Random Photos : Part 4
Discussion
havoc said:
LaSource said:
Shot this in Paris at the weekend at the Musée d'Orsay cafe shop. Through the 'clock window' looking at Sacre Coeur on a hill top across the other side of city with the telephoto compressing the distances in between. Also liked the people and staff in the foreground adding some context and atmosphere.
That needs more appreciation. Fantastic work.
bobski1 said:
How do people capture those stunning star photos?
Patience, a good tripod, fast lens, technique and dark skies!Actually shooting a basic single frame star photo can be done on any entry level camera and kit lens (with tripod) so long as you get away from light pollution.
havoc said:
LaSource said:
Shot this in Paris at the weekend at the Musée d'Orsay cafe shop. Through the 'clock window' looking at Sacre Coeur on a hill top across the other side of city with the telephoto compressing the distances in between. Also liked the people and staff in the foreground adding some context and atmosphere.
That needs more appreciation. Fantastic work.DibblyDobbler said:
+1 Stunning
Oh - just spotted these....thank you 
One keeps wandering around and every now and then the stars line up
Couple more from last weekends aurora.
Aurora Australis 31 aug 2019 by Ben, on Flickr
Aurora Australis 1 Sept 2019 by Ben, on Flickr
They looked so much better before being munched by flickr's horrible compression
Aurora Australis 31 aug 2019 by Ben, on FlickrAurora Australis 1 Sept 2019 by Ben, on FlickrThey looked so much better before being munched by flickr's horrible compression
RobDickinson said:
hmm prob just jpg compression then?
The JPGs exported from Lightroom and viewed on PC (tested with a couple of different viewers) show much more smoothly/evenly graduated tones than I see after uploading and viewing them in Firefox.Ok, I just tried viewing one of the original files in Firefox and it appears the same as the uploaded ones, so it seems to be something in the way it displays them rather than being changed in the upload. Maybe I've been a bit harsh on Flickr then, hopefully that means they look ok to everyone else!
Time to do some digging into Firefox settings...
ETA: Problem solved!
if anyone else has similar issues, info here: https://cameratico.com/guides/firefox-color-manage...Edited by GravelBen on Friday 6th September 11:03
GravelBen said:
Couple more from last weekends aurora.
Aurora Australis 31 aug 2019 by Ben, on Flickr
Aurora Australis 1 Sept 2019 by Ben, on Flickr
They looked so much better before being munched by flickr's horrible compression
Wow - so many colours.Aurora Australis 31 aug 2019 by Ben, on FlickrAurora Australis 1 Sept 2019 by Ben, on FlickrThey looked so much better before being munched by flickr's horrible compression
You do have the best atmospheric conditions down under.
GravelBen said:
The JPGs exported from Lightroom and viewed on PC (tested with a couple of different viewers) show much more smoothly/evenly graduated tones than I see after uploading and viewing them in Firefox.
Ok, I just tried viewing one of the original files in Firefox and it appears the same as the uploaded ones, so it seems to be something in the way it displays them rather than being changed in the upload. Maybe I've been a bit harsh on Flickr then, hopefully that means they look ok to everyone else!
Time to do some digging into Firefox settings...
ETA: Problem solved! if anyone else has similar issues, info here: https://cameratico.com/guides/firefox-color-manage...
This got me thinking that at some point in the past there was a user definable setting in FF related to whether Colour Management was to be applied or not. However I can't find it now. Maybe these days it is still there for Mac installations but not my old Win 7?Ok, I just tried viewing one of the original files in Firefox and it appears the same as the uploaded ones, so it seems to be something in the way it displays them rather than being changed in the upload. Maybe I've been a bit harsh on Flickr then, hopefully that means they look ok to everyone else!
Time to do some digging into Firefox settings...
ETA: Problem solved!
if anyone else has similar issues, info here: https://cameratico.com/guides/firefox-color-manage...Edited by GravelBen on Friday 6th September 11:03
Anyway this article proved to be an interesting read alongside your link.
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2467326
Especially the third post and other replies from that poster.
Note that apparently the FF "Mode" default is "1" in the settings.
I checked mine and it's set to 2 thus about as good as things can be given all of the variables across the internet!
Double the fun, of course, if one is using dual non-matching screens - say a notebook and a desk monitor, colour managed or not - and trying really hard to make them match 100%,
I would guess that the reason on-line fashion shopping sites seem to have abandoned the idea of time consuming "well ironed" presentation is that the consumer not longer cares much about whether clothes look crumpled and so maybe are not too concerned about anythng close to colour accuracy when buying using a mobile device. After all one can simply return something without having a reason so tolerance of tatty presentation and poor colour matching is part of the modern world - the acceptance of which is making things somewhat easier for developers.
LongQ said:
I would guess that the reason on-line fashion shopping sites seem to have abandoned the idea of time consuming "well ironed" presentation is that the consumer not longer cares much about whether clothes look crumpled and so maybe are not too concerned about anythng close to colour accuracy when buying using a mobile device. After all one can simply return something without having a reason so tolerance of tatty presentation and poor colour matching is part of the modern world - the acceptance of which is making things somewhat easier for developers.
Not sure which sites you are shopping on, but lots of attention is given to presentation and colour. General shoot teams involve one photographer, one stylist and one retoucher - that's for E-comm still life and model. Images are generally colour-checked across multiple shoot platforms from different teams for book and online.If you're seeing clothes that look like they are more 'natural' in terms of presentation, its intended and lots of time/money are spent making them look that way.
Rogue86 said:
LongQ said:
I would guess that the reason on-line fashion shopping sites seem to have abandoned the idea of time consuming "well ironed" presentation is that the consumer not longer cares much about whether clothes look crumpled and so maybe are not too concerned about anythng close to colour accuracy when buying using a mobile device. After all one can simply return something without having a reason so tolerance of tatty presentation and poor colour matching is part of the modern world - the acceptance of which is making things somewhat easier for developers.
Not sure which sites you are shopping on, but lots of attention is given to presentation and colour. General shoot teams involve one photographer, one stylist and one retoucher - that's for E-comm still life and model. Images are generally colour-checked across multiple shoot platforms from different teams for book and online.If you're seeing clothes that look like they are more 'natural' in terms of presentation, its intended and lots of time/money are spent making them look that way.
I don't mind wearing a crumpled casual jacket. However I would like to think that I could apply my own crumpling rather than have it delivered that way - and apparently not very well put together if one looks at the enlarged image (in many cases).
If models are concerned I imagine that they do spend a lot of money one way or another.
OK it's fashion but so many shots seems to have crammed models - especially male models, into clothes that are 3 or 4 sizes too small for them that one wonders if it is mainly an attempt to make the clothes look "smart" by stretching (even if it does make the model look stupid - IMO) in order to try to work around the poor product quality.
But it's the clothes without models shots that seem to be the most off-putting.
I'm not sure its worth trying to include a link by way of example since they are likely to be so ephemeral.
A quick check on a couple of sites suggests that at least the crumpled look of summer is not so easy to reproduce in the heavier materials of autumn and winter!
Not sure about the modelled looks though. Oh well, that's just fashion.
As for colours - at a push I suppose a green that looks like a brown in a thumbnail might turn out to be some shade of green when viewed larger. Or at least be close enough that whether is it green or brown might be a matter of opinion.
Either way my point really was that I don't think most 'viewers' care that much these days. At least not for on-line viewing.
LongQ said:
I was thinking mainly of the clothes only catalogue sites.
I don't mind wearing a crumpled casual jacket. However I would like to think that I could apply my own crumpling rather than have it delivered that way - and apparently not very well put together if one looks at the enlarged image (in many cases).
If models are concerned I imagine that they do spend a lot of money one way or another.
OK it's fashion but so many shots seems to have crammed models - especially male models, into clothes that are 3 or 4 sizes too small for them that one wonders if it is mainly an attempt to make the clothes look "smart" by stretching (even if it does make the model look stupid - IMO) in order to try to work around the poor product quality.
But it's the clothes without models shots that seem to be the most off-putting.
I'm not sure its worth trying to include a link by way of example since they are likely to be so ephemeral.
A quick check on a couple of sites suggests that at least the crumpled look of summer is not so easy to reproduce in the heavier materials of autumn and winter!
Not sure about the modelled looks though. Oh well, that's just fashion.
As for colours - at a push I suppose a green that looks like a brown in a thumbnail might turn out to be some shade of green when viewed larger. Or at least be close enough that whether is it green or brown might be a matter of opinion.
Either way my point really was that I don't think most 'viewers' care that much these days. At least not for on-line viewing.
I'm doing a lot of work for a major UK fashion retailer at the moment so if you're really interested I can give you first-hand information on the bits you're highlighting there. The reality isn't that interesting to be honest, it's essentially politics between departments and brands. I don't mind wearing a crumpled casual jacket. However I would like to think that I could apply my own crumpling rather than have it delivered that way - and apparently not very well put together if one looks at the enlarged image (in many cases).
If models are concerned I imagine that they do spend a lot of money one way or another.
OK it's fashion but so many shots seems to have crammed models - especially male models, into clothes that are 3 or 4 sizes too small for them that one wonders if it is mainly an attempt to make the clothes look "smart" by stretching (even if it does make the model look stupid - IMO) in order to try to work around the poor product quality.
But it's the clothes without models shots that seem to be the most off-putting.
I'm not sure its worth trying to include a link by way of example since they are likely to be so ephemeral.
A quick check on a couple of sites suggests that at least the crumpled look of summer is not so easy to reproduce in the heavier materials of autumn and winter!
Not sure about the modelled looks though. Oh well, that's just fashion.
As for colours - at a push I suppose a green that looks like a brown in a thumbnail might turn out to be some shade of green when viewed larger. Or at least be close enough that whether is it green or brown might be a matter of opinion.
Either way my point really was that I don't think most 'viewers' care that much these days. At least not for on-line viewing.
The colour issue is no different. Generally, in-house studios are made to match freelance on-location shoots because they cost more money. Unfortunately most of those shoots don't colour check. We're in a weird position at the moment in that we are deliberately colour-matching to something we know is wrong because a director who likely doesn't even look at the images says so. Other friends of mine in the industry have similar things to say about where they work.
Rogue86 said:
LongQ said:
I was thinking mainly of the clothes only catalogue sites.
I don't mind wearing a crumpled casual jacket. However I would like to think that I could apply my own crumpling rather than have it delivered that way - and apparently not very well put together if one looks at the enlarged image (in many cases).
If models are concerned I imagine that they do spend a lot of money one way or another.
OK it's fashion but so many shots seems to have crammed models - especially male models, into clothes that are 3 or 4 sizes too small for them that one wonders if it is mainly an attempt to make the clothes look "smart" by stretching (even if it does make the model look stupid - IMO) in order to try to work around the poor product quality.
But it's the clothes without models shots that seem to be the most off-putting.
I'm not sure its worth trying to include a link by way of example since they are likely to be so ephemeral.
A quick check on a couple of sites suggests that at least the crumpled look of summer is not so easy to reproduce in the heavier materials of autumn and winter!
Not sure about the modelled looks though. Oh well, that's just fashion.
As for colours - at a push I suppose a green that looks like a brown in a thumbnail might turn out to be some shade of green when viewed larger. Or at least be close enough that whether is it green or brown might be a matter of opinion.
Either way my point really was that I don't think most 'viewers' care that much these days. At least not for on-line viewing.
I'm doing a lot of work for a major UK fashion retailer at the moment so if you're really interested I can give you first-hand information on the bits you're highlighting there. The reality isn't that interesting to be honest, it's essentially politics between departments and brands. I don't mind wearing a crumpled casual jacket. However I would like to think that I could apply my own crumpling rather than have it delivered that way - and apparently not very well put together if one looks at the enlarged image (in many cases).
If models are concerned I imagine that they do spend a lot of money one way or another.
OK it's fashion but so many shots seems to have crammed models - especially male models, into clothes that are 3 or 4 sizes too small for them that one wonders if it is mainly an attempt to make the clothes look "smart" by stretching (even if it does make the model look stupid - IMO) in order to try to work around the poor product quality.
But it's the clothes without models shots that seem to be the most off-putting.
I'm not sure its worth trying to include a link by way of example since they are likely to be so ephemeral.
A quick check on a couple of sites suggests that at least the crumpled look of summer is not so easy to reproduce in the heavier materials of autumn and winter!
Not sure about the modelled looks though. Oh well, that's just fashion.
As for colours - at a push I suppose a green that looks like a brown in a thumbnail might turn out to be some shade of green when viewed larger. Or at least be close enough that whether is it green or brown might be a matter of opinion.
Either way my point really was that I don't think most 'viewers' care that much these days. At least not for on-line viewing.
The colour issue is no different. Generally, in-house studios are made to match freelance on-location shoots because they cost more money. Unfortunately most of those shoots don't colour check. We're in a weird position at the moment in that we are deliberately colour-matching to something we know is wrong because a director who likely doesn't even look at the images says so. Other friends of mine in the industry have similar things to say about where they work.
The standards applied seem to vary considerably, not just between fashion houses and retailers but from season to season (where season matters to the content).
It's not everyone of course but earlier this year I found a number of sites that seemed to have adopted a policy of making cloghing shots (no models) look like the products had been picked for a pile that was unchecked for manufacturing quality, thrown onto the floor or a table top with a background, roughly moved into some sort of non-overlapping position and then the shot taken.
The thumbnails didn't look great but zoomed in on could easily see dodgy seam alignment and pattern alignment and sometimes errant threads sticking out. Not really what one expects from a fashion presentation from a low end of the market retailer and site I was looking at were certainly not in that category or price range.
I thought it weird at the time - but then the entire "fashion" market seems strange at the moment so maybe tatty (er, sorry, casual) was the message back then!
That and a problem with profits for many of the retailers?
Three snaps from today with the RX10iii
Linlithgow by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Cormorant by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Swan by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Linlithgow by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Cormorant by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Swan by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff