Fountain at night

[Cody White]

Lake Sacajawea Fountain, Longview, WA​

how does it work?

 

[Cody White]

Well I guess it must be fairly good, as no one wants to post about it.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Lake Sacajawea Fountain, Longview, WA​

how does it work?

Cody,

I have been thinking about it. The lack of symmetry of the water fountain troubled me and then seemed to be of merit, but I was undecided, LOL, so I decided to revisit later. It's hard to comment on something that's a puzzle like this that almost too ordinary to comment on, yet's disturbing to such a minor degree.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Cody,

It could be that the picture will come out best if the color of the sky was not so intense, stealing attention from the water. Somehow, it seems that the picture might be presented, altogether differently. That means start with an open mind and everything can be considered game for your choices.

However, this could be antipathetic to your taste and intent.

Asher

 

[Jeremy Waller]

Hi Cody,

Can you please provide some stats - exposure etc . The sky is quite intense. Looking at the way the sun is shining I would try to use a polariser to darken the sky and, possibly, at the same time the fountain might look stronger,

Jeremy

 

[Alain Briot]

Looking at the way the sun is shining I would try to use a polariser to darken the sky and, possibly, at the same time the fountain might look stronger,
Jeremy

First, the title of this thread "Fountain at night" clearly indicates that there is no direct sunlight (unless the sun started shining at night)!

Second, and more importantly, an important step in improving digital photograph is to stop thinking of how to alter the photo during shooting and start thinking of altering the photo in post processing. The sky color, as well as any other color, can be easily altered during raw convertion or, if you use it, in Photoshop.

Third, this image suffers from the Common Oversaturation Syndrome (COS). COS is often found in combination with the Overly Constrasty Image Syndrome (OCIS). COS and OCIS are the two most common syndromes found in beginning photographers' work.

Fortunately, the cure is simple: decreasing saturation and decreasing contrast will fix both COS and OCIS.

Try a 10 to 20% decrease in both to start with, and continue decreasing until symptoms subside.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Second, and more importantly, an important step in improving digital photograph is to stop thinking of how to alter the photo during shooting and start thinking of altering the photo in post processing. The sky color, as well as any other color, can be easily altered during raw convertion or, if you use it, in Photoshop.

Alain,

That's right! We have to deal with what we have and next time plan better. Expecting the camera to have out vision is asking a lot of even the truly brilliant the little Japanese men inside the camera!

In this case, what would you do about the color of the water and still have a feeling of night? I'd be tempted to add reflections from neon signs or city lights. but that's me, I have no conscience for the truth here.

@ Cody,

So what do you think about these ideas on contrast and saturation offered here?

Asher

 

[Alain Briot]

In this case, what would you do about the color of the water and still have a feeling of night?

See above.

 

[Asher Kelman]

See above.

Alain,

Not what can Cody do but what would you do, in this case to the water?

Asher

 

[Alain Briot]

Alain,

Not what can Cody do but what would you do, in this case to the water?

Asher

There's no difference. What I recommend is what I would do. Why would I recommend something I wouldn't do? That would make no sense to me.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

I agree with Alain that the tonal values of this image are excessive to no apparent advantage or purpose.

But, Cody, even if you adopted a more moderate, sensitive eye for tonality and applied it to this image what would you really have? A picture of a fountain, and not a very interesting fountain at that. You've given viewers nothing of value.

May I make a suggestion? Instead of devoting much time behind a keyboard allocate more time to building your frames. By that I mean spend much more time learning to see. Don't just point your lens at something and click. You're not hunting. Compose your frames with context, with other elements that support the image you're trying to capture. Forget the computer crappola for a few months; just do what you must to get the images to the computer so that you can study them. STUDY the work of photographers whose work you admire. Don't just look at their work, but STUDY how they've built each frame. It's not accidental.

Devoting more time to studying / practicing how to craft interesting frames will pay dividends for the reast of your photo life.

 

[Alain Briot]

But, Cody, even if you adopted a more moderate, sensitive eye for tonality and applied it to this image what would you really have? A picture of a fountain, and not a very interesting fountain at that. You've given viewers nothing of value.

May I make a suggestion? Instead of devoting much time behind a keyboard allocate more time to building your frames. By that I mean spend much more time learning to see. Don't just point your lens at something and click. You're not hunting. Compose your frames with context, with other elements that support the image you're trying to capture. Forget the computer crappola for a few months; just do what you must to get the images to the computer so that you can study them. STUDY the work of photographers whose work you admire. Don't just look at their work, but STUDY how they've built each frame. It's not accidental.

Devoting more time to studying / practicing how to craft interesting frames will pay dividends for the reast of your photo life.

I totally agree with Ken. I decided to go the "helpful route" by pointing to the obvious tonal inefficiencies in this image, however I had to fight off not saying that the image was overwhemingly boring, oversaturated and overcontrasty or not.

Then the conversation driftet into unproductive comments about my comments and I got sidetracked. More ineffective use of resources in my view.

To go back to Ken' s point, which is very well taken, I too have noticed, in large part because I review thousands of photographs every year, that students spend much time wondering how to improve an ineffective photograph instead of working towards creating effective photographs.

Of course, one can say that students do not know what is an effective photograph. However, that is only true to a point. By comparing their work (or your work if you are in this situation) to the work of accomplished photographers, it becomes quickly obvious where you stand.

I dislike having to point out that a photograph is nothing more than a snapshot, however, such is often the case when beginning photographers post their work.

 

[Cody White]

Thanks you all for taking the time to help me out.
Now here is a resized original copy with no corrections, Straight out of camera.

I'm not very good with all the masking most all of you do so I went the faster way of just cloning out all the over exposed lights and other distractions on the edited copy.

 

[Alain Briot]

Cody,

As stated before, I don't think this photograph will gain much from "fancy" processing.

Why don't you do this:

1- Find out who your favorite photographer is (you may already know, if so just write it down).
2 - compare your photo to this photographer's photos and list all the differences you see
3 - compare your experience to this photographer's experience
4 - post all of this here for comments etc.

 

[Asher Kelman]

"May I make a suggestion? Instead of devoting much time behind a keyboard allocate more time to building your frames. By that I mean spend much more time learning to see. Don't just point your lens at something and click. You're not hunting. Compose your frames with context, with other elements that support the image you're trying to capture. "

Cody,

Ken is so right. My own kids thought that photography was going out with their Dad hunting for subjects to frame. Each one had a cardboard cutout or made a frame with their two hands and that is how we would photograph things. Two out of the three are excellent photographers. Now they plan everything even when it appears they are just "snapping" a quick shot.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Cody White: Fountain at Night​

Cody,

This was a delightful surprise! I can relate to this picture, even with all the obvious shortcomings. Perhaps a wider angle lens would have helped complete the scene. Interestingly, the very elements you removed, the lights that provide the ambience of night, were the ones I thought to add! That's what I was asking Alain what he would do.

to Alain,

... what would you do about the color of the water and still have a feeling of night? I'd be tempted to add reflections from neon signs or city lights. but that's me, I have no conscience for the truth here.

I must say, the picture is far better in the original. It expresses your title and we have a good feeling of night. There are numerous structural problems but the image works on the basic level you needed. To go further, one has to look at how a picture can be balanced. That requires taking a drawing class in still life and being able to place an object on a page, alone or with other objects so it's pleasing in it's form.

It can come to you. One can do it with a camera but likely as not, it's faster with the atmosphere and guidance of a drawing class. There's still life and figure drawing, which is to your taste.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

First, the title of this thread "Fountain at night" clearly indicates that there is no direct sunlight (unless the sun started shining at night)!

Second, and more importantly, an important step in improving digital photograph is to stop thinking of how to alter the photo during shooting and start thinking of altering the photo in post processing. The sky color, as well as any other color, can be easily altered during raw convertion or, if you use it, in Photoshop.

Hi Cody,

Now we have restarted and we don't have that over-saturated blue to deal with anymore. However, Alain is right that we do have to work on what we come home with! Even if you hunt for meat, you stll have to cook it properly, LOL!

Here's my try, just guided by the title.

Thanks you all for taking the time to help me out.
Now here is a resized original copy with no corrections, Straight out of camera.

Cody White: Fountain at Night

Original​

I'm not very good with all the masking most all of you do so I went the faster way of just cloning out all the over exposed lights and other distractions on the edited copy.

So Cody,

I just corrected the colors to make it seem like a night scene getting light from different sources and straightened the image, added a tad on each side and a little more sky to balance.

It still represents your own title:

Cody White: Fountain at Night

Edits ADK​

 

[Jeremy Waller]

Hello Alain,

I guess my experience is quite different from yours. To me blue implies natural sunlight (no matter how dim). Here is a picture taken on one of my trips to investigate a location for night photography in natural light.

For intents and purposes the area looked "pitch black" notice that the sky is blue and there is some illumination of the hill side from street lights. Notice most of the stars are white. This is what one sees in very lightly polluted areas.

​

Regards,

Jeremy.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Thanks you all for taking the time to help me out.
Now here is a resized original copy with no corrections, Straight out of camera.

Can you recognize that even this ugly straight-out-of-camera version is more interesting than the version you posted?

I'm not very good with all the masking most all of you do so I went the faster way of just cloning out all the over exposed lights and other distractions on the edited copy.

Oh my. I'm afraid we're not getting through. Oh well....

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Hello Alain,

Jeremy.

Nice photo, Jeremy. But you need to "clone-out" all those little white spots in your sky. (And clean your sensor.) It doesn't look like the real night sky I see in downtown Chicago.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Cody White: Fountain at Night

Edits ADK​

Wow! I did the quick corrections on my laptop and was shocked to see how crappy the edges of the trees are against the sky and the sides of the picture! UGH!

Still, with these corrected, it would be the "nice" 400 pixel wide pictures one has in a city web page on why one should visit Luxville, Tennessee.

Asher

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Nice photo, Jeremy. But you need to "clone-out" all those little white spots in your sky. (And clean your sensor.) It doesn't look like the real night sky I see in downtown Chicago.

Oh Ken, can't you see the poor chap needs to learn to use a tripod first - in the country stars are little white dots, not smears across the sky...


With apologies to Jeremy for my poor sense of humour

Mike

 

[Mark Hampton]

Lake Sacajawea Fountain, Longview, WA​

how does it work?

Cody,

It works for me on a number of levels for me ....
it’s a monument wasting energy that could be better used.. and although they are common I feel they should be represented...

like the court house image ... its edges don’t matter because of your direct approach... i think the colours (sat and con) burst this image... and I like it for that... it not an anal image... with perfect balance.. but its not about that.... tones sometimes shout – sometimes scream – and sometimes whisper

could you make it better... well no...
it’s made ... it would only be different ...

the real question I have to ask is... why ask how it works.. Because that implies you understand it works (which I believe you do)...

the funny thing about beauty is its in the eye...
thanks for sharing this.

 

[Cody White]

Can you recognize that even this ugly straight-out-of-camera version is more interesting than the version you posted?



Oh my. I'm afraid we're not getting through. Oh well....

Ken,

What I meant was I do not know all the different functions and correction adjustments yet.
You are getting thought to me, however with all the technical terms I get lost on

Cody,

It works for me on a number of levels for me ....
it’s a monument wasting energy that could be better used.. and although they are common I feel they should be represented...

like the court house image ... its edges don’t matter because of your direct approach... i think the colours (sat and con) burst this image... and I like it for that... it not an anal image... with perfect balance.. but its not about that.... tones sometimes shout – sometimes scream – and sometimes whisper

could you make it better... well no...
it’s made ... it would only be different ...

the real question I have to ask is... why ask how it works.. Because that implies you understand it works (which I believe you do)...

the funny thing about beauty is its in the eye...
thanks for sharing this.

Thank you.

It works, but it doesn't work.

I like how the trees are out of focus, cause I knew they would be cause it was windy when I took it. the water didn't turn out like I hoped.


To the rest of you kind people,

Does everything have to be by the book?

If one likes to try different approaches, or thinking outside the box, is that so wrong?

Right now photography to me is like a fast food place, bland, everything is cut the same way, everything is cooked the same way.
I want different, non-conventional, I want to be like the Four Horseman Hamburger, full of originality, and different.

I wish I had the new Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III with all the expensive L series lenses, Well I don't and I'm trying to make due with what I have.

Does it bother me that my lines are a little soft and blurry, not at all!!

I also know I will never make much money in life to have all the fancy toys and gadgets, it doesn't matter, For I am trying my best.

I am kind of limited on what I take photographs of where I live.

You kind people have asked me who I look up too, I say no one.
Have I heard of Adele Adams, No I have not, I just learned of him with in the last year or so.
I also have no drawing experience, does that stop me, nope. I try to capture what I see in my mind at that monument. Am I learning to see in a different way, Yes, Very slowly at that.

Right now I am happy to have the basics, And no CS4 is not basic, PSE7 is.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Cody,

1. One poorly exposed, poorly framed, poorly focused snapshot does not qualify you as an avant-garde artist. Yes, I could cite at least a dozen photographers who have built highly-prized bodies of work with images that the amateur photo world would call crappy. But they're anything but carelessly crafted and are all supported by a conceptual aesthetic objective. See works by William Klein, Nan Goldin, Saul Leiter, Uta Barthe, to name just a few.

2. "What I meant was I do not know all the different functions and correction adjustments yet. You are getting thought to me, however with all the technical terms I get lost on" Nope, I'm not. Read my remarks -closely-. I suggest you push back from the darn computer, not learn more plug-ins and adjustments. Learn to -see-, not to program. You're just not getting this signal, still.

3. Your skills with photography have very little relationship to your camera, your version of software, or your darn computer. For some reason you're just not understanding this simple, yet unarguable, point.

4. Nothing to photograph where you live? You're blind. Get up one morning and see your area as if you were a new visitor, not with the contempt of familiarity.

5. All photography is bland, eh? I wonder how much photography you've really seen. If none of the names I cited earlier ring familiar to you, the answer is that you've not seen much.

Well enough's enough. Enjoy what ever type of photography you want to pursue. That is, after all, what it's all about. But please don't ask for guidance and then declare yourself the new wave of photographic art.

 

[Cody White]

Ken,

I'm trying to learn.
And no I have never hear any of those names untill now.
we have so called art galleries up here and one of them have photo's in it.
I looked at them and they seem just plain boring, and I do see some of them as something a little kid would of took.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ken,

I'm trying to learn.
And no I have never hear any of those names untill now.
we have so called art galleries up here and one of them have photo's in it.
I looked at them and they seem just plain boring, and I do see some of them as something a little kid would of took.

Cody,

Visit the gallery again and write down some of the names of the artists. It would be interesting to know what it is you don't like. Next, what camera do you have that you think might be limiting you. I realy don't think that's the case.

Here's the deal. You don't need any advanced camera or Photoshop skills to progress. Rather it's just the ability to see around you in a new way and appreciate forms that relate to one another in some way that's interesting. You do that by getting in a group drawing class and learn to position yourself in such a way, that "what" and "how" you put it on paper works. It becomes so fascinating to experience that you are thrilled. What's more others want to look at it too.

What Ken is suggesting you do is nothing to do with owning any camera. He is just being very honest that we need to be able to see first in order to be able to make pictures. That's I belief that I share too.

No one here demands any orthodoxy. We delight in anything unusual! However, what's "unusual" is not haphazard and it is always well thought out, expressed and presented. The way you get there is by investing in some training in hunting for what's interesting around you, then the right vantage point and time of day to photograph it. Forget skills in working with a sophisticated camera. This stage and even to great fame, only requires just a point and shoot as it's about subject choice of what is in the frame, what's excluded and the lighting and your angle of attack more than the special things that more capable cameras can offer.

However before you even lift up the camera, invest in getting some feeling for composition by spending the time to train your brain. A class is the best framework. There's a group process to support you and instructors who have experience in recognizing your needs and so guiding you.

If you already had experience in art appreciation, then you might have acquired the basic skills, even without realizing what transformation was occurring. Without that, you can still do well, but you have to start from the basics. I assure you that this will be a great and satisfying experience. It will be as hard as you imagine but you will make progress faster than you would ever dream.

You could be the world most skilled and celebrated photographer, just using a throw away camera. No gallery ever demands or expects that you own a 1DsMark III. In fact, I doubt whether most gallery owners would really be able to tell any differences from a Canon 30D nor care a hoot either!

I'm not as tough as Ken to say "Put down your camera, turn off your computer and just learn!", although for most of us that's not such a bad idea! I'd really ask you to look up the local adult education courses, and enroll!

After that, still take pictures, but plan them and for now, at least, shoot wider. Select the 6 best. Now when you are taking a course, wait 'til you have established rapport with the instructor. He/she might very well be kind enough to look at a few of these pictures and suggest how to improve the composition. When you get to like some artists or photographer, you will suddenly make progress in your own ability to observe, (what they have discovered), all around you.

Without looking at work in galleries, museums, books or online and without instead even having basic training in line and form, photography is not likely to progress that much. This is nothing to do with money, just about getting on to a path that leads somewhere.

I hope this helps you.

Asher

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Cody

Just a quick note that I thought was worth saying (again!).

A 1Ds3 and L lenses would not help you progress - it might even hinder you. This link is worth a read.

Ken has previously suggested that people go out and buy a few disposable film cameras and shoot with them, get them processed and look through the prints that come back. Most people won't, for all sorts of reasons, but it is a useful and valid exercise. You can 'do art' this way and you can start to learn to see.

You don't need to leave your neighbourhood. There is likely plenty there if you are interested or want to say something - I have an ongoing project in Newcastle because I like it, but don't usually bother shooting in leeds as I don't feel inspired here. Henry Wessel (follow the linnk and play the video) is a good example. Only one lens it would seem and an old film camera, but his work is dynamite. When people go on and on about processing and photoshop this is worth remembering:

"In a still photograph you basically have two variables, where you stand and when you press the shutter. That's all you have."-- Henry Wessel

best

Mike

 

[Alain Briot]

Cody
A 1Ds3 and L lenses would not help you progress - it might even hinder you.

In regards to personal style and composition, your camera is only as good as you are.

In regards to resolution and detail rendition, it is better than most, if not all, painters and graphic artists.

 

[Alain Briot]

Hello Alain,

I guess my experience is quite different from yours. To me blue implies natural sunlight (no matter how dim). Here is a picture taken on one of my trips to investigate a location for night photography in natural light.

For intents and purposes the area looked "pitch black" notice that the sky is blue and there is some illumination of the hill side from street lights. Notice most of the stars are white. This is what one sees in very lightly polluted areas.

​

Regards,

Jeremy.

I agree. I also don't see how that differs from my previous statements?