Untitled VI

[Cem_Usakligil]

Went to the beach this afternoon.

​

Cheers,

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

they are all very beautiful, but I like most the simplicity of the last one...the processing of Black and white is merely awesome...

Stupid question, was it long exposure or mist? (as there is no waves, I'm not sure)

 

[John Angulat]

Hi Cem,
I love the first one (although all are quite nicely done!).
C'mon now, you have to give up a little of the PP info.
How else are we supposed to learn?

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Sandrine, John,

Thanks for chiming in. I was planning to provide technical info in due time anyway.

...Stupid question, was it long exposure or mist? (as there is no waves, I'm not sure)

..C'mon now, you have to give up a little of the PP info.
How else are we supposed to learn?

Yes indeed, these are long exposure shots. It is something I have tried for the first time today. I have accompanied a photographer friend to the beach, who is specialized in long exposure B&W photography. He was kind enough to lend me an ND110 (x10 stops) filter so I that could have a go at it myself.

Well, the technical details then. I have used a x10 stops ND filter on my 50mm f1.4 lens. I would have preferred using my TSE 24mm but it has a filter size of 82mm and my friend did not carry one on stock, lol. Anyway, the camera was set to Bulb, aperture f16 and ISO 100. Exposure times were 60-90 seconds. Camera on the tripod, which was dug deep into sand since the wind was blowing with a force of 6-7 Beaufort. In the post, first the basic corrections (exposure, contrast, WB, horizon correction, dust removal) in LR3. After that, processing continued in PS. First deconvolution sharpening due to the f16 used. Then, the Nik Silver Efex filter to convert to B&W. After the conversion, selective "dodging and burning" using adjustment levels and masks. And finally, export to web using LR3 again.


Cheers,

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

the D&B were for the vignetting or did you burned the pillars as well?

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

the D&B were for the vignetting or did you burned the pillars as well?

I have done some dodging on some of the pillars but no burning. D&B was done mostly to lighten the foamy areas of the water and to darken the sky and the foreground sand as well as some areas in the water to create a bit of a contrast.

Cheers,

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Nice! Tiny content aware refill on the left panel's right side and off ya go....

Each panel 60 inch high on Hahnemuehle Daguerre 400gsm Canvas

Do you have color versions as well?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Went to the beach this afternoon.

Cheers,

​

Cem,

With Georg's extra modification as a nudge, I have gotten clarity on your new seres here. These seemingly different images, are no departure from your impressive "Portals" series. Here, in this current work, you have merely shifted where you point your lens from your shooting position within the "Cathedral" of your mind. Using water and giant poles that have aged, spaces have ben carved out in the dimensions of space and time, just as in the picture in the chapel in the South of France you showed previously.

Your photography in this sequence takes your work to a higher level as the concepts you have established solidly, until now, prepare us and you, yourself, to understand the decisions your inner mind must have made, each time you framed and released the shutter. These, then, carry the motif you established and, paring the physics further, raises the significance of your ideas and opportunties for our speculation to a new level.

Notwithstanding my positive comments, word of serious caution; beware of the "sunset conundrum"! Whenever we photograph something so obviously picturesque and eye catching, we're facing a plethora of pictures of similar scenes. You're O.K. here, IO feel, but for the rest of us, this is always our challenge! Otherwise, all camera owners would be masters!

Your work is very positive by its progressive smplicity.

Asher

Note: For those who have not been following Cem's work for long, search in OPF under Portals.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Just had a thought.... instead of printing each panel 60 inch high, I would measure the front pole height and print accordingly. Should make an impressive display for the right spot, ideally lots of glas and natural light... something like

'Welcome to GenomeTech Inc., please take the elevator to the left'....

Would love to see the color version. Btw. Cem, looks like we both started taking long exposures at the same time. Did you pick up any useful hints from your buddy? Did he have stronger than ND 110 as well?

P.S.

In case you do not know this, if you are keen on b&w, this is a very interesting source, he has also plenty of podcasts, entertaining and interesting to listen to.

http://www.lenswork.com/

 

[Andy brown]

Wow Cem,
You really are 'back' aren't you.
Lovely series, your technical abilities are without question but your great strength is that you just have a bloody good eye.
Each of these carries what I'd call geometric tension.
I think know exactly what Asher is referring to with the whole 'sailing close to the winds of kitsch' thing but fear not, you're shooting with the breeze.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Wow Cem,
You really are 'back' aren't you.
Lovely series, your technical abilities are without question but your great strength is that you just have a bloody good eye.
Each of these carries what I'd call geometric tension.

Andy,

Cem's work is impressive indeed! That "bloody good eye" comes from within!

I think know exactly what Asher is referring to with the whole 'sailing close to the winds of kitsch' thing but fear not, you're shooting with the breeze.

Oops, I went far to far and now removed the word, "Kitsch" as that really is no risk here for tCem's pictures. I had meant that for most of the rest of us this scene would be much more of a challenge. Cem's pictures here, alone or with reference to his previous work has the wind in it's sails and goes beyond these worries with aplomb!

Asher

 

[Tom Robbins]

Hi Cem, you're on a roll, man! I like this long exposure approach and hope you continue to share the results here.

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

hurray!!!

Eh Cem! What does it feel like all these people proud of you? Right on your tracks, now! Come on, more to come! Next Week end, maybe?

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Thanks to all

First of all, a belated thank you to all who have stopped by to comment; I really appreciate it. It took some time before I could reply because seldom have I been in so much doubt with a set of images as these. It took some soul searching to identify what was bothering me and what I could do about it. Let me try to explain.

My initial feeling about these images was one of disassociation. I felt that the images were not mine despite the fact all the steps along the way have been decided and executed fully by me and nobody has told me what to do or how to do it. The choice of composition, the choice of exposure, the choice of post processing and the resulting b&w pictures which you have seen, they are all mine. How come did I feel otherwise? I think that I have associated the results with the kind of long exposure pictures my friend makes (which is quite natural) and then I felt that I wasn't being original but merely emulating somebody else's style. After thinking hard, I have slowly come to the conclusion that I wasn't being fair on myself. We all emulate successful/famous pictures in our area of photography (consciously or unconsciously). I mean, who does not want to take pictures like Ansel Adams of HCB? So we emulate, learn, grow/develop, internalize the know-how and become the photographer we are in the end. Eventually I came to the conclusion that what I have thus produced is perfectly mine, although it might deviate from my current body of work as it contains a new technique (long exposure) and a heavy pp to create the dramatic b&w pictures. As Asher has pointed out; the main elements of the pictures (i.e. the composition and the subject) carry my signature and are driven my photographical vision.

Naturally, I have decided to reprocess the images again in order to see how I could make them emotionally mine again. The resulting pictures can be seen below. It won't be a surprise that I now come up with color pictures instead of b&w. I have converted the new versions also to b&w and they are as good as the color versions. In order to decide, I have printed the pictures at A3+ size both (in color and b&w) and took a very long look at them. In the end, my slight preference was for the color versions. But I would be perfectly happy with the b&w as well. Sigh. ;-)

@Asher: the kitsch or the sunset-conundrum comment you've made was very insightful (no offense was taken at all). That is also one of the reasons why I have been wrestling with these mixed emotions. I was aware of the possible pitfalls and how one can become a one-trick pony. I don't want my pictures to be interesting because of a "gimmick" or a technique. They should be good pictures no matter what pp has been done on them. But as Andy so kindly pointed out, I think that these pictures fulfill that criteria.

@Georg: thanks for the triptych, I really like it. I would indeed like to see it printed on 60inch tall paper. Perhaps sometime, who knows?

Enough talk, here are the new versions.

​

Cheers,

 

[John Angulat]

Hi Cem
The color versions are wonderful!
So dramatically different from the black and white versions.
Each version stands so well on their own.
A testament to your talent.

 

[Alain Briot]

Very nice series, both the color and BW versions.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Naturally, I have decided to reprocess the images again in order to see how I could make them emotionally mine again. The resulting pictures can be seen below. It won't be a surprise that I now come up with color pictures instead of b&w. I have converted the new versions also to b&w and they are as good as the color versions. In order to decide, I have printed the pictures at A3+ size both (in color and b&w) and took a very long look at them. In the end, my slight preference was for the color versions. But I would be perfectly happy with the b&w as well. Sigh. ;-)

Hi Cem,

I'm so glad! First I'm glad that you have been shaking the uneasy feeling of emulating someone else's work or style, and second because the color versions are so much you. Composition and technical execution is flawless, the result is mesmerizingly beautiful to watch and to dwell on.

Although I haven't seen the B/W versions of your final conversions, I can't imagine that they are as strong as the color ones. In my view, B/W is only needed if the colors do not contribute to the overall composition. Here the colors do, especially the way you chose to colorbalance the supposedly overly warm rendition of the 10 stop ND filter. You probably rendered the background a little cooler, more blue, than it actually was, thus creating a more distant color for the background and consequently creating a more grabbing emphasis on the foreground (which is 'mystifyingly' blurred, yet razor sharp at the same time).

Very well done, even if you don't make it into a "signature style". These works have your signature written all over, don't worry!

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Cem
The color versions are wonderful!
So dramatically different from the black and white versions.
Each version stands so well on their own.
A testament to your talent.

Very nice series, both the color and BW versions.

Hi John, Alain,

Thanks for your kind comments. It is indeed interesting to see that both color and bw versions have their own "raison d'etre". I would not hesitate hanging either one on my walls.

I am going to reprint soon at 40x60 cm on Epson Velvet Fine Art paper. I suspect that the results will look gorgeous on that paper which has a nice character of naturally accentuating surface structures. The step after that might be trying out the triptych idea with 3x 40x60 prints.


Cheers,

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

The step after that might be trying out the triptych idea with 3x 40x60 prints.

I find them nice to work with:

http://www.hahnemuehle.com/prod/en/216/152/gallerie-wrap-professional.html

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Bart,

..First I'm glad that you have been shaking the uneasy feeling of emulating someone else's work or style, and second because the color versions are so much you. Composition and technical execution is flawless, the result is mesmerizingly beautiful to watch and to dwell on.

Although I haven't seen the B/W versions of your final conversions, I can't imagine that they are as strong as the color ones. In my view, B/W is only needed if the colors do not contribute to the overall composition. Here the colors do, especially the way you chose to colorbalance the supposedly overly warm rendition of the 10 stop ND filter. You probably rendered the background a little cooler, more blue, than it actually was, thus creating a more distant color for the background and consequently creating a more grabbing emphasis on the foreground (which is 'mystifyingly' blurred, yet razor sharp at the same time).

Very well done, even if you don't make it into a "signature style". These works have your signature written all over, don't worry!

Thank you so much for giving me a lot of credit, possibly more than I deserve. But I appreciate it nevertheless .

Your keen eye has clearly identified the technical issues associated with shooting with a ND110 filter. Original color balance as rendered by the camera was way too warm and very sepia like. At first sight, it actually looks quite good. But soon one gets the idea that the picture is done in sepia intentionally, which it wasn't. So one should either convert it to bw (as I initially did) or try to balance the colors using a combination of wb corrections, individual hue/sat adjustments per color and tone mapping; this I have done for the color versions. I have indeed rendered the sky/background a little cooler (more than it actually was) just like you have suspected.

The pp went like this. Conversion of the raw into tif using Capture One Pro 6.1 based on Nicolas' C1 work flow (which was then subsequently adjusted by you) . Taking care of white balance and color shifts, exposure, highlights/shadows, levels and curves, etc; but no noise reduction or sharpening. Then in PS I have used the Topaz Denoise 5 to get rid of the noise. Since I had to change lenses on the beach during a near gale, I had quite a lot of dust bunnies, so I have done extensive cloning to get rid of them. After that, the stamped new layer sharpened using focus magic's deconvolution sharpener to regain the sharpness lost due to diffraction (f16). Of course, the layer was set to luminosity blending and the blend-if sliders were used to prevent any sharpening halos. Followed by selective dodging and burning (but very subtly). This tif was then taken into SNS-HDR to carefully tone map the image to near final version. And finally, the resulting tif was processed in LR3 to add two very slight graduated ND filters at the top and at the bottom of the picture to enhance the feeling of depth towards the horizon. I have then exported another tif from LR3 (including the graduated nd's) and I have printed that file using QImage Studio, which takes care of upsampling to the native resolution of the Espon 3800 printer (i.e. 360 or 720) using the Hybrid SE upsampling algorithm. That beats the bicubic algorithm PS uses hands down. As you can see, a lot steps which should all be followed very carefully to achieve the wanted results. It is certainly not for the faint-hearted, lol.


Cheers,

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

I find them nice to work with:

http://www.hahnemuehle.com/prod/en/216/152/gallerie-wrap-professional.html

Thanks for the tip!

Cheers,

 

[Asher Kelman]

Cem,

The pictures in color are a technical tour de force, but now seem to better express the potential of the captures and seemingly your feelings too.

After that, the stamped new layer sharpened using focus magic's deconvolution sharpener to regain the sharpness lost due to diffraction (f16). Of course, the layer was set to luminosity blending and the blend-if sliders were used to prevent any sharpening halos.

I had heard there was a problem with that filter. Was that the case? Is this a new version?

And finally, the resulting tif was processed in LR3 to add two very slight graduated ND filters at the top and at the bottom of the picture to enhance the feeling of depth towards the horizon.

How is this better than Photoshop filters?

Thanks,

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Asher,

...I had heard there was a problem with that filter. Was that the case? Is this a new version?

....How is this better than Photoshop filters?

The only problem I am aware of is the fact that there is no 64-bit version available so one has to switch from ps x64 version to ps x32 version to sharpen and then back.

The reason I have applied the gradual ND filters as the last step in LR3 is not because it is better (or worse) than doing it in photoshop. LR3 is a parametric editing application (just stating the obvious) and it is easier to change the strength of the effect or to remove it later. I use LR3 as my DAM and it is also the main app from which I create my web files. As such, I try to do as much pp as possible in LR3, especially when I am not sure whether an effect I have added is going to be a permanent part of the picture or not (like in this case of the gradual ND effect).


Cheers,

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The only problem I am aware of is the fact that there is no 64-bit version available so one has to switch from ps x64 version to ps x32 version to sharpen and then back.

That's correct, and it doesn't run on all Mac OS versions. There hasn't been any development of the FocusMagic plugin for years, but when it works, it works very well.

A new deconvolution sharpening contender is In-focus from Topaz Labs, but it's first version has some shortcomings (which are being addressed by the developers). When used for capture sharpening, it is almost as effective as Focusmagic.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

The reason I have applied the gradual ND filters as the last step in LR3 is not because it is better (or worse) than doing it in photoshop. LR3 is a parametric editing application (just stating the obvious) and it is easier to change the strength of the effect or to remove it later

On a funny side note, I caused a jaw dropper a few days ago. Sitting here with a friend who also uses LR since it's incarnation, he all of the sudden jumped from his chair and shouted STOP! We were talking about photography while I was re processing some older pictures to see what modern software can do with them, and I was applying a colored grad in LR when he literally jumped. That you can sample a color from your picture with the color picker instead of using the color mixer to apply a Grad was not known to him.

I asked him to give me a warning next time before he jumps.

Hehehe!

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

That's correct, and it doesn't run on all Mac OS versions. There hasn't been any development of the FocusMagic plugin for years, but when it works, it works very well.

A new deconvolution sharpening contender is In-focus from Topaz Labs, but it's first version has some shortcomings (which are being addressed by the developers). When used for capture sharpening, it is almost as effective as Focusmagic.

Cheers,
Bart

+1 Since FM is essentially a program on the brink of extinction, I have InFocus since 48 hours, and contacted them with some suggestions. It has a lot of potential in my view, but also some very darn simple shortcomings that can be fixed easily, other things are not so easy, and one can only hope they put more brains into it for future releases.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

That's correct, and it doesn't run on all Mac OS versions. There hasn't been any development of the FocusMagic plugin for years, but when it works, it works very well.

A new deconvolution sharpening contender is In-focus from Topaz Labs, but it's first version has some shortcomings (which are being addressed by the developers). When used for capture sharpening, it is almost as effective as Focusmagic.

Cheers,
Bart

+1 Since FM is essentially a program on the brink of extinction, I have InFocus since 48 hours, and contacted them with some suggestions. It has a lot of potential in my view, but also some very darn simple shortcomings that can be fixed easily, other things are not so easy, and one can only hope they put more brains into it for future releases.

I too have both programs. FM is still my main sharpening tool; I know rather well how it works and when it fails. In-focus is something I have yet to learn to trust. Sometimes it delivers inconsistent or inferior results, especially when the estimate function is used. Hopefully things will improve with the future releases, which unfortunately cannot be said about FM.

Cheers,

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

On a funny side note, I caused a jaw dropper a few days ago. Sitting here with a friend who also uses LR since it's incarnation, he all of the sudden jumped from his chair and shouted STOP! We were talking about photography while I was re processing some older pictures to see what modern software can do with them, and I was applying a colored grad in LR when he literally jumped. That you can sample a color from your picture with the color picker instead of using the color mixer to apply a Grad was not known to him.

I asked him to give me a warning next time before he jumps.

Hehehe!

Don't you just love those moments of joyful discovery? So much to learn, so little time!

Cheers,

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Cem,

since you posted in this specific section here, one word on Kitsch shall be allowed in context. I had to reflect on this for a while because coincidently, I saw the first picture of your series recently in a furniture shop in N- Ireland, approx. 32 inch wide on super cheap canvas selling for Euro 45, of course, made in China, no photographer mentioned. The scene was nearly the same, and it was also processed b&w.

Naturally, I laughed out loud when I saw your post a few days later. - Not laughing at you that is! -

The art history of Kitsch is fascinating and people like Adorno wrote about it. It goes back as early as the mid 19th century, but only by mid 20th century it was used to depict lifestyle and objects of the industrial revolution, hence mass production, hence mass culture.

This painting here certainly ain't Kitsch:

http://www.artic.edu/artaccess/AA_Impressionist/pages/IMP_4.shtml

However, when the Art Institute sold umbrellas with this painting reproduced on it, yes, that was Kitsch per definitionem (in my world! that is!), mass product, mass culture.

Today they have Chagall umbrellas.

http://www.artinstituteshop.org/browse.asp?artistID=8&productID=86

I conclude, as photographic artists, in a world where nothing has not been photographed before, it is inevitable that some of our work will at the same time have an equivalent in the Kitsch department already, I would guess that long exposure shots are particularly endangered. - May be this was making you feel uneasy? Perhaps you have seen similar before many years ago, and just did not remember it in context. Just a wild guess! -

The main difference between your photograph and Kitsch is not only the lovely execution and detail of work and thought that went undoubtedly into it, but also that it is not printed somewhere in Spain 5,00.000 times and sold for Euro 3,99 in Tourist outlets.

So from both perspectives, were it Kitsch you produced, it would also belong in this Art section of course, but it is not Kitsch per se, although it could easily be seen as such.

Ahem...

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Georg,

...
since you posted in this specific section here, one word on Kitsch shall be allowed in context. I had to reflect on this for a while because coincidently, I saw the first picture of your series recently in a furniture shop in N- Ireland, approx. 32 inch wide on super cheap canvas selling for Euro 45, of course, made in China, no photographer mentioned. The scene was nearly the same, and it was also processed b&w.

Naturally, I laughed out loud when I saw your post a few days later. - Not laughing at you that is! -

The art history of Kitsch is fascinating and people like Adorno wrote about it. It goes back as early as the mid 19th century, but only by mid 20th century it was used to depict lifestyle and objects of the industrial revolution, hence mass production, hence mass culture.
.......
.......
I conclude, as photographic artists, in a world where nothing has not been photographed before, it is inevitable that some of our work will at the same time have an equivalent in the Kitsch department already. - May be this was making you feel uneasy? Perhaps you have seen similar before many years ago, and just did not remember it in context. Just a wild guess! -

The main difference between your photograph and Kitsch is not only the lovely execution and detail of work and thought that went undoubtedly into it, but also that it is not printed somewhere in Spain 5,00.000 times and sold for Euro 3,99 in Tourist outlets.

So from both perspectives, were it Kitsch you produced, it would also belong in this Art section ....

Thanks for the insightful thoughts. You are correct that part of my unease was caused by the worry that I was doing this as a gimmick to appeal to the taste of masses. As you wrote, furniture stores (even the huge Swedish ones) are filled with some 1-3m wide canvas prints of similar vistas in bw or sepia; just for yours for less than 100 Euro to hang on your living room walls. Unless that wall space is already taken up by one's own wedding pictures or the pictures of their kids/pets printed large on -you've guessed it- canvas! lol

But if we go deep into philosophizing this, I am afraid we may come to a conclusion that everything we do as a photographer has already been done before in the form of art, kitsch or vernacular. So what's the point of trying to do it for ourselves?

Ahem...

Well, if you could morph the can of beans as if it is melting and add an elephant on tall legs of a bird to one side, we may be talking about something really interesting.


Cheers,