Middlesmoor, Upper Nidderdale

[Stephen]

Re: Middlesmoor, Upper Nidderdale

Well if I'm up against you, Tim and Peder, as posters of some of the best landscape pics on here, I might just go and sit in the corner quietly.....

No one else seems prepared to discuss this subject of vignetting Stuart, so please don't go to your corner yet I'm interested to know why you are not keen on the practice of adding a vignette. Is it because you associate the effect with a lens that you feel should not be doing it, or you see as an inherent fault. I must say that I'm surprised that it is so pronounced in an EFS lens.

My 17-40 f4L does not have the problem, though it does suffer from barrel distortion I suppose my lens was not a designed for digital version, whilst yours was so thats why I feel yours should be better in that respect.

I wonder if when you get it with your lens 'wide open' the effect is as severe as I would normally apply in Photoshop

[Ian]

Re: Middlesmoor, Upper Nidderdale

We visited one of my favorite locations in the Yorkshire Dales yesterday, mainly because it has one of the most fantastic views from the churchyard, but also because its been virtually unchanged by the ravages of time. Middlesmoor sits near the top of a hill at the head of Upper Nidderdale.

This is the view from the churchyard, looking down the cemetery steps and to the valley beyond

I was fascinated by this gap in the wall allowing access to the 'snicket' along the side of the churchyard. I found the light on the Yorkshire gritstone rather appealing and took many shots at different angles, waiting for the sun at times.

To give you some idea of its position, here is another shot of Middlesmoor church in its elevated position overlooking the valley

Yes, superb as usual, Stephen - especially the gap in the wall.

Ian

[StuartR]

Re: Middlesmoor, Upper Nidderdale

No one else seems prepared to discuss this subject of vignetting Stuart, so please don't go to your corner yet I'm interested to know why you are not keen on the practice of adding a vignette. Is it because you associate the effect with a lens that you feel should not be doing it, or you see as an inherent fault. I must say that I'm surprised that it is so pronounced in an EFS lens.

My 17-40 f4L does not have the problem, though it does suffer from barrel distortion I suppose my lens was not a designed for digital version, whilst yours was so thats why I feel yours should be better in that respect.

I wonder if when you get it with your lens 'wide open' the effect is as severe as I would normally apply in Photoshop

Now that I'm sitting here thinking rationally about why I don't like vignettes, it's actually a difficult question to answer. I guess it's because I constantly seek (but rarely achieve, see below) technical perfection in my images, I struggle to understand why I'd want to "spoil" perfect exposure, colour & contrast settings, that took time to achieve, by adding a vignette. I'm not saying it's a rational view but that leads to my next point...

(Gets comfortable on the consulting room couch - you're really going to wish you hadn't asked!)

I'm probably not the only amateur on here who does this but I've recently started to over-criticise my own work, I'm too picky about small things and will often spend hours in "post production" on images that are probably, no definitely, not worth the effort - they're just snaps of a family day out and should be left "as is". So what if the image is 0.47 degrees off on the vertical, there's a tree growing out of someone's head, the colour balance is slightly off, the image is not pin sharp etc., etc., they don't warrant 2 hours work in DxO and CS2 and being saved as multiple 45MB tiffs. 'er indoors has taken to this sort of expression when I tell her the pictures I took today can't be seen until I've "processed" them - come back tomorrow. God forbid she ever sees a RAW image straight out of the camera

Trouble is, I'm now getting anal about it and it's getting worse. The pursuit of technical perfection has taken over the creative side. I struggle to enjoy "good" or "nice" pictures any more, they have to be near perfection (at least my take on it). As an example, I recently spent two hours cloning out a power line on distant hills in the background of a portrait shot of my daughter and her boyfriend. When I showed my family the results, flicking between the original and "corrected" versions - none of them noticed . Now, I'm not sure if the proves that I've mastered the art of cloning or mastered the art of wasting my time .

As a result of the time spent on all this meticulous post-production work I'm taking fewer photographs, which is a bit counter-productive when you think about it.

Right, following that bit of self-diagnosis I think I'll buy myself a horse-hair shirt and restrict myself to candid street photography for the next 6 months, shoot low res jpgs and print direct from the camera's memory card at Boots the Chemist! Unfortunately, I don't think the 350D has a built-in vignette option......

I'm also putting the 5D and 70-200 f/2.8 IS purchases on hold until sanity returns. I don't need them I just want them.

[spl]

Re: Middlesmoor, Upper Nidderdale

You maybe should think of going into writing Stuart - I was thinking how true your self analysis was coming across while reading through it. I think it applies to a lot of us and unless you actually enjoy doing the post production its probably best to find the fastest and most efficient ways to achieve it so as to cut the time spent.

I also agree with you about the vignetting. I felt uncomfortable with the first of Stephen's pictures from the start although I didn't know why. I have never done vignetting myself and I suppose if its done subtly enough as in the third picture (which I absolutely loved right from the start) it wouldn't bother me. Its just one of those editing things you have to develop a feel for when its appropriate to do at all and how heavily it should be done when doing it.

[Stephen]

Re: Middlesmoor, Upper Nidderdale

Now that I'm sitting here thinking rationally about why I don't like vignettes, it's actually a difficult question to answer. I guess it's because I constantly seek (but rarely achieve, see below) technical perfection in my images, I struggle to understand why I'd want to "spoil" perfect exposure, colour & contrast settings, that took time to achieve, by adding a vignette. I'm not saying it's a rational view but that leads to my next point...

Phew, a lot for me to take in all at once Stuart, but I did enjoy your reasoning

You mention spoiling a perfect exposure. I think thats where you and I differ at times when it comes to photography. At least personal stuff where I trying my best to be creative The thing is, whats a perfect exposure. It surely isn't the one the camera EV scale tells you is EV0. I've said before I often underexpose intentionally. You sound a little as though you are suggesting that 'perfect exposure' does not include underexposing, indeed that anything thats not 0EV is not perfect exposure

It's my feeling that 'perfect exposure' is the wrong term. Perhaps it should be the 'Correct Exposure' Now assuming you accept that term as acceptable, then tweaking with the correct exposure for the conditions/scene should not be an issue. Why shouldn't an area be lightened or darkened, contrast boosted and colours altered, all to get something that is in the photographers mind. Why should we, as creative photographers not mould what we have controlled the camera to take even further. Surely at the end of the day we are trying to create an image which is more than just a straight record shot, and if this means using a few tricks here and there, well its all part of the image making process

[Bearface]

Re: Middlesmoor, Upper Nidderdale

I just wanted to add something...

...in it's purest form, digital photography is extremely close to traditional mediums, in that you capture a raw (RAW) image with the camera, and then make adjustments to the file on a computer to complete the process. Ignoring the fact that film is organic and digital is not, the two routes to the final image are all but identical in principle.

As with working in a darkroom, post-processing in a digital darkroom takes experience and skill to perfect, so it's entirely understandable that many perfectly competent photographers who have little or no understanding of Photoshop etc., choose to let their cameras do the processing (with regards to colour, contrast, sharpening, dynamic range etc, etc...) so that when they've pressed the shutter, the process is essentially complete. This is a perfectly valid route to take, however it is not the optimum one because the camera does not have a subjective eye (indeed it has no eye whatsoever) and therefore it's adjustments are based on mathematics, not on aesthetics...

When shooting in RAW on the other hand (and RAW images are better for post-processing because they contain more information AND because they haven't already been processed by the camera), the photographer can look at the various elements of the image and make sympathetic (or what or she deems to be appropriate...) adjustments - by eye - to the image and it's components. This means that control of the process is entirely in the hands of the photographer and not the camera's processing engine, which means that all the changes made are made visually and not to a predetermined mathematical formula which looks at overall exposure values, dymanic ranges and sharpness without any knowledge of how the picture looks to the human eye. Think about it...

This is why "accurate" jpeg exposures of given scenes can often produce an image which massively misses the mark aesthetically - because the camera only knows the maths, not what the scene actually looks like. However by photographing a contrasty scene in RAW and either underexposing or bracketing (with a view to blending the best visual elements of the shot in PP), the photographer can make appropriate adjustments to suit the scene without being constrained by formulas and alogorythms etc.

Oh and the vignetting is subjective. If the photographer feels that it serves to draw the eye to the centre of the composition, then it's justified. However if the same photographer offers the work up for comment and the concensus is that the vignetting has failed to work (in the context of it's purpose), then it's up to the critic to say why it hasn't worked, and for the photographer to then decide who's right. I use vignettes because I like them and I also like to underexpose my personal shots and play with colour temps and contrast to create a look and feel that best reflects my take on the scene. It's not always about how things looked at the time, it's about how I want to portray things - that's what makes our images original. Or not...

[StuartR]

Re: Middlesmoor, Upper Nidderdale

Phew, a lot for me to take in all at once Stuart, but I did enjoy your reasoning

You mention spoiling a perfect exposure. I think thats where you and I differ at times when it comes to photography. At least personal stuff where I trying my best to be creative The thing is, whats a perfect exposure. It surely isn't the one the camera EV scale tells you is EV0. I've said before I often underexpose intentionally. You sound a little as though you are suggesting that 'perfect exposure' does not include underexposing, indeed that anything thats not 0EV is not perfect exposure

It's my feeling that 'perfect exposure' is the wrong term. Perhaps it should be the 'Correct Exposure' Now assuming you accept that term as acceptable, then tweaking with the correct exposure for the conditions/scene should not be an issue. Why shouldn't an area be lightened or darkened, contrast boosted and colours altered, all to get something that is in the photographers mind. Why should we, as creative photographers not mould what we have controlled the camera to take even further. Surely at the end of the day we are trying to create an image which is more than just a straight record shot, and if this means using a few tricks here and there, well its all part of the image making process

Phew indeed, I did download a bit there didn't I? Hope I didn't frighten anyone

When I consider how much image manipulation I do, why am I bothered about a little vignetting here and there? pot & kettle....

Still, nice to get a bit of a debate going....

Time for a stiff Bacardi or two I think....

[Stephen]

Re: Middlesmoor, Upper Nidderdale

Phew indeed, I did download a bit there didn't I? Hope I didn't frighten anyone

When I consider how much image manipulation I do, why am I bothered about a little vignetting here and there? pot & kettle....

Still, nice to get a bit of a debate going....

Time for a stiff Bacardi or two I think....

Can't fault you there

[StuartR]

Re: Middlesmoor, Upper Nidderdale

I just wanted to add something...

...in it's purest form, digital photography is extremely close to traditional mediums, in that you capture a raw (RAW) image with the camera, and then make adjustments to the file on a computer to complete the process. Ignoring the fact that film is organic and digital is not, the two routes to the final image are all but identical in principle.

As with working in a darkroom, post-processing in a digital darkroom takes experience and skill to perfect, so it's entirely understandable that many perfectly competent photographers who have little or no understanding of Photoshop etc., choose to let their cameras do the processing (with regards to colour, contrast, sharpening, dynamic range etc, etc...) so that when they've pressed the shutter, the process is essentially complete. This is a perfectly valid route to take, however it is not the optimum one because the camera does not have a subjective eye (indeed it has no eye whatsoever) and therefore it's adjustments are based on mathematics, not on aesthetics...

When shooting in RAW on the other hand (and RAW images are better for post-processing because they contain more information AND because they haven't already been processed by the camera), the photographer can look at the various elements of the image and make sympathetic (or what or she deems to be appropriate...) adjustments - by eye - to the image and it's components. This means that control of the process is entirely in the hands of the photographer and not the camera's processing engine, which means that all the changes made are made visually and not to a predetermined mathematical formula which looks at overall exposure values, dymanic ranges and sharpness without any knowledge of how the picture looks to the human eye. Think about it...

This is why "accurate" jpeg exposures of given scenes can often produce an image which massively misses the mark aesthetically - because the camera only knows the maths, not what the scene actually looks like. However by photographing a contrasty scene in RAW and either underexposing or bracketing (with a view to blending the best visual elements of the shot in PP), the photographer can make appropriate adjustments to suit the scene without being constrained by formulas and alogorythms etc.

Oh and the vignetting is subjective. If the photographer feels that it serves to draw the eye to the centre of the composition, then it's justified. However if the same photographer offers the work up for comment and the concensus is that the vignetting has failed to work (in the context of it's purpose), then it's up to the critic to say why it hasn't worked, and for the photographer to then decide who's right. I use vignettes because I like them and I also like to underexpose my personal shots and play with colour temps and contrast to create a look and feel that best reflects my take on the scene. It's not always about how things looked at the time, it's about how I want to portray things - that's what makes our images original. Or not...

Nothing I'm going to disagree with there! Thanks (and to Stephen) for taking the time to respond.

I think I've just gone of the rails a bit lately, I'm suddenly not enjoying the time I spend processing images, more the amount of time to be precise. As a consequence the camera is not coming out of its bag as often.

I think I need to look at my workflow and be a bit more selective when deciding which images are worth the post-processing effort and not try to make silk purses out of the also-rans. Who knows, I might even get the courage to delete some

I'll continue shooting RAW because, as you say, it's the best option when it comes to post-processing. I'm going to sort myself out a couple of projects and get back to basics; pretend I'm back in my darkroom perhaps..didn't bother with the crud shots then, paper & chemicals cost money!

Perhaps that's actually a downside of digital, once you've bought your kit the running costs are pretty much zero and you can get shutter-happy..without realising the real cost - your time?

Anyway, back to the Bacardi (and sorry I hi-jacked the thread a bit Stephen! Nice pictures, especially the first one!)