Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] [Leica] Tina's softness/sharpness/focus issue - might be solved

Subject: Re: [OM] [Leica] Tina's softness/sharpness/focus issue - might be solved, in part
From: Tina Manley <tmanley@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:44:09 -0400
Thank you, Bob, but that is almost exactly how I am working.  I have the
photos divided into the various cities where we stayed.  I make a quick
pass and assign a 1 to anything that is out of focus or otherwise totally
unacceptable.  Those get deleted immediately.  For the remaining shots, I
assign a 2, 3, or 4.  Nothing gets a 5 until it has been totally worked
over and deemed worthy of a portfolio place.  The only ones I post on pBase
for review are the 4's.  The only time I go back to a 2 or 3 is if I need
something that is not available as a 4.  I still end up with enough 4's
that I have to go through and reassign similars as a 3.  That's what I'm
working on when I post and ask for comments.

I use "edit" as Maggie Steber, a professional photo editor, does.  She
winnows out the keepers from the rest.  She does not process or re-work or
recompose.  She edits.

I appreciate your comments.

Tina

PS:  The Cigar Lady is one of my least favorite shots because she is
posing.  But that's just me.




I use "edit" in the sense of Magge

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> I pretty much agree with what Moose said, especially the part I’ve quoted
> below. I am reluctant in this kind of situation to add to what he said, but
> I think in this case I’ll throw caution to the wind.
>
> My view is that we list members cannot serve as editors/selectors because
> we can’t see the totality of your work. You have already edited what you
> show us, and so we don’t really know what else is there. We/I assume you
> are showing us the shots you already have selected as superior in some
> regard, and are looking for further comment to help refine the selection. I
> would say, and this is just me (I know, language police, I _am_ saying
> rather than _would_ say, but would say sounds softer and less
> intimidating), that in roughly 99 out of 100 shots, you know as soon as it
> pops on the screen whether it is worthy. You’ve been doing this for a long,
> long time, and your instincts obviously have served you well.
>
> Trust your instincts, not us.
>
> Disregard for the moment your work scanning older film shots. The specific
> issue here is Cuba, and that’s digital. You have a lot of images. You are
> overwhelmed.
>
> Editing photos is a lot like editing text. You go over and over and over
> it until you get it right. You do so with confidence and the competence
> born of experience. Will you get it absolutely right? No. There are no
> absolutes in this sort of thing. But you’ll get it better than “right
> enough.” Lightroom is close to a perfect tool for the photo
> editor/selector. You have a variety of ways to rate and rank images as you
> look at them. Use this tool. It will make your life so much easier.
>
> For example, when I took my kit to Scotland in 2013, I took a lot of
> images. Not as many as you would have taken, but a lot. Each night I
> downloaded my cards onto my laptop. Folders were created for each leg of
> the trip: Loch Lomond-Killin; Glen Affric; Road to Skye; Skye, etc.
> Breaking them into folders for each leg made the totality more manageable.
>
> I did a bit of editing, post processing and posting while we were there,
> but for the most part I left it until we got home. If you were to use this
> system, you might sit down with Folder A in Library view, with the
> thumbnails across the bottom of the screen and each image displayed large
> in the main portion of the window. X marks any shot for deletion. I use it
> carefully the first time through because I have trust issues with myself
> born of long experience. Out of focus shots of the ground, my knees, the
> sky, as well as overexposed blobs and dark fields get marked for deletion
> on the first pass. Sometimes I go ahead and delete those so they don’t clog
> the LR windows.
>
> On the second pass I begin to rate shots. If there aren’t many, which is
> clearly not relevant to your situation, I flag (p-key) shots I like or
> think I will like upon further examination. If I were in your situation, at
> this point I would get up, get some coffee or tea, and come back to tackle
> the next folder, limiting myself to only marking real stinkers for deletion
> and maybe, maybe, flagging a few as potential keepers.
>
> Then I’d go back to that first folder, and I’d go through everything not
> marked for deletion. Upon second look, I might decide to unflag and few and
> flag a few others. At this point I’m probably ready to select the flagged
> images and make a collection of those images only. Everything else is still
> in Lightroom, but I have collection set of only those images I think are
> likely to be keepers.
>
> You probably know where this is going. After making the collection, I
> disengage and turn my attention to some other task for a little while,
> maybe a few minutes, maybe the rest of the day. Then I go back to the
> selection collection and really dig in. At this point I usually switch to
> Develop view, even though I may not make many, if any, actual adjustments
> for a few passes. I’ll start looking at focus, objects of interest, etc.
> But here again, you and I differ. When I was doing this, it was for the
> purpose of finding a very few images out of the set that might make
> acceptable prints for sale to third parties, i.e., pretty pictures for
> tourists. I never did stock, so my numbers always have been much lower than
> yours.
>
> But I believe the principal is the same. You go over and over and over the
> images, broken down any way that seems to make sense to you, and every time
> you make a pass a few images don’t make the cut. What does and what doesn’t
> is entirely your choice, based on your perceived use of the images. If it’s
> stock, you have one set of criteria. If it’s fine art, you have another.
> (Images that you know will make good stock photos, and which you think_
> might make the fine art grade can get a separate rating which later can be
> used to create another collection, this time maybe 100 images out of
> 10,000.) Only after a number of passes through any folder do I start
> post-processing.
>
> Many of your images look to me like stock photos, interesting or
> informative; they do not stir anything in me. Others, such as the Cigar
> Lady and one other of your Cuba shots (I said something about it, but at
> the moment can’t recall which one it was), clearly transcend stock
> photography and elevate themselves to the rare air of art. I look at them
> and it’s like a fresh cool breeze blowing away a cloying fog. I can _see_.
>
> But I’m getting carried away. You can disregard most of this and just
> determine to trust yourself and get on with it. If anything I’ve said about
> using Lightroom as an editing tool helps, so much the better. But remember,
> the advice and suggestions here are worth exactly what you paid for them.
> <g>
>
> --Bob Whitmire
> Certified Neanderthal
>
> On Mar 20, 2015, at 11:48 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 3/20/2015 7:18 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
> >> Thank you, Scott.  Obviously, I don't keep up. ;-)
> >> I'm about to go over the edge.
> >
> > It seems to me that several things are going on here. My observations:
> >
> > 1. It seems to me there is a problem of definition confusing folks. You
> continue to use the word 'editing' to mean something more like parsing,
> winnowing selecting, rating - the process of selecting from a vast array of
> images those worth looking at a second or third time and possibly of
> processing into finished images.
> >
> > To many on this list, perhaps even most, 'editing' is analogous to the
> use of the same word in its original context, reworking the details of a
> text piece into a finished manuscript. In that sense, it tends to be
> synonymous with 'post processing'.
> >
> > So you keep saying you want help with 'editing', when you mean
> selecting, and many of us/we/I, hear 'processing into a finished product'.
> <snip>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>


-- 
Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com
tina-manley.artistwebsites.com
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/3B49552F-90A0-4D0A-A11D-2175C937AA91/Tina+Manley.html
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz