worked on it which I want to share. Back in the old days of my bl+wh work, we learned during my study to work with the different colours as we processed the negative rather than using filter while shooting. I know there are different opinions about that, but what I did with yours was to follow that procedure. Use the colours on the black and white image in photoshop.
 
Ivar D. Larsen said:
I promise not to do this again John, but I had an idea as I worked on it which I want to share. Back in the old days of my bl+wh work, we learned during my study to work with the different colours as we processed the negative rather than using filter while shooting. I know there are different opinions about that, but what I did with yours was to follow that procedure. Use the colours on the black and white image in photoshop.
Click to expand...

I do more or less the same in Lightroom....:)
 
Looks fine to me John, I like the subtle and plenty of contrast here. I'd say you are correct with the beige, which would be a yellow on the painters pallet would affect the house a lot.
My take on B+W conversions. It is complex and not every images is as simple as working through the same or even similar process. I actually enjoy the output of Fast Stone Viewer for B+W instant conversions. A free bit of software. Also using the different layers of green blue or red of the sensor is a way within Adobe Cs or elements. Such a complex subject but I do like your above image.
 
Anyone that wants a go at this photo is welcome to do their thing with it. Here's the original. It was converted to jpg in LR. It has also been cropped and resized to make it a practical size to post here.
DSC_0424-1-3.jpg
 
Ivar D. Larsen said:
I promise not to do this again John, but I had an idea as I worked on it which I want to share. Back in the old days of my bl+wh work, we learned during my study to work with the different colours as we processed the negative rather than using filter while shooting. I know there are different opinions about that, but what I did with yours was to follow that procedure. Use the colours on the black and white image in photoshop.
Click to expand...
This sounds like the first way I learned how to do b&w conversions in PS - using the channel mixer. Here's a version using channels.
channels.jpg
 
Very nice, Rense. A little grain and that would be exactly how I was trying to make it look. Yes, I do use both Lightroom and Photoshop. I use LR to make exposure changes to the raw files and for noise reduction before converting the raw files and then use PS for retouching, b&w conversion, and finetuning.
 
John Allen said:
Very nice, Rense. A little grain and that would be exactly how I was trying to make it look. Yes, I do use both Lightroom and Photoshop. I use LR to make exposure changes to the raw files and for noise reduction before converting the raw files and then use PS for retouching, b&w conversion, and finetuning.
Click to expand...

I do literally all my conversions in LR, so you could give that a try as well!
 
Rense Haveman said:
I do literally all my conversions in LR, so you could give that a try as well!
Click to expand...
Why would you use LR for spot removal or other retouching and cropping and resizing when PS is so much better for such tasks? Not that I'm questioning your ability to do fine work in LR, because you obviously get some great results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John Allen
And so it begins...
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
John Allen
John Allen
Back
Top