Cycling Pictures: I'm pleading with you.

[false_Aest]

I see it way too much.

Many of you probably don't recognize it but it's there if you look hard enough.

When you use shadow/highlight recovery with the wrong settings and radius, the images look HORRIBLE.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/photos/races11/giro11/preview-gardeccia.jpg is a perfect example.

Notice how the bottom half of the trees look washed out and then there's a dark line added detail in the center of the mountains and then nothing.

All this says is, "Photographer didn't know how to use camera well." OR "Tonal range of scene is beyond camera's capacity."

Just because you can "rescue" a photo doesn't mean you should. AND, more importantly, just because you can "rescue" a photo doesn't mean that you're doing it the right way.

The divine manufacturer of light figured out how to make things look good.
Stop effing with it.


Thank you.

[thwart]

No, no, no... you've got it all wrong.

That's experience-based photography. After climbing for a while on those grades, at that temp, your vision is adversely affected. This is what you actually see... ;)

[avalonracing]

Amateur photographers have become better because of digital photography. As the cost of shooting has become all but free and many more people are shooting everything there is a lot more good shots that either happen by accident or through the astounding features in even the most inexpensive cameras.

On the other hand it's the "photo enthusiasts" that are responsible for all of these images with overcorrection and all of this stupid HDR images. Hopefully it will at some point shake out and people will learn to make decent images without heavy processing. But more likely in camera software will become even better and people with a little, or no knowledge at all, will be able to amazing high-resolution images... in the dark... with their cell phone.

[rugbysecondrow]

I see it way too much.

Many of you probably don't recognize it but it's there if you look hard enough.

When you use shadow/highlight recovery with the wrong settings and radius, the images look HORRIBLE.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/photos/races11/giro11/preview-gardeccia.jpg is a perfect example.

Notice how the bottom half of the trees look washed out and then there's a dark line added detail in the center of the mountains and then nothing.

All this says is, "Photographer didn't know how to use camera well." OR "Tonal range of scene is beyond camera's capacity."

Just because you can "rescue" a photo doesn't mean you should. AND, more importantly, just because you can "rescue" a photo doesn't mean that you're doing it the right way.

The divine manufacturer of light figured out how to make things look good.
Stop effing with it.


Thank you.

Hi, my name is Paul and I am an Iphone point and click shooter. I started out as a youth using my mothers 35 MM camera as a toy. Sometimes it didn't even have film in it and I would just trigger the flash. As a teen, I moved on to heavier use and the disposable wind, point and click models. This is the gateway camera. I dabbled with digital cameras after that, the occasional vacation, road trip with the fellas, fun time with my ladies, but it was nothing like the Iphone. WOW. I was hooked. My 32 gigs are always maxed out, I am just point and click crazy now...no winding! I don't even know what HDR means! My Iphone has this setting and I wont use it fearing my camera would explode immediately if I did. I am very status quo, more is always more with the digital Iphone.

Lastly, I don't even own a white garage door. I feel inferior as I am always at a loss as to how I am to photograph my bike. I feel like my bikes are upset with me (bad bike karma) for taking roadside photos of them, propping them against the hallway wall...I have such guilt and shame.

Anyway, thanks for listening, you are a great group and I appreciate your support. I need more coffee.

Thanks,

Paul

[1happygirl]

I see what your talking about false_Aest. Thanks for the lesson, but I only caught 'it' (knew it wasn't optimal though) AFTER you said something.


I think most peeps are just happy to get the shot and don't have the level of training and experience a lot of people do. It's hard, especially with just a point and shoot. (granted this is/was a professional organization)

[false_Aest]

Ok,

So I'm a snob. I have 2 degrees in photography and now teach digital photography to college kids.

I'm totally, 100% for the whole expansion of photography. I mean, how rad is it that my mom is willing to tote her camera around and shoot pictures of everything! (Really, my family never took pictures ... there are few records of me as a child).

I think the iphone camera is a brilliant idea. I also think that just because you can't doesn't mean you should.

Here's a really good example of this pushed way too far (the crop is the bad version)

[false_Aest]

See pict for explanation.

[benb]

It's one thing if some random cyclist uploads a photo and is guilty of this, it's a totally different thing IMO when it appears on the PEZ site..

Heck while some cameraphones take pictures that bad there are definitely some good ones that would have been able to take that shot and have it not be so bad, even right out of the phone.. the current iPhone certainly would have been able to do the job. But it's still great to use a real camera!

[1happygirl]

It's one thing if some random cyclist uploads a photo and is guilty of this, it's a totally different thing IMO when it appears on the PEZ site..



Thats what i'm sayin' this was/is a professional organization (pez) but it would be hard to pick up without false_Aest level of knowledge.

I would like to have the level of knowledge not just to know that it's wrong, but what is wrong and how to fix it.

I think the Serotta forum has an unusually high level of knowledge regarding photography

[MattTuck]

I see what you're complaining about, and it may be poor technique... but still get 90% of the point of the photo.

If it was going into a glossy magazine or a print to hang on the wall, I see your point... just for browsing the web though... it's better than nothin'.

I guess I see it like wine.... would I like to be drinking a nice single vineyard $60+ bottle from an expert wine maker I've met in person at every meal? Of course. But that's not going to happen. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the $10 or $20 bottle I have a few times a week.

[avalonracing]

But the point is not that the amateur photographer with the inexpensive camera is the offense. It is the guy with a little knowledge of the photoshop controls that screws things up by messing with the original, life-like image.

So it is more like, "Hey this is only a $20 bottle of wine so let me at some Welch's grape juice and maybe some cinnamon and then maybe it will be more like a $60 bottle".

Full disclosure: I also have a degree in photography and worked as a pro for 15 years but now I probably take more shots with my iPhone than I do on any other of my other cameras.

[bicycletricycle]

How many different kinds of snobbery can one forum embrace?

:)

[Fixed]

but you look fit
cheers

[RPS]

How many different kinds of snobbery can one forum embrace?

:)
I just learned photos can be "rescued". :cool:

[avalonracing]

How many different kinds of snobbery can one forum embrace?

:)

6

[veggieburger]

How many different kinds of snobbery can one forum embrace?

:)

Indeed. If these shots were found in a coffeetable book I might raise an eyebrow, but as is, they serve the purpose.

[benb]

The point is these pictures had to be actively destroyed.. even if they came straight out of an iphone they would look better. Straight out of a real camera they should look much much better, even a pro DSLR set up for maximum quality/minimum convenience where the images really require post processing.

It's snobbery to mention this about someone's posting in the gallery here on the Serotta forum or another forum but it's definitely something else when it's a supposedly professional news website posting them. I've never seen such bad photos on Velonews or Cycling News.. no reason Pez can't step up their game. (Heck it takes longer to ruin the photo!)

All that said the photo at least has a good composition and location.. that is actually pretty hard with cycling, it is really easy to take boring cycling photos. An awful lot of the time the composition is more important then the technical details.

[Bud_E]

6

That, of course, is the correct answer to any rhetorical question.

[legacysti888]

Someone got too trigger happy with the shadow/highlight sliders... :D

From the looks of the cyclists' shadows, it's about noonish? There should be way more contrast than that it appears to be.

The photo is okay for what it is. It's not meant to be an Ansel Adams zoning exercise.

[bicycletricycle]

That, of course, is the correct answer to any rhetorical question.


Nope, the correct answer to a rhetorical question is 42

[slowgoing]

Sorry, I don't get it.

I just briefly look at the pictures, I don't study or grade 'em.

[ergott]

2 tips.
1 Shoot raw
2 Learn to shoot manual when necessary

With todays cameras having histograms and immediate preview there is no need for a pro to get the exposure wrong. Also, I've recovered worse with better results mainly due to rule number 1.

[false_Aest]

Eric nailed it!


If you all have the option, shoot RAW. If you don't, in the mode that gives you the least amount of pictures. (JPG. Largest size. Least compression)

Other tips:

1) If you can set your color space, choose Adobe RGB (1998) or ProPhoto. Avoid sRGB if you can

2) Buy multiple memory cards. Keep them in a Card Safe. Do not put memory cards in ziplock bags, your pocket or anywhere else.

3) After you download your photos ALWAYS reformat the card.

4) Cards can get expensive. That cost is associated with how fast the card can save data and how fast the data can be downloaded. To make use of the card's speed you'll need an expensive card reader. If you download your images directly from your camera or through a generic card reader (multi format card readers, etc) you've just wasted your money.


Awwe hell.

If you wanna learn and don't wanna buy a $60 book (or 3) go here:

http://anti-aesthetic.net/Photo43/1_Handouts/

My course handouts.

[rustychisel]

the Pez shot looked okay to me. Maybe you need a better monitor [joke]. :o

[jr59]

I take no pics! I don't care! :p

[1happygirl]

A big thanks false_Aest for your notes.


I will read them while I am sick in bed. Already the first pages give some answers to questions I have been wondering about and easier to understand then a photo book.


Thanks again. I like it.

ps nerd alert I always read the footnotes hahah (like yr link)

[thwart]

Awwe hell. If you wanna learn and don't wanna buy a $60 book (or 3) go here: http://anti-aesthetic.net/Photo43/1_Handouts/ My course handouts. That's very generous. Thanks! :)

[WickedWheels]

Don't take that down. I'm going to spend the next few months "taking your course" if you don't mind.

As of now... I can't tell you how often I take my JPEG shots, put them in Picasa and hit "I'm feeling lucky". If I like the picture better in "lucky" I keep it. If not, the original stays. At the moment, that the extent of my editing.

Perhaps you can grade this for me, since it's cycling related... One with a flash, one without... Can't decide what's better


Eric nailed it!


If you all have the option, shoot RAW. If you don't, in the mode that gives you the least amount of pictures. (JPG. Largest size. Least compression)

Other tips:

1) If you can set your color space, choose Adobe RGB (1998) or ProPhoto. Avoid sRGB if you can

2) Buy multiple memory cards. Keep them in a Card Safe. Do not put memory cards in ziplock bags, your pocket or anywhere else.

3) After you download your photos ALWAYS reformat the card.

4) Cards can get expensive. That cost is associated with how fast the card can save data and how fast the data can be downloaded. To make use of the card's speed you'll need an expensive card reader. If you download your images directly from your camera or through a generic card reader (multi format card readers, etc) you've just wasted your money.


Awwe hell.

If you wanna learn and don't wanna buy a $60 book (or 3) go here:

http://anti-aesthetic.net/Photo43/1_Handouts/

My course handouts.

[false_Aest]

Don't take that down. I'm going to spend the next few months "taking your course" if you don't mind.

As of now... I can't tell you how often I take my JPEG shots, put them in Picasa and hit "I'm feeling lucky". If I like the picture better in "lucky" I keep it. If not, the original stays. At the moment, that the extent of my editing.

Perhaps you can grade this for me, since it's cycling related... One with a flash, one without... Can't decide what's better


There's a distracting tangent behind the bike.

Silver bar almost parallel with top tube. Yes, it's out of focus but it distracts from the Ti.

Actually, the bars in general behind the bike distract from the bike.

A fix in PS would be about a 4/10 mostly time issues.

[false_Aest]

Exposure wise they're both done well.


Attached is what I see when I look at the picture though.

[WickedWheels]

Thank you so much! Believe it or not, this helps out A TON, as I'm just learning how to use a camera.

FWIW... I considered that the rails would be a problem, but at that particular park there was no way to get the bike lined up without the rails in the background and still get the buildings in the background with the sunset on them. I just didn't realize just how distracting they would be and the effect of the parallel lines on the the bike. I'm glad to hear that the most obvious problem was with the lack of foresight on my part as to the background. I can work on not being stupid about the composition easier and cheaper than I can work on the technical aspects of the image.

This is a great forum!


There's a distracting tangent behind the bike.

Silver bar almost parallel with top tube. Yes, it's out of focus but it distracts from the Ti.

Actually, the bars in general behind the bike distract from the bike.

A fix in PS would be about a 4/10 mostly time issues.

[ckamp]

shadow/highlight, histograms, radius, RAW.. I don't have these display/options on my on my Nikon FA 35mm SLR.. what If my pictures turn out with:

"When you use shadow/highlight recovery with the wrong settings and radius, the images look HORRIBLE"

[1happygirl]

Hey Ckamp how awesome is that FA?!! My first real camera. sold it a while back. mostly used in program or a mode.
good memories. ahhh

[jpw]

Ok,

So I'm a snob. I have 2 degrees in photography and now teach digital photography to college kids.

I'm totally, 100% for the whole expansion of photography. I mean, how rad is it that my mom is willing to tote her camera around and shoot pictures of everything! (Really, my family never took pictures ... there are few records of me as a child).

I think the iphone camera is a brilliant idea. I also think that just because you can't doesn't mean you should.

Here's a really good example of this pushed way too far (the crop is the bad version)

Don't you think the bigger issue is that the cyclist seems to be wearing shoes that are too big for his feet?

[false_Aest]

I have big feet.

I'll fight you! :bike:

[false_Aest]

shadow/highlight, histograms, radius, RAW.. I don't have these display/options on my on my Nikon FA 35mm SLR.. what If my pictures turn out with:

"When you use shadow/highlight recovery with the wrong settings and radius, the images look HORRIBLE"

I can't tell if you're making a joke or not. So lemme answer this the way I would a student in Color Photo 1.

1) If your film says ISO/ASA 400. Set your camera to ISO/ASA 200. Yes, you'll over expose your film 1 stop but that's still printable in the darkroom and easily scannable on all but the most crappy film scanners.

2) Over exposing the film will give you shadow detail that you may have lost. The trade off is that you'll have to compensate with either shutter speed (slower), larger aperture (less of the picture stays in focus/less depth of field), or a combo of the two---- and possibly using a monopod or tripod. Also consider upgrading film stock: IF you use Kodak Gold or any film that is kept on an end cap in a CVS, stop. Go to your photo store and buy pro film that has been kept in a fridge. Not only is the film at its "optimum," the color and grain in the film are better and smaller respectively. If, you MUST take fast pictures (freeze motion), opt for a pro film like Portra 800 or whatever Fuji's 1600 speed film is and then cut the number in half. The faster the film speed (bigger number) the less light the film needs, the bigger the grain, the smaller the "acceptable" print. (All this is relative and subject to creative desire...I've blown up 110 film to 40"x50" and loved the result.)

3) When you scan your film. Make sure your end points (http://anti-aesthetic.net/Photo43/1_Handouts/012511_HistogramCurvesAdjLayers.pdf) fall just outside of the main part of the histogram. In the first image on the PDF you'll see 3 triangles under the "mountain range". Left side is shadows. Middle is mid tones. Right side is highlights. The edges of the mountain range are called "toes" You (generally) do not want to move your sliders in so that they intersect the "toe." If you do, this is called "clipping" and the tone/color data on the outside of the slider (left for black/right for white) will be discarded.

4) Shadow/Highlight (or fill/recovery whatever your program calls it) has its uses but if you use it too much you see what happens. My rule of thumb is this: Shadows: Tonal Range: 10-15% Amount: ≤ 25% Radius: depends on image size and detail. Highlights: Tonal Range: 5-10%. Amount: ≤35% Radius: depends on image size and detail.

5) Too much scanning software comes with shadow/highlight options. Leave it to a minimum. You wouldn't expect Photoshop to run your scanner well so don't expect your scanner software to adjust your image well.

6) When you scan you'll need to apply a little bit of sharpening (Input Sharpening. You should actually do this with all digital imaging devices). The JPEG (Joint Photographics Expert Group) format has this built in (unsharp mask) but if you save to PSD (Photoshop Document) or TIFF (tagged image file format) you'll need to apply it while scanning. USE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT.

7) If this sounds too complex. Speak to Aron Gent at Blackpoint Editions in Chicago or send me a PM. I do this kind've work in the summers.



Oh yeah. Ya'll welcome to my class handouts and exercises etc. I also don't mind if you pass it on to others. Just give credit where its due.

[gone]

Film? What's that?

Although that no doubt sounds like a smart a$$ question, I'm somewhat serious. Do professional (or even semi-pro) photographers still use film cameras?

[veloduffer]

Regarding the PEZ pic, it would be interesting to see the original out of the camera photo. The photographer is Cor Vos, who is the Dutch equivalent to Graham Watson in cycling circles. I think the post processing is at fault and probably the riders were very underexposed. Plus the photographer was probably shooting from a moving platform (car or motorcycle?), so lighting could have been spotty (partially cloudy day?).

With digital photography, I think that folks can be overly critical when critiqueing a photography - that is, get too technical about the "quality" (pixel peeping). There is also a difference in the type of photography - photojournalism vs studio. Photojournalism is meant to tell a story unto itself and often is not the best in terms of technique (exposure, sharpness). For example, the grainy photo of the Vietnamese girl running naked down the street after a napalm attack, or the prisoner shot in the head by a Vietnamese officer on a motorcycle were not very good technically. But they captured a moment that was powerful. Do the slightly blurry family photographs make them any less sentimental?

[avalonracing]

Agreed. A good image is a good image and photo forums are filled with people arguing over the smallest details of technique and workflow and then you see one of their images and think ***? You suck at seeing.

[false_Aest]

Yes,

Pros still use film.

The problem with film is that its expensive and polaroid is hard to obtain in certain sizes.

I think a lot of Pros would opt for film if the job allowed for it but most of them (us?) are subjected to what I call "The Shopping Cart Syndrome." Too many art directors are trying to cram more and more and more into the photo shoot.

So 10-15 years ago you might spend 1 day to get 1 or 2 shots but now it's a lot different. 2 years ago I worked on a catalog shoot for a clothing brand: 200 items in 2 days. The days were 14 hours long and there was only 45min for lunch. There was no room to adjust for pay rates, etc.

I think that the newest gen of art directors are lacking talent and skills. They just don't know or care about overall quality. The push is simply to get a new image out quickly and cheaply. In some ways I can't blame them simply because the public's attention span is so short that most people don't care.

Kodak has released new film called Ektar. It's nice. Avail in medium and large formats, etc. They also released a new version of T-Max 400 a few years ago. It's an amazing film. Ilford from the UK is still going strong as is Fujifilm.

Film is still valid and good. And, if you look hard, you'll be able to tell the difference b/n digi and film. (Hint: b/w cycling images that have no detail in the shadows are 95% of the time shot digitally.)

[veloduffer]

Film? What's that?

Although that no doubt sounds like a smart a$$ question, I'm somewhat serious. Do professional (or even semi-pro) photographers still use film cameras?

Mostly for large print work (e.g. large landscapes), which is much more demanding for technically (needs very high resolution).

[false_Aest]

With digital photography, I think that folks can be overly critical when critiqueing a photography - that is, get too technical about the "quality" (pixel peeping). There is also a difference in the type of photography - photojournalism vs studio. Photojournalism is meant to tell a story unto itself and often is not the best in terms of technique (exposure, sharpness). For example, the grainy photo of the Vietnamese girl running naked down the street after a napalm attack, or the prisoner shot in the head by a Vietnamese officer on a motorcycle were not very good technically. But they captured a moment that was powerful. Do the slightly blurry family photographs make them any less sentimental?


You're right, photo weenies will get overly technical about stuff but my concerns aren't about the way the CCD or CMOS sensor captures, whether or not the the ISO was low enough or whatever else. Grain is grain. Tonality is tonality.

My issue is about how the technique used to apply adjustments is . . . bad.

Think of it this way:

Nick Crumpton can make a dope bike and has spent significant time researching how to do his layup. IT holds. It's stiff. It's strong. You don't worry.

If Nick were to look at a newbie CF bike builder's layup. I'm sure he'll see slop, extra epoxy, redundant layers of CF and non-optimal technique. He'll probably address this before he asks, "What brand of CF did you buy?" or "What brand of vacu bags are you using?" I'm effectively doing the same thing. I don't care what camera, what software, etc. What I do care about is bad and improper technique and stuff that is ultimately distracting.

You're right, photojournalism isn't expected to be "studio quality." BUT it is expected to look good and, to people who know digital image processing, this doesn't. Yeah, it gets the point across but it could've been done better and more subtly. My guess is that the photographer wanted a "quick fix." I'd be "ok" with this type of thinking if it were a student but with a PRO I expect more... especially when one can read the histogram feedback and can utilize (cheap) software to dial things in better.

[veloduffer]

You're right, photo weenies will get overly technical about stuff but my concerns aren't about the way the CCD or CMOS sensor captures, whether or not the the ISO was low enough or whatever else. Grain is grain. Tonality is tonality.

My issue is about how the technique used to apply adjustments is . . . bad.

Think of it this way:

Nick Crumpton can make a dope bike and has spent significant time researching how to do his layup. IT holds. It's stiff. It's strong. You don't worry.

If Nick were to look at a newbie CF bike builder's layup. I'm sure he'll see slop, extra epoxy, redundant layers of CF and non-optimal technique. He'll probably address this before he asks, "What brand of CF did you buy?" or "What brand of vacu bags are you using?" I'm effectively doing the same thing. I don't care what camera, what software, etc. What I do care about is bad and improper technique and stuff that is ultimately distracting.

You're right, photojournalism isn't expected to be "studio quality." BUT it is expected to look good and, to people who know digital image processing, this doesn't. Yeah, it gets the point across but it could've been done better and more subtly. My guess is that the photographer wanted a "quick fix." I'd be "ok" with this type of thinking if it were a student but with a PRO I expect more... especially when one can read the histogram feedback and can utilize (cheap) software to dial things in better.


I agree that the picture was done poorly - overblown highlights on the mtn/sky were the most egregious. Perhaps it was a staffer that did the post processing. At many sporting events, photogs hand their memory cards to others to sort and process. Mostly to get the pic as fast as possible to the "desk" (web, newspaper, etc).

I don't think Cor Vos would sell that as a print.

[ckamp]

Thanks False for the tips, I just read them over now. Ill try some of the methods you mentioned on my next rolls. However, I dont think I am good enough for fridge-quality film.

[kestrel]

I'm still amazed we're jumping on Cor Vos as not being photographically correct.

http://www.rnw.nl/nederlands/video/tourfotograaf-cor-vos-stapt-af-rotterdam

[ergott]

I'm still amazed we're jumping on Cor Vos as not being photographically correct.

http://www.rnw.nl/nederlands/video/tourfotograaf-cor-vos-stapt-af-rotterdam

He might not have done the editing. I don't know.

[palincss]

Kodak has released new film called Ektar. It's nice. Avail in medium and large formats, etc. They also released a new version of T-Max 400 a few years ago. It's an amazing film. Ilford from the UK is still going strong as is Fujifilm.


And quite recently, Kodak released Portra 400 and Porta 160.

[false_Aest]

Thanks False for the tips, I just read them over now. Ill try some of the methods you mentioned on my next rolls. However, I dont think I am good enough for fridge-quality film.

Dude,

If you can justify upgrading from $10 tires to $30 tires you can justify "pro" film.

[legacysti888]

I'm not going back to film. Sorry.

My clients have grown too impatient in expecting instant results. It's the digital world they say.

Clients have to pay me big bucks for me to use film again. Even for 4x5.

Digital backs and CF/SD cards from now on.... even metallic papers have gone digital....

But for fine art photography, I would. Maybe. But I no longer shoot fine art.