Off-Topic - advice, experiences and examples, for images that will be processed in PhotoLab

[MSmithy (Milan)]

@mikemyers

What, exactly, is “it”?

It is all the stuff I posted about previously, that you claim you don’t get. Trying to explain it to you, will no doubt end in failure, since for whatever reason you are committed to not getting it. And since two monologues don’t make a good dialog, maybe its best not to force it. Art part that is.

As for photojournalism, I don’t know if you understand that or not, but my impression by the way you talk about it leaves me in doubt about weather you really have a firm grasp of the concept of photojournalism or not.

Photojournalism is a branch of journalism that involves capturing and presenting news stories through photographs. It is an important form of visual storytelling that helps to inform and educate the public about events, issues, and people from around the world.

Photojournalists are typically trained professionals who work for newspapers, magazines, wire services, or news websites. They use their cameras to document a wide range of subjects, including politics, war, natural disasters, sports, entertainment, and more.

In addition to capturing compelling images, photojournalists must also adhere to ethical standards and journalistic principles. This includes accurately representing the events and people they photograph, avoiding manipulation of images, and respecting the privacy and dignity of their subjects.

Photojournalism can have a powerful impact on society by bringing attention to important issues and events and influencing public opinion. However, it can also be a dangerous profession, as photojournalists often put themselves in harm’s way to capture important stories.

But off course, there is plenty of examples where so called “photojournalists” took the route of good story over ethical standards, or in some cases the ethical practices of photojournalists were overshadowed by puff or propaganda pieces done by the editors.

I don’t know to what extent your understand these dynamics since I don’t know if you include in your understanding of photojournalism the broader context of politics and media basis and agendas which are linked to photojournalism.

A photo of a starving polar bear could be a polar bear who is starving because its that time of the year, or it could be in an article about climate change propaganda.

My point is that without those other agendas, photojournalism cannot be fully understood, because photos are only part of written story and are there to support the editorial. And while the photo can be a fitful representation of captured moment in a frame of the photo, interpretations of that frame can be framed in larger context in all sorts of ways. This is a big problem for even the most ethical photojournalists.

“Photography is particularly treacherous when it comes to righting wrongs, because it is so good at recording appearances. Capturing how things look fools us into thinking that we’ve captured their truth. But appearance is bare fact. Combined with intuition, scrupulous context and moral intelligence, it has a chance to become truth. Unalloyed, it is worse than nothing.” ― Teju Cole photography critic and author, “Getting Others Right” (June 13, 2017)

[George]

@MSmithy ,
Maybe you like this story.
See_the_Story_2023_ENGLISH.pdf (5.0 MB)
A very interesting book is also The Mexican Suitcase. It are 2 books, the first is dealing how photography developed in the 30’s. The second are contact sheets of Robert Capa, Gerda Tarot and David Seymour. Contact sheets involves another dimension: time.

The Mexican Suitcase

George

[mikemyers]

@MSmithy

It is all the stuff I posted about previously, that you claim you don’t get.

You are right.
I barely have time to do what I’m already wrapped up in.
You’re also right that I don’t have much interest in that, and it’s not the type of photography I’m usually involved in. Usually. Joanna pushed me out of my shell, and I do try to understand her. And Wolfgang.

@MSmithy

As for photojournalism, I don’t know if you understand that or not, but my impression by the way you talk about it leaves me in doubt about weather you really have a firm grasp of the concept of photojournalism or not.

If you’re in doubt, so be it.
I got sent all around the world by several magazines, to report and photograph.

My understanding, and my rules, can be found here:

associated%20press%20ethics%20code.pdf

I’m aware of much of what you mentioned, and when pushed to break those rules, and post something I thought was unethical, I refused.

@MSmithy

But off course, there is plenty of examples where so called “photojournalists” took the route of good story over ethical standards, or in some cases the ethical practices of photojournalists were overshadowed by puff or propaganda pieces done by the editors.

Speaking from experience, this led to some very heated discussions, and I refused to go along, and when something was posted online, I responded by correcting it - even if my boss got very angry.

@MSmithy

I don’t know to what extent your understand these dynamics since I don’t know if you include in your understanding of photojournalism the broader context of politics and media basis and agendas which are linked to photojournalism.

I agree with what you wrote, but I stayed away from those situations, and people. Overall, I’ve got no argument with everything you posted.

Old habits never die. I still come up with the five “W’s” for my photos - Who, What, When, Where, and Why. Seems silly to post them here - for this forum, I mostly want to get better at PhotoLab.

I’m not sure why I’m even responding to these discussions; personally, I’d rather be reading about how to edit my photos better. And even if I suck at taking “artistic” photos, I enjoy seeing that kind of photo taken by others. Will you start posting your photos here?

[mikemyers]

@MSmithy

A photo of a starving polar bear could be a polar bear who is starving because its that time of the year, or it could be in an article about climate change propaganda.

Just curious about why you refer to the latter as “propaganda”?
I agree with what you were trying to say, but you lost me by that last word.

[mikemyers]

Technical Question…

With a Nikon DSLR, is there a way to tell how many shutter actuations it has?
I figured the EXIF data might help, but in the app “Exif Editor” it isn’t listed?

[MSmithy (Milan)]

Thank you George. Some really good photos there. I appreciate them and you sharing it.

[MSmithy (Milan)]

@mikemyers

Just curious about why you refer to the latter as “propaganda”?
I agree with what you were trying to say, but you lost me by that last word.

Because so called Climate Change as they call it this decade to quote Al Gore from “Blood and Gore” is full of inconvenient truths that don’t fit the narrative of “climate change”. But if you are after one world goverment, you need one world threat. Something you can throw onto and over everything. I could dismantle and explain the problems of the narrative, but for now lets just say its the world’s greatest hoax with devastating consequences.

Absolute Zero and the Western Holodomor

Absolute Zero and the Western Holodomor

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 116

You have probably heard of “Net Zero,” the unrealistically ambitious target of having no net greenhouse gas emissions by some point in the relatively near future (2030, maybe 2050 at the latest). A report filed in 2019 by the prestigious government-funded UK organization of engineers and scientists, UK FIRES (https://ukfires.org/), thinks Net Zero is not enough and is pushing for an insanely aggressive program called “Absolute Zero” (https://ukfires.org/absolute-zero/), absolutely zero emissions by 2050. What does it entail? Among other things, no flights, no container shipping, no red meat consumption, no cement, no new steel production, and no fossil fuel use for any reason, even plastics, by 2050. How do they expect this to be possible? Draconian governmental action combined with drastic semi-voluntary reductions in individual quality of life for all citizens. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay reads the Executive Summary of the UK FIRES “Absolute Zero” report [pdf (https://newdiscourses.com/wp-content/…, hosted by Cambridge University, by the way] to expose the unworkable, catastrophic insanity of their zero-emissions program in the UK and beyond, warning that it sets the stage for a Western Holodomor.

Lets just say, don’t bealive everything you read.

As for polar bear, that was a real thing

Polar bear video: Is it really the ‘face of climate change’?
Published 12 December 2017

Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'?

"It is harrowing footage. An emaciated polar bear searches for food on Baffin Island, north-eastern Canada.

Exhausted, it drags one leg slowly behind it, eventually trying to eat some discarded seating foam among rubbish humans have left.

Polar bears hunt from the sea ice, which is diminishing every year, and the photography team are certain the unfortunate animal died within days.

Mr Nicklen and Ms Mittermeier are co-founders of the conservation group Sea Legacy, with a declared mission to “use the power of storytelling to create the change we want to see”.

Canada’s National Post newspaper argues: “These images aren’t the work of a scientist, an impartial documentarian or even a concerned bystander. They are part of a very calculated public relations exercise.”

This particular animal could also simply have been sick. Biologist Jeff Higdon, writing on Twitter, speculated that it could have some form of aggressive cancer.

“It’s not starving because the ice suddenly disappeared and it could no longer hunt seals,” he said. “The east Baffin coast is ice free in summer. It’s far more likely that it is starving due to health issues.” However, he warned that he could not be sure.

“I wasn’t totally surprised,” he told the broadcaster. “These things happen. Everybody probably was shocked to see a really skinny bear, but this is not my first time seeing something like this.”

He also speculated that the bear was either ill or suffering from an injury that prevented it from hunting.

Speaking to National Geographic, Ms Mittermeier said : “Although I cannot say with certainty that this bear was starving because of climate change, I do know for sure that polar bears rely on a platform of sea ice from which to hunt.”"

…

BBC: Climate change: Polar bears could be lost by 2100

Published 20 July 2020

Polar bears will be wiped out by the end of the century unless more is done to tackle climate change, a study predicts.

Climate change: Polar bears could be lost by 2100

This is known as Climate Alarmism, to push for “Net Zero” agenda. Greatest Hoax on the planet. Pardon the pun.

David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg’s plea for the planet

David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg's plea for the planet

Greenpeace’s Ex-President Reacts to Lies by David Attenborough & the BBC

Greenpeace’s Ex-President Reacts to Comments by David Attenborough & the BBC

Attenborough’s Arctic Betrayal

Attenborough's Arctic Betrayal

A new video documenting Sir David Attenborough’s inaccurate claims about climate change and Arctic wildlife blames his apocalyptic language and misleading narrative for the dramatic rise in eco anxiety among young people.

New footage reveals Netflix faked walrus climate deaths

New footage reveals Netflix faked walrus climate deaths

That is why I used the word “Propaganda”, because they use fluffy images of Albatros chicks or polar bears knowing it will make people soft and then they try to starve people to death and force them to eat zee bugs and live in the pods. If you are not familiar with the attack of farmers in Netherlands or insane attempt to kill 200 000 cows in Ireland for “climate change” agenda… you should, because its complete madness.

Assuming The Alarmists are Right!

Assuming The Alarmists are Right!

Why our governments are idiots/criminals in just 4 minutes

Why our governments are idiots in just 4 minutes

That is why I say that polar bear photos can be used for propaganda. Because they have been used for that.

[mikemyers]

Tried to find the number of shutter actuations on my D3, and after searching for ways to do this, I tried EXIFTOOL.

For my D3 Nikon, is “Shutter Count” supposed to be the total number of actuations since the camera was made? I’m asking because it tells me 2,180 which sounds really low. Maybe most of my photos back then (non car-racing photos) were with other cameras.

I’ve misplaced my password for the Exif Tools Forum - eventually I’ll get that sorted out.
If true, my D3 is “barely used”. No complaint. I’ll get the sensor cleaned tomorrow.

I took a test photo of a blank wall, and edited it in PhotoLab to exaggerate the noise and stuff. I uploaded a screen capture of the bottom right corner at 100% size, and got this:

The obvious dust that I see I understand.
What I don’t understand is the “pattern” on the sensor.
I’m guessing the sensor got damp, maybe from the camera being moved to/from an air conditioned room, and the moisture got the dust on the sensor to form these patterns, by the time the moisture evaporated. I’m just guessing - I have no idea - but the screen should be perfectly clear, but for any dust. (When I did the screen capture, I included space to the right of the sensor, and below it, which explains the black area outside the sensor.)

I plan to get it cleaned tomorrow morning.

I may go back to my brother’s home in October, and try to use what I’ve learned here to capture better bird photos.

Oh, and I was going to take some nearby scenes today with my D780, but I had an eye exam in the morning > dilated eyes > trouble being out in sunlight. Sure makes it difficult to see my computer screen. Yuck!!

…just checked - the shutter count on my D780 is 1,1610.

[mikemyers]

@OXiDant

Same as " i am very involved in tarmac."
i am using it, 1000km a week i drive over it.
Don’t care about the stuff’s compound aslong as it keeps me above ground.

Same for me - so many things I take for granted, without thanking the people who made it possible.

All it takes to make me thankful for driving in America, is ten minutes in a car I’m inside of, driven in India!!! I made a few videos to show what it’s like.

I do miss things I used to take for granted, like getting my film processed at the local store…

[mikemyers]

Another image from Fellsmere, Florida, which has me stumped.

This photo is of a pair of nesting cranes, where mama crane is on the left, looking to the left, and papa crane is at the right, looking the other way - guarding the nest. This is the closest I could get - didn’t want to bother the cranes, so I stayed on the other side of the pond. Focus was on the Crane at the left, as that’s what everything was built on, the soon to be baby crane. The top of the photo was dark - could have used graduated filter or control line - I used the graduated filter, with a very small amount of lightening.

I wanted viewers to “see” mama crane first, as she, nesting on her egg, is what the photo is about. Critical/constructive/negative comments are welcome.

Joanna has so many tricks, er, techniques, I’m sure she can improve it, but this is the best I can do.

780_1345 | 2023-06-11.nef (28.9 MB)
780_1345 | 2023-06-11.nef.dop (17.7 KB)

[JoPoV]

@mikemyers

With a Nikon DSLR, is there a way to tell how many shutter actuations it has?
I figured the EXIF data might help, but in the app “Exif Editor” it isn’t listed?

in exiftools it is under : Mechanical Shutter Count

EDIT : I saw later you found it. There a lot of post to read on this topic …

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

For a start, you are taking a 24Mpx image with the intent of creating a 2Mpx crop.

That is never going to be pretty without some magic sauce. I thought you had a longer lens than 120mm? You really needed about 400mm.

Nonetheless, let’s start trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

---

• Slightly under-exposed but, despite that, you didn’t need either exposure compensation or Smart Lighting; just a tweak to the Tone Curve.

• Why did you lighten the entire top of the image? The last thing you want is to reinforce all the junk behind your subject.

• You attempted to clarify the cranes’ heads by using Control Points but, once again, you paid no attention to the luma and chroma sliders, thus ending up by affecting the background more than the heads.

  Your mask…

  

  … centred on the grass and not selecting the feathering on the head. Whatever is bright is selected, whatever is dull is not.

  My mask for the left crane…

  

  … carefully crafted by selecting the plumage and adding negative points to stop it affecting the grass.

  And you did similar to the right crane, so I corrected that in a similar manner.

  I also pulled a graduated filter over the top left corner to darken it slightly.

  Compare my version with yours to see how the cranes are much more separated from the background…

  

---

You seem to be using the tools without really understanding what effect they are having. You really need to play with them yourself, rather than doing what you’ve seen someone else doing on a different type of image.

---

Finally, the magic sauce, otherwise known as Topaz Photo AI.

Here is a screenshot of part of a 33Mpx enlargement (4x)…

I can’t post the original TIFF file because it is too large.

780_1345 | 2023-06-11.nef.dop (55,3 Ko)

[knickerhawk]

@Joanna

Not quite. The +2EV is only really useful if you want the spot you are measuring to be pure white. There are no clouds in your shot that qualify, so you should be looking for possibly +1EV or so, to make the lighter clouds light grey.

This is confused advice if what you’re talking about is metering on the critical highlights to optimize the raw exposure. The reason to meter on (neutral) highlights and then add exposure comp by a predetermined amount (ideally based on personal testing of one’s camera and raw processing workflow) is to produce a raw exposure that maximizes image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) without blowing the critical highlights in the raw file. How light the lightest clouds are intended to appear in the final image is determined by the subsequent processing, not by the initial metering.

Further, this image is significantly underexposed if the goal was to optimize the raw exposure for SNR without clipping the brightest areas of the clouds. The image when analyzed in RawDigger confirms that an additional +1 EV could have been applied without approaching any raw level clipping of highlights. The extra exposure would have helped reduce noise throughout the image. Photolab is not my preferred converter/editor, but I know it well enough to be confident that it could have handled the extra exposure without clipping the clouds.

[LStoev (Lachezar Stoev)]

Not an expert evaluation, but your image is covered by luma noise. It’s both too uniform and fine-grained to be sensor condensation, and also way too overwhelming to spot anything else. If you’re going to inspect your sensor, it’d be much better to shoot in optimal light and eliminate digital artifacting from the picture.

Anyway, hope you will forgive this newbie intrusion, but you’ve got an interesting thread going and I’d like to ask for advice on a RAW I’ve found particularly tricky to edit. I adore the spontaneous moment I captured here, and the composition also turned out on-point (with a slight vertical crop), but the light is flat, the sand kind of distracting, and the reds seem weirdly hard to get right.

Being a new user, I’m unable to attach files, so I’ll link to Google Drive.

Here is the original RAW, if someone fancies a try at it:

Инверсия RAW.CR2

And here is my current edit:

Инверсия.png

Wouldn’t speculate whether this photo is art, but it’s important to me and I want to get it right.

[mikemyers]

@LStoev

Not an expert evaluation, but your image is covered by luma noise. It’s both too uniform and fine-grained to be sensor condensation, and also way too overwhelming to spot anything else. If you’re going to inspect your sensor, it’d be much better to shoot in optimal light and eliminate digital artifacting from the picture.

Anyway, hope you will forgive this newbie intrusion,

Please “intrude” all you want. I was obviously lost. I found these instructions for testing a sensor here (the link was originally posted by @Wolfgang). Please “intrude” all you want, the more often the better. …regarding your questions if you’ve been reading up above, you most likely will have concluded that I am the worst person in this discussion to offer an opinion about “art”. I will look things over, but first I’d like to see what other people in this discussion have to say.

On to what I just did, regarding camera dust…

How to Spot Dust on Your DSLR Sensor

I followed those instructions, other than for the blue sky because it was quickly vanishing behind white clouds. I did the test anyway:

How to see sensor dust

If your camera has dust on its sensor, you can quickly spot it by doing the following:

1. Set your camera on Aperture Priority Mode.

2. Set your metering mode to Matrix/Evaluative Metering.

3. Set your camera ISO to the lowest number such as ISO 100 or 200.

4. Turn off Auto ISO.

5. Turn off autofocus and set your lens on manual focus.

6. Set your aperture to the largest number available for your lens by rotating the camera dial. For example, the minimum aperture on the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is f/16, so if I were shooting with this lens, I would set my aperture to f/16.

7. If you are outside, point your camera up at the clear blue sky and take a picture. If you are indoors, find plain white paper, zoom in all the way so that the paper fits the whole frame, then make sure that the lens is completely out of focus and take a picture. If you are in front of a computer, open up a text editor such as Notepad, maximize it to the screen and then get as close to the monitor as possible so that only the white color is visible in the frame. Make sure that your focus is way off (completely out of focus) – that way only dust particles will be visible.

8. Zoom in on the image (rear camera LCD), scroll from left to right and top to bottom all over the image and see if you can find any dark spots.

9. If you cannot see any, your sensor is clean. If you see dark spots like in the above example, then your sensor has dust on it.

---

What I did:
I decided to try to clean the sensor myself, using a “VisibleDust Arctic Butterfly 724”.

• Through multiple cleanings, while some dust was removed, other dust seemed to be glued in place.
• Plan B is to hold the camera upside down and use my “rocket blower”.
• Plan C is to take my D3 to my local camera repair shop. I know the people there, and trust them.

That dust may have been in place for a decade, or more. I suspect that wet cleaning will be required, but that’s just a guess. Here is the last test photo:

Sorry that there are also clouds in the photo - I can clearly see the dust/dirt, and while I could get rid of some of it, I don’t think I can get rid of all of it. I can ignore the clouds, and clearly see where “dirt” is on the sensor.

(I also noticed that my D3, when set to “mirror lock-up” times out, and the mirror comes down after a short time. Turning off the camera didn’t help. I wonder if it’s supposed to do that???)

[knickerhawk]

@mikemyers

What I don’t understand is the “pattern” on the sensor.
I’m guessing the sensor got damp, maybe from the camera being moved to/from an air conditioned room, and the moisture got the dust on the sensor to form these patterns, by the time the moisture evaporated. I’m just guessing - I have no idea - but the screen should be perfectly clear, but for any dust. (When I did the screen capture, I included space to the right of the sensor, and below it, which explains the black area outside the sensor.)

It’s likely that what you’re seeing is just the texture of the wall itself, especially if you didn’t defocus the shot. That’s not “noise” and it’s not dust on the sensor either. If you’re trying to see how dirty the sensor is, the best way is to shoot a clear blue sky at f/16. Otherwise, you should shoot a brightly and uniformly lit wall also at f/16 and also defocused. A high f-number setting ensures that dust particles on the sensor will be sufficient defined and visible and not blurred away.

[EDIT: I posted this before seeing your own response. Looks like you’ve discovered the right way to check for dust on the sensor.]

[JoPoV]

When taking a dust shot, defocus as much as you can to blur everything but sensor dust helps.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

That is never going to be pretty without some magic sauce. I thought you had a longer lens than 120mm? You really needed about 400mm.

I never intended to crop the image - it was to be a photo of that part of his property, that happened to include the birds.

Then I saw what I had captured, and figured “why not try anyway”.

The single biggest problem in using PhotoLab is I lose track of what I am doing. I already know many of the things you posted, but didn’t stop to do them. It’s as silly/stupid/unforgettable as arriving at a location I want to photograph, only to notice there is no memory card in the camera. Been there, done that, got burned, and now I have a mental check-list to minimize the chances of doing that again. I need a reminder that EVERY TIME I use a control point I MUST also consider the extra controls to get the most out of the control point. I understand what you did, and why you did it, but I MUST make this a habit of doing those extra steps. You’ve made it very obvious. I very, VERY much appreciate your patience, as much as your knowledge! Eventually I will get this right too. …I understand how this makes you a very good teacher, but I obviously do not make a very good student.

@Joanna

you didn’t need either exposure compensation or Smart Lighting; just a tweak to the Tone Curve.

Can you please point out HOW it is possible to use the Tone Curve for this purpose? I use the Tone Curve while watching the image to see what looks best to me. That’s why I raised it just a small amount at the left. How do you know what and where to modify the tone curve?

My tone curve:

Your tone curve:

I’m confused - I expected to see a more obvious difference. The only difference I can see, is my version has a “0” at the bottom left, where your version has a “3”.

[JoPoV]

@mikemyers

I expected to see a more obvious difference

Would be more easy to do if it was possible to scale the view and get a bigger curve. Or have a control to reduce mouse speed (mouse drag + CTRL ?).
Maybe not with every graphic station (maybe not on mac neither), but on my PC, doing so little move with mouse is very imprecise in photolab (as well as setting some sliders in local adjustments). Not because I’m clumsy with my mouse (I use various graphics software in my profession that require precision), but because, to quote another user who I find very accurate: it feels like you’re handling the mouse with boxing gloves when using some tools in photolab.
This probably differ from station to station (mouse speed, mouse resolution, screen resolution, etc …) but my station is fine for every other software I use but photolab …

[mikemyers]

Having watched a lot of YouTube videos, and having looked at my r/c car racing photos posted over the years, I suspect I did way too much camera upgrading.

My early Nikons were all small sensor cameras, right up to my Nikon D2x. I felt good about buying that Nikon, but way back then, it cost over $5K. I had the income, and had the $$$, and I loved the camera, but as others have noted, it’s quite big and heavy for using it for casual photo taking. Nikon’s D3 fixed most of the shortcoming, and is more like Nikon’s newer cameras - controls, menus, how to use the camera, and even more weight.

With the D750 being so much smaller and lighter, I bought that, and mostly used it instead of the D3, for everything. I looked at a D800, along with other cameras at B&H on a special day when Nikon (and others) were there in force to help anyone/everyone. I remember having three Nikons in front of me, rejecting the D800 because of weight, rejecting the Df because it lacked “sports” features, and settling on the D750. I ended up with two D750’s, and sold them for enough $$ to buy a “used” D780.

These forum discussions lead me to think I could have just kept using the D3, and there was no need for an upgrade other than in my mind. Nikon’s “Professional” cameras have all the necessary controls right on the body, minimal need to go into the menus. Since I rarely do “video”, a better choice would have been to buy a used D850. Had I known that half a year later I would be getting my D3 back, I might not have bought anything at all.

I know it’s not the camera. As in, it’s not the “arrow”, it’s the “Indian”. Joanna’s photos are mostly as good as they are because of Joanna, not her camera - but Joanna has other requirements, such as huge mural size prints, and I accept that the D850 was a good way to get everything she needed, and no need to spend thousand’s of dollars more for a “professional series” Nikon.

Never mind all of this - I’m just thinking out loud. My weakest link is obviously ME, not my cameras. I’d like to believe that eventually I will stop “screwing up”, and create acceptable images, even if they are never going to be as good as someone like Joanna can create.