http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1073/...1b7928d6_o.jpg
Not bad In Colour too.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1347/...54268100_o.jpg
Printable View
Sorry Max, I don't recognize its location. Where is it? :PDT_Piratz_26: Good pics mate, your new camera?
Excellent work, Max!!! :handclap:
As Kev say, Timbuktu???
Just ribbing you, lad. :snf (41):
Chris
Really good Max :handclap: yes, you should frame the pic - probably the black & white one.
Excellent pic, and what a shame we won't be having that view for much longer :PDT_Xtremez_42:
Max, might I suggest that you make this a pic of the day?
Thanks
Chris
great Photo Max :handclap: I like the B&W one best :)
Ace photo that - I like the B&W one best as well
I like the colour one best, but that's probably because I remember when everything was B & W, including dreams.
I know I'm going to get a lot of stick for this, but I can't understand the attraction for monochrome.
I like to capture images as I see them, and get a true record of the subject.
Monochrome?
Liking shooting pictures In RAW mode though It's more flexible when photo shopping.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:
It's a digital version of a negative so I can see how It's more flexible to editing.
Going to St Barnabas soon to get a night shot since It's lit up.
Hi PhilipQuote:
Originally Posted by PhilipG
Don't you think black and white can lend a certain mood to some pictures? Especially with a lot of light and dark, shadows etc.
Chris
I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion, Chris, because it's a dangerous subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge
It's all down to what the photographer wants, of course, but (and it's only my impression) a lot of people use B & W now because they think it's 'arty'.
Max, please, I don't mean you.
You're obviously learning much more than I ever knew (or want to know) about digital photography.
And Chris, I know you're going to say that B & W was very popular when film was the norm.
But I suspect that's because B & W processing was quite easy to learn to do (I even learnt it myself).
I have seen only one or two colour photos of cinemas from the 1930s and 1940s when they used to be ablaze with neon, and it's such a pity that colour wasn't used more often.
I could refer you all to a colour photo of 1961 that was universally well-liked on this forum.
Why?
Mainly because it was so rare for its time, but also because people realised that Liverpool was always colourful, but B & W photography portrays things differently (and dare I say drably) from what they are.
Which is the effect some photographers want.
So we've come full circle.
I wasn't expecting to give such a long answer. :)
I think the back and white one is better :PDT11
I think so too.Quote:
Originally Posted by lottie
I'll probably snap It again anyway but I'll keep It on my flickr showing I'm learning to use RAW like I did with one of my HDR's.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:
I agree with Chris that B&W can work well with lots of shadows, but on the whole I'm not a fan. Often B&W shots look a bit plain to me, and I don't really see the point unless you're shooting film and developing it yourself. As such, I prefer the colour version of the picture up there.
Great comments.
This Is basically how I learn, post on here or TP forums.
And by asking people too.
I took more today too, been taking my time editing them now that I don't use JPEG much.
both pictures are so nice it's difficult to choose. :)
Nice one Max! It looks great on my desktop - you even left room on the left for my icons. :)
Max I mostly go for b/w photos maybe old fashond,but b/w is crisp and clean
and alltho the colour version is good your eye instead of being focust shift about from sky to boats on the right and is alltogeth less calm.wheras the b/w is calm.I think that;s my answer, other wise can't explain my preference for b/w. on saying that both pics are great, were did you take it from?
Both are brilliant in their own way, well done Max. :handclap:
I like em both Maxie Lad and either would look great framed.
Well done young man :handclap:
The B/W photo's we get today look somehow too clean and technical. I know that there are effects you can apply in PSP to 'age' them a wee bit and get something like that old B/W texture or quality.
Do you know what I mean?
Now you've got my FULL attention!Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
I know that RAW is a format which carries a lot more info and is used by pro print works etc. I know it's less lossy and creates bigger files. That's about it.
I gather that it's better to work with RAW in PSP or Photoshop, is this correct?
One of my greatest hobbies is digital manipulation/enhancement, though I'm not the worlds best snapper. - I just take lots of shots and hope for a good one.
What exactly are the benefits of using RAW. I use BMP when I want to work at high magnification at pixel level and only use Jpeg out of consideration for net users and view times etc.
Well done Max. Take on board the comments made here and do what you want to do fella. More powa to your camera dude.:hug:
I prefere the monochrome or black and white to us down to earth, salt of the earth, ordinary folk.:rolleyes:
Keep shootin, from the hip.:)
If you've saved the file in raw mode when it is subsequently loaded into a raw conversion program and then saved to a TIFF or .PSD format file it can be exported in 16 bit mode. The 12 or 14 bits recorded by the camera are then spread over the full 16 bit workspace. If you've saved the file in-camera as a JPG than it is converted by the camera's software to 8 bit mode and you will only ever have 256 brightness levels to work with. In other words, the 4,096 to 16,384 brightness levels recorded by each pixel are reduced to 256 brightness levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie french
By the way nice pic's Max i like them both.
Thanks....Ta....I think. :PDT_Aliboronz_24:Quote:
Originally Posted by baztop3
Originally Posted by baztop3
If you've saved the file in raw mode when it is subsequently loaded into a raw conversion program and then saved to a TIFF or .PSD format file it can be exported in 16 bit mode. The 12 or 14 bits recorded by the camera are then spread over the full 16 bit workspace. If you've saved the file in-camera as a JPG than it is converted by the camera's software to 8 bit mode and you will only ever have 256 brightness levels to work with. In other words, the 4,096 to 16,384 brightness levels recorded by each pixel are reduced to 256 brightness levels.
It's a completely alien language, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie french
Too much for me to learn at my advanced age. :PDT_Piratz_26:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxmolyneux/642959672/
My New favourite Nikon Pic.:PDT_Aliboronz_24: