bifcake

Thanks for asking, bifcake.

Here's how I shot that one originally in RAW. In comparison I agree with you my cut looks rather "plastic" but I love it nevertheless. I'll explain:

Personally:

I am just starting to learn to combine PP with photography and I feel I'm in my extreme phase now where I am testing all the limits and possibilities.

My logic behind this is after I have tested and played with the extreme's, only then, I'll be capable to focus on achieving the natural look you mentioned.

Unnatural as it may seem to you, I'm very happy and excited with my results. But I suspect when I grow my taste will develop to be more refined like MJP for example.

Thanks again for raising the issue.

Yours, DAL

Hi Dal,

Thanks for posting the original and explaining the technical aspects, as well as the reasoning behind it. It may come as no surprise to you that I prefer the look of your original, unedited file. Then again, to each, his own.

When digicams first became popular, it seems that you would get that processed look right out of the box. I remember seeing the results and thinking to myself that digital has a long way to go before it acquires the feel of film and its palette. Now, it seems like the tables have turned and folks are turning to post processing to get the look of the first generation digicams.

No, I mean this over-sharpness, over vividness and that unnatural look of 3D almost.

I've noticed that many shots posted here have this peculiar look as though the image is composed of multiple acetate sheets: one for foreground, one for middle ground and one for background. This is especially noticeable in night shots. The first time I've seen this look was about 15 years ago when digital cameras first became popular. That look has kept me from getting into digital for a long time because it looks so unnatural. It's as if the image is almost too sharp.

I've shot with Nikon D3000, Canon 550D and Canon 5D MKII and none of my images have had that sort of a look (which is good as far as I'm concerned). So, I was wondering if this is the look that a lot of people strive for and it's a result of post processing or whether it's a function of the cameras these folks are using?

Recently, I re-read an interesting article by noted photographer Guy Tal (you can read here Words Matter ). Guy talks about the tendency for people to separate photography from the arts. Even in our own forum we see this occur as the title of the forum is "Photography and the Arts". Now I believe that the meaning of this forum was to include photography into the other arts but we often see the two being spoken of as separate.

So, what is your feeling about this? Is it art or something else? If it is art, is there freedom to use artistic license in the making of a photograph?

I am very interested to hear your views on this.

Many thanks in advance,

Stix

I think that in order to determine whether photography is art, we have to define art.

As I see it, Art is emotional communication. Art strives to make one feel. It does not necessarily strive to make you feel good, sometimes it tries to disturb you, uplift you, depress you, but in every case, art tries to emotionally touch you in some way or another. Music is art because it is auditory emotional communication, painting is art because it's visual emotional communication. Photography is a visual medium, therefore, it can be art if it touches the viewer emotionally.

Photography doesn't cease to be art simply because its medium is accessible. Art doesn't need to be exclusive, difficult to produce or expensive. It simply needs to make the viewer feel something.

This was a puke test. I wanted to see how many of my tog friends down here in the tog forum threw up on exposure to these hideous images.

Seems it was just me.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I agree. Looks like a badly pasteurized shot. I can't stand the effect. I get the same queasy feeling as you. Blech!

That issue has been resolved. It didn't last very long

Then it's a happy accident

Manfrotto 055 is a great suggestion. Manfrotto makes good quality products. You may also want to take a look at Slik 300DX, which is capable of supporting 5kg or Slik 700DX, which can handle 6.8kg. Both of those are well made and would be considerably cheaper than Manfrotto, although Manfrotto is the Cadillac of tripods.

I like the one without flash better. The black foliage serves as a frame around the sunset. You distract the eye from the sunset by popping the flash in the foreground. You could get away with popping the flash and giving the foreground a bit of detail, but I think you'd need to do two things to accomplish that:

1. Pop an off camera flash to give the light a bit of depth

2. Bring the flash down about another stop, so that it doesn't overpower or distract from the sunset.

I don't mind the haziness. A polarizer would give a different feel to this shot. This shot is nice, but it doesn't make the viewer want to explore it. It's rather like a nicely done standard shot that's totally forgettable.

One of the things I would do first and foremost would be to move the horizon line to either the top third or the bottom third of the frame. Try not to place the horizon line straight in the middle of the frame unless you're going for a very specific type of an effect, which this shot doesn't do. If I were to use a polarizer, I wouldn't use it so much to obtain clarity and cut through haze, but rather to accentuate the clouds (which a polarizer does) and give this shot a bit more drama.

I like the photograph, but I don't care too much for the posturization effect. I'd like to see it the way it was shot.

It's a bit too busy for my tastes and lacks the central point of focus, and tension. Furthermore, the steel bars lead the eye off the frame of the image. This image needs to be cropped a bit and should contain a bit of color to provide tension or make it completely black and white and very high contrast, so that only the black and the white would stand out in the picture, no gray. The image should be stripped down to its bare elements.

I like this shot. I don't know if you got it by accident or not, but it's a good shot. The reason it's a good shot is because you have color contrast, the blue plays nicely against the black and the blue doesn't overpower the image because it's kept within 1/3 of the frame. The blue is diagonal, which suggests motion and that also plays nicely against the perpendicular lines of the black section. The white dots break up the monotony of the black section and give a central point of focus. Probably the weakest aspect of the image to me, are the recognizable elements such as the no smoking sign, which distract from the general abstraction of the image.

The reason your photo is gray is because it's underexposed, meaning that too little light is reaching the sensor. The reason for that is because you have a white background, which is fooling the built-in camera meter into thinking that there's more light than there is actually. You need to compensate for the metering error by using the exposure compensation in your camera (look at the manual to see how to get to it) and set it to +2. That should give you the clean shots you're looking for straight in the camera, without the need to do anything in photoshop. Don't forget to set the exposure compensation back to 0 after you're done shooting.

Hope this helps.

Pulled the trigger today on a second hand Nouvo SX. Thank you for all your input.

That's what I was thinking. I had my eyes set on the Nouvo, but I figured if the Air Blade was still on the market, I would check it out and compare it to the Nouvo. I'm not a big fan of the PCX. They're overpriced and they're not as maneuvarable as the smaller bikes.

What is the latest year in which they were produced/available here?

Thanks Papa Al.

Does anyone know if Honda still makes the Airblade or has it been supplanted by the PCX?

In case they're still made, does anyone know if larger, 16" wheels can be installed on them?

Thanks

The Russians buy a LOT of real estate here, but they deal primarily, if not exclusively with Russian real estate agencies, so a non-Russian agency may not be able to fully quantify the sales impact of the Russian market.

The main problem is that the Russian media has been scaring off tourists. They go out of their way to highlight the unrest, the curfew, and a "possible civil war" in Thailand. That has had a chilling effect on the Russian tourists here, and needless to say, the actual curfew didn't help matters.

I suspect that they will start trickling in a few months from now and they should be back in full force by October or so.

Does anyone know if there are tuk-tuks for rent (I don't mean baht buses) in Pattaya? I could take one or two with a driver or without.

Thanks

Hi Flakes,

I inquired about that about six months ago and it seems all the safe deposit boxes in the major banks in Pattaya are rented out. There are a few private safe deposit boxes available. I saw an ad on Soi Bukkhao, but I'm not sure how safe those safe deposit boxes are.

Bangkok seems to be the best bet. There are safe deposit boxes available in most major banks.

Good luck