Hmm...Contrast and Compare

[Rob MacKillop]

The first was my first colour shot with the Q3, and it initially 'blue' me away, as I hadn't seen anything like that come out of any camera I'd ever had. Tonight I downloaded the Nik Collection which I had many years ago when it first came out. The version (6.8) promised to be much better. So I opened the same image in Nik Viveza and after a short time exploring, came up with the second image, which I actually prefer. I could further dabble with it, should I be moved to, for instance revealing more of the bridge. I've mentioned a few times my struggle with colour in the digital realm, finding a process I could work with. Anyway, your thoughts are welcome, pro or contra.

 

[Brian Moore]

The 2nd one has a delightful color range. Also, you get a sense from it that light from a town or city beyond the haar. I prefer number 2.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

I like that 2nd one a lot! I was perplexed by the scaffolding on the righthand side of the photo - what's going on there?

 

[Stevenson Gawen]

I think I prefer the first... although the second is certainly nice.
What did you do? I would guess it's primarily a kind of split tone - more blue/green in the shadows, and a much warmer tone in the highlights....?
I sometimes enjoy working out how a certain look was achieved. Challenge sometimes....

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Gary - the scaffolding is there because the owner is getting his roof re-tiled. Many of these houses are 18th and 19th century, which while delightful come with repair and restore issues.

Stevenson - Is Gawen your first name? Anyway, this is where I get flummoxed. There are so many options with colour, and the more I study it, the more I get lost. So the beauty of Nik Viveza is that a team of colour experts have worked it all out for me. So there is a panel either side of my image. On the left there are a dozen or so basic tonalities that I could choose from to change the image globally. On the right panel there is a whole host of micro-managing tools for those who like to get under the hood, as it were, and put their own changes on the global change. What you see here is the global change, with no input from me. But today I hope to find time to explore the options with the right panel. It’s such a world away from putting a role of Velvia into a camera…but in some ways the guys who made Velvia were supplying the global version, which you could play with in the darkroom or import into a digital darkroom.

 

[Gianluca Drago]

I have to be honest, the second Blade Runner-esque version is suggestive, but perhaps a little too pushy, too contrived. Probably my ideal version might be somewhere in between the first and second. But that's just a personal opinion.

 

[Stevenson Gawen]

Gary - the scaffolding is there because the owner is getting his roof re-tiled. Many of these houses are 18th and 19th century, which while delightful come with repair and restore issues.

Stevenson - Is Gawen your first name? Anyway, this is where I get flummoxed. There are so many options with colour, and the more I study it, the more I get lost. So the beauty of Nik Viveza is that a team of colour experts have worked it all out for me. So there is a panel either side of my image. On the left there are a dozen or so basic tonalities that I could choose from to change the image globally. On the right panel there is a whole host of micro-managing tools for those who like to get under the hood, as it were, and put their own changes on the global change. What you see here is the global change, with no input from me. But today I hope to find time to explore the options with the right panel. It’s such a world away from putting a role of Velvia into a camera…but in some ways the guys who made Velvia were supplying the global version, which you could play with in the darkroom or import into a digital darkroom.

Interesting. I've never tried Nik. Maybe I'll see if there's a free trial...
Oh, and Stevenson is in fact my first name, Gawen the surname. (old English family incidentally!).
It is a poser... I am often just known as Steve, for convenience.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Steve - I'm using the free trial of the whole suite of Nik products. They try to convince you that you need Lightroom or DxO to partner with it, but you don't. They are stand-alone programs.

Gianluca - I anticipated your reaction, and I kind of know what you mean. I prefer colour film work, but, to be honest, I can't afford the whole continued cost in buying film and paying for development and scanning. So I'm trying to find my way into digital colour, and it is not wholly satisfying.

Meanwhile, here's the finished (in that I've had enough of it) version, with the 'legs' of the bridge brought out more.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

with the 'legs' of the bridge brought out more

Good that you said something because I was flipping through the two versions and didn't see a difference until I saw this in your post above.

Going the other way, I just did my first color negative to positive this morning just practice though, not one of mine. I haven't shot any color film in 50+ years (but I'm thinking I might).

 

[Gord Tomlin]

I find the two versions tell different stories. The first (blue) one with the more visible poles/pillars/whatever in the far distance looks like it fades away to a rural distance, while the second (teal) one with the glow suggests that there may be a town in the distance. But I find the blue one much more realistic.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Gary - if you do shoot colour film, remember to share the results here!

Gord - I like photos that tell stories. I agree with your Blue story (so to speak), but for the teal one I see the glow as something mysterious, almost alien, strange. As for the blue one being ‘realistic’, I’m not interested in realistic photography. Even what I see with my eyes is not necessarily real, philosophically and materially

 

[Stevenson Gawen]

but for the teal one I see the glow as something mysterious, almost alien, strange. As for the blue one being ‘realistic’, I’m not interested in realistic photography. Even what I see with my eyes is not necessarily real, philosophically and materially

I do like this kind of discussion - it shows how many different approaches there are to both taking and appreciating imagery. The funny thing is that often, after someone explains their point of view I find myself agreeing. Even if I was opposed before. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Rob MacKillop]

That’s a very good and increasingly rare thing. The ability to persuade and be persuaded are the foundations of a humane culture. As I said, there’s little evidence of it in the world today.

 

[Gord Tomlin]

I like photos that tell stories. I agree with your Blue story (so to speak), but for the teal one I see the glow as something mysterious, almost alien, strange. As for the blue one being ‘realistic’, I’m not interested in realistic photography. Even what I see with my eyes is not necessarily real, philosophically and materially

I agree with your point about what may or may not be real (in any sense). My favourite term for this stuff is "plausible", and I probably should have used it in my earlier reply, since neither image is actually "realistic".

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

The first was my first colour shot with the Q3, and it initially 'blue' me away, as I hadn't seen anything like that come out of any camera I'd ever had. Tonight I downloaded the Nik Collection which I had many years ago when it first came out. The version (6.8) promised to be much better. So I opened the same image in Nik Viveza and after a short time exploring, came up with the second image, which I actually prefer. I could further dabble with it, should I be moved to, for instance revealing more of the bridge. I've mentioned a few times my struggle with colour in the digital realm, finding a process I could work with. Anyway, your thoughts are welcome, pro or contra.

View attachment 18727



View attachment 18728

I feel for the blue, as a Norseman normally would do.

 

[Gord Tomlin]

I feel for the blue, as a Norseman normally would do.

Somewhere, someone is thinking "No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!"