10D Motorcycle Shots

[scottbergerphoto]

http://www.pbase.com/image/22212815.jpg

If you like this, please visit the rest at:
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/motorcycles_at_the_intrepid_nyc

Scott

[Belmondo]

Scott:
Those are really good pictures. At full size, it looks to my eye that you hit them pretty hard with USM. Were the images soft to start with? What lens did you use?

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to see some very nice pictures of rolling art.

Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

Great photos of some great subjects! :D

[scottbergerphoto]

belmondo wrote:
Scott:
Those are really good pictures. At full size, it looks to my eye that you hit them pretty hard with USM. Were the images soft to start with? What lens did you use?

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to see some very nice pictures of rolling art.

Tom
I used the 24-70 f/2.8L. I shoot Raw, Adobe RGB and convert in BreezeBrowser. They looked very soft after the conversion. I hit them with USM 250-300/2/0. They look great out of my Epson 2200 at 8x10 using Epson ICC profiles. I try to optimize for my prints. What exactly are you seeing, when you say that it looks like I hit them hard with USM?
Scott

[Belmondo]

Scott:
Nothing bad---I was looking at the full size image and it just looked to me that you had used quite a bit of USM. Bearing in mind that sharpness is largely a subjective call, it becomes strictly a matter of taste. I, too, optimize my files for printing, and the artifacts from unsharp masking usually don't show up.

I've noticed that I rarely use a USM setting greater than 100% with a radius of 2.0 when sharpening in PS---usually, it's closer to 30%. I also shoot mostly RAW format and usually do my sharpening in C1LE. It just seems to work better for me.

The pictures are just fine---I was only trying to establish if you were compensating for soft images or if it was just a preference of yours. I'm always interested in what other people do. If you're using the 24-70 f/2.8L, then I doubt that focus is a problem for you.

Thanks for the reply.

Tom

[robertwgross]

Although the subject composition is accurate, what happened to the sky?

---Bob Gross---

[scottbergerphoto]

robertwgross wrote:
Although the subject composition is accurate, what happened to the sky?

---Bob Gross---

Overcast day. Had to blow out the sky to get the bike properly exposed. Have you noticed that you rarely have something nice to say in any of your posts?
Scott

[robertwgross]

Scott, if I have something strong to note, like "Although the subject composition is accurate...", then I state that. Similarly, if I have something weak to note, like about the white sky, then I state that also.

You have a similar right to make statements about what you see that is good or what is poor... at least I think you do.

More typically, I try to post informative items, such as when somebody has a piece of equipment with no manual, and they can't figure out which button does what.

If you don't like that sort of honest comment, then maybe you don't want to post here.

---Bob Gross---

[Butzl]

Scott:

Your bike pics are really great.
Like Tom, I also noticed the use of USM immediately. You can easily tell by closely looking to any light/dark edges. However, for those shiny technical objects its a good idea to exaggerate the "sharpness" a bit.
I'd be just curious to see the original file from the camera. We all have experienced the frustration of "soft" pictures straight from the camera and it would be nice to see the difference...

Looking forward to more pics from you!
Jens

[scottbergerphoto]

robertwgross wrote:
Scott, if I have something strong to note, like "Although the subject composition is accurate...", then I state that. Similarly, if I have something weak to note, like about the white sky, then I state that also.

You have a similar right to make statements about what you see that is good or what is poor... at least I think you do.

More typically, I try to post informative items, such as when somebody has a piece of equipment with no manual, and they can't figure out which button does what.

If you don't like that sort of honest comment, then maybe you don't want to post here.

---Bob Gross---
I don't mind CONSTRUCTIVE comments. It seems you just like to criticize people. I've read alot of your posts, and your not particularly helpful, but you are rather condescending.

[robertwgross]

scottbergerphoto wrote:
I don't mind CONSTRUCTIVE comments. It seems you just like to criticize people. I've read alot of your posts, and your not particularly helpful, but you are rather condescending.


You are entitled to your opinion, whether they are right or wrong. Apparently you haven't read many of my posts. Perhaps you are just sensitive, but you don't need to be.

My original comment was, in fact, intended to be constructive. I asked about the white sky, and that gave you the opportunity to explain why you did it the way you did. Instead, you went defensive and took it as an insult.

If I had made a comment like "That looks like crap!", then that would have been an insult.

---Bob Gross---

[scottbergerphoto]

robertwgross wrote:
scottbergerphoto wrote:
I don't mind CONSTRUCTIVE comments. It seems you just like to criticize people. I've read alot of your posts, and your not particularly helpful, but you are rather condescending.


You are entitled to your opinion, whether they are right or wrong. Apparently you haven't read many of my posts. Perhaps you are just sensitive, but you don't need to be.

My original comment was, in fact, intended to be constructive. I asked about the white sky, and that gave you the opportunity to explain why you did it the way you did. Instead, you went defensive and took it as an insult.

If I had made a comment like "That looks like crap!", then that would have been an insult.

---Bob Gross---

All I did was throw a little gasolene. I don't understand how a fire started.

[Vegas Poboy]

Scott, great shots I love them bikes and keep up the good work.
I've been shooting for over 25 years and the one thing I've learned about photography is, it's an art and everyone have a different way of preceiving it. Keep shooting & enjoy.

[Belmondo]

Vegas Poboy wrote:
Scott, great shots I love them bikes and keep up the good work.
I've been shooting for over 25 years and the one thing I've learned about photography is, it's an art and everyone have a different way of preceiving it. Keep shooting & enjoy.

Doggonnit I leave you guys alone for a few hours, and this is how you behave!


Vegas Poboy is right. Everyone has a different way of perceiving art, and I'd like to add that everyone has a different way of expressing it, too.

My initial comment about the sharpening was not an opinion---it was a sincere question about how someone else handles problems in digital photography that are common to us all. Please don’t take it in any other way. Bob’s question, though perhaps not delicately phrased, is similar in nature.

The fact is, the pictures are very good, and we’ve clearly established consensus on that.

As to Bob and Scott and their little dustup, I might suggest personal combat to settle the thing. If Bob wins, Scott has to composite some blue sky and clouds into his pictures. If Scott wins, Bob has to say something nice about Scott AND his pictures.

The rest of us can all watch.

Tom

[robertwgross]

belmondo wrote:
As to Bob and Scott and their little dustup, I might suggest personal combat to settle the thing. If Bob wins, Scott has to composite some blue sky and clouds into his pictures. If Scott wins, Bob has to say something nice about Scott AND his pictures.


Oh, the horror!

Nearly all of the photos that get posted on this forum are pretty good. Some of them are posted for the purpose of demonstrating a problem, or asking for advice.

If we all just blindly gush "Stunning!" at every one, then we aren't being completely honest with the original posters. If we see portions of the shots that we don't understand, then chances are that some other viewer won't understand them either, so it should be expected that we ask a question or two. I think it is extremely rare that any of us resort to insults.

I plead guilty to the charge of failing to sugarcoat my words.

Besides, I have tried like hell to "paint in" some blue sky to some of my landscape shots, and it just never looks right. I do have a graduated blue filter, though, in case the going gets tough.

---Bob Gross---

[defordphoto]

Wow. Everyone's been quite touchy on this forum as of late. It was a full moon on Friday. Maybe that's it.

So, the constructive thing is to suggest what he should have done to NOT blow out that sky. I have that problem too as I live in the NW, so I see lot's a grey skies. What is the solution? Graduated filter? Is that the only solution? I'd like a solution from the camera as I prefer photos as they come from the camera and not doctored digitally.

For constructive criticism on the original photo I will say that was the first thing that caught my eye is that is seemed real heavy on the USM. I see some minor stair interpolation in the cylinder heads.

Could you maybe upload a version that's not so sharpened. Sometimes soft is not a bad thing. It seems most digital shooters are obsessed with sharpness. With the cars and boats I shoot, when I use USM, it's usually 200,1,0. Most of the galleries I do are only sharpened through the BreezeBrowser HTML creator.

Incredible colors! Shooting cars and bikes and motorsports stuff is so cool!!

Also Scott, and I know that most times you have NO control over the background, but the background in this photo detracts from how beautiful that bike really is.

[robvonk]

I'd like to know too how to avoid blown highlights too. Is it avoidable at all? I've been on a trip to italy and had te time to experiment with shutter/aperture. I made about 600 pictures in two weeks :) But It's always a problem with highlights and darker parts. Flash fill isn't always possible. For example:

This picture was taken with a 210mm:

http://www.robvonk.com/files/lucca_parma/images/scaled_IMG_3498.JPG

Could the highlight on the top be avoided?

And would i have had the same highlight problem with analog film?

[martcol]

Perhaps this should move to a different post now, let me know and I'll start again....

Anyway, tsk, tsk, tsk Bob and Scott! This is a great place to be and I always value both your contributions. Bob, how about a little, just a little "sugar coating" now an' again?

I find that I am constantly getting blown highlights especially with sky in the shot and especially landscapes and flash (10D, 550EX). I have been using Exposure compensation more and tend now to underexpose 1/2 to 1 stop. I can lift the underexposed shots in PS. Problem though, is the colours tend to appear a bit muddy when I underexpose and that's not so easy to punch up in PS. Also, I don't particularly like having to spend a lot of time at the PC "correcting."

Is this something to do with "dynamic range?" Is that about the range of brightnes in a shot and the sensor's ability/inability to handle it? Is is just tough luck?

I think the bike pic in Scott's post has some blown highlights (is it called clipping?) in the headlamp and on the rear mudguard yet most of it seems utterly spot on. So, how should I cope with that? Also, back to the sky thing (no need for sugar coating now). No matter how you say it, it's blown. What makes it harder to fix in PS by say, dropping in another sky, is the confusion in th shot along the sky line. I mean confusion in the line and in the exposure.... Have a look especially in the top left corner. There's no edge to the umberella and a bit of bush come adrift. Now Scott, I feel bad cos I would rather be talking about one of my shots like this. The bike is a beaut! The colour's lovely etc...

I'm thinking about getting a graduated filter but don't like the idea really.

Main question - is this a feature of digital photography or is it just a bad photographer (don't answer that Bob!)

Martin

Martin

[MediaMagic]

martcol wrote:

Is this something to do with "dynamic range?" Is that about the range of brightnes in a shot and the sensor's ability/inability to handle it? Is is just tough luck?



um, yes


I'm thinking about getting a graduated filter but don't like the idea really.

Main question - is this a feature of digital photography or is it just a bad photographer (don't answer that Bob!)


this condition is true with film or digital. There are just some shots you cannot capture perfectly exposed in all areas without some help either from something like a graduated ND filter (and this will be a hit or miss for "perfect" exposure, depending upon the characteristics of the filter, you'd have to carry several to try to cover all possibilities for perfect exposure), or from blending two identical but differently exposed shots. The latter method gives the best results in my opinion, if you are shooting something that doesn't change in the period of time it takes to bracket the shots and there is a nice area on the shot to camaflouge the blend. If you are shooting something you can't bracket, say a prayer, sacrifice a chicken, and don't change shirts for a week before the shot. Otherwise, come back when the light is better, or just properly capture the part of the image that is important and realize that another part of the image will not be perfect.

Take care,
David

[scottbergerphoto]

RFMSports wrote:
Wow. Everyone's been quite touchy on this forum as of late. It was a full moon on Friday. Maybe that's it.

So, the constructive thing is to suggest what he should have done to NOT blow out that sky. I have that problem too as I live in the NW, so I see lot's a grey skies. What is the solution? Graduated filter? Is that the only solution? I'd like a solution from the camera as I prefer photos as they come from the camera and not doctored digitally.

For constructive criticism on the original photo I will say that was the first thing that caught my eye is that is seemed real heavy on the USM. I see some minor stair interpolation in the cylinder heads.

Could you maybe upload a version that's not so sharpened. Sometimes soft is not a bad thing. It seems most digital shooters are obsessed with sharpness. With the cars and boats I shoot, when I use USM, it's usually 200,1,0. Most of the galleries I do are only sharpened through the BreezeBrowser HTML creator.

Incredible colors! Shooting cars and bikes and motorsports stuff is so cool!!

Also Scott, and I know that most times you have NO control over the background, but the background in this photo detracts from how beautiful that bike really is.

Thanks for your comments. I actually like the look of the cylinder heads. I like to crank up the USM on objects with alot of shine and detail. Some like it and some don't. I usually start at 100/2/0 and gradually push the amount to where it punches me and then draw back. Some times I then add 50-100/.6/0. I guess it's really a matter of personal taste. I printed these out (the original sized ones) on my Epson 2200 at 8x10 and I loved the way they looked.
As far as the sky, I'm not good enough at Photoshop yet to manipulate images to that extent. I'll look into a graded ND filter.
Scott

[ChrisNardone]

What is the best thing to do when the range is too much for the sensor? I guess a grad. ND is the answer, but wouldn't a grey one be more 'true to the scene? '

[robertwgross]

chrisnardone wrote:
What is the best thing to do when the range is too much for the sensor? I guess a grad. ND is the answer, but wouldn't a grey one be more 'true to the scene? '

The graduated neutral density filter (gray) works pretty good if you have a really clean and straight horizon line. They are available in different degrees of "suddenness". However, in the motorcycle shot, the horizon was more complicated than that, so it becomes tricky where to set the transition line.

I also have a similar filter in blue, but it has almost the same problem. I can force the sky to appear blue, but then some unintended object on the right gets a dose of blue, and that would be awkward.

It is due to this trickiness with very wide dynamic range that makes the subject so difficult to capture, and that is why when we see one (once in a while) that is perfect in every respect, our jaw drops.

---Bob Gross---

[perfectpixel]

chrisnardone wrote:
What is the best thing to do when the range is too much for the sensor? I guess a grad. ND is the answer, but wouldn't a grey one be more 'true to the scene? '
as someone said before, blending two differently exposed shots on different layers in PS is supposed to be the answer. I even read somewhere that they were going to "throw away" their ND graduated filters since the PS method worked so well....
the problem is I haven't quite figured out how to do that well in PS using trial (and mostly) error. Does anyone know the link of a good tutorial on this subject or recommend a book?
cheers!

[perfectpixel]

robertwgross wrote:

If we all just blindly gush "Stunning!" at every one, then we aren't being completely honest
---Bob Gross---


I couldn't agree more

robertwgross wrote:

...some of them are posted for the purpose of demonstrating a problem, or asking for advice.
---Bob Gross---


I thought that was the function of critique corner though. Is that right?

[Andy_T]

chrisnardone wrote:
What is the best thing to do when the range is too much for the sensor?

What about modest fill flash?

Could help on the bike pictures, but maybe would take away the lovely shadows from the cheese pic.
Maybe if you bounce it?

Regards,
Andy

[martcol]

unstuck wrote:
as someone said before, blending two differently exposed shots on different layers in PS is supposed to be the answer.... Does anyone know the link of a good tutorial on this subject or recommend a book?
cheers!

I think the trick is in layer blending mode. Put one image over the other in a new layer and change the layer blending mode.

[stormbikes]

i also think you have overdone the USM in this case.
in most cases with my 10D i will use USM 250/1/0
initially and then redo if necessary. what sticks out
here straight away are the fins on the motor - it just
doesn't look right to me.


paul http://pauldurrantphotography.com

[defordphoto]

scottbergerphoto wrote:

Thanks for your comments. I actually like the look of the cylinder heads. I like to crank up the USM on objects with alot of shine and detail. Some like it and some don't. I usually start at 100/2/0 and gradually push the amount to where it punches me and then draw back. Some times I then add 50-100/.6/0. I guess it's really a matter of personal taste. I printed these out (the original sized ones) on my Epson 2200 at 8x10 and I loved the way they looked.
As far as the sky, I'm not good enough at Photoshop yet to manipulate images to that extent. I'll look into a graded ND filter.
Scott


I was also going to comment that the 'stairing' on the cylinder heads is properly due to our CRT's and more than likely looks fantastic on paper. We get different resutls in dealing with the two different mediums of paper and video.

[Belmondo]

If you follow the link in Scott's original post, you can see the pictures 'full-size.' They're really quite good, and worth looking at. The picture in his original posting is sized for screen resolution, so the diagonal lines are pretty jagged.

Tom

[MediaMagic]

unstuck wrote:
chrisnardone wrote:
What is the best thing to do when the range is too much for the sensor? I guess a grad. ND is the answer, but wouldn't a grey one be more 'true to the scene? '
as someone said before, blending two differently exposed shots on different layers in PS is supposed to be the answer. I even read somewhere that they were going to "throw away" their ND graduated filters since the PS method worked so well....
the problem is I haven't quite figured out how to do that well in PS using trial (and mostly) error. Does anyone know the link of a good tutorial on this subject or recommend a book?
cheers!

Here is one
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml

[scottbergerphoto]

belmondo wrote:
If you follow the link in Scott's original post, you can see the pictures 'full-size.' They're really quite good, and worth looking at. The picture in his original posting is sized for screen resolution, so the diagonal lines are pretty jagged.

Tom Thank you Belmondo!
A smart man speaks. The pictures you are looking at are 700K, downsized from 10+MB tiff files.
Regards,
Scott

[fotog]

Hi, I'm new here and new to digital. This is a great site and I have learned quite a bit in the short time I've visited. A lot has been said of the sky or lack of one. Maybe just recompose and eliminate it if it bothers you. Contrast ranges can be tricky. The shot was created to show a beautiful bike, may I suggest shooting at 2.8 to blur the background and eliminate the distractions and show off the subject better??? I think the bike would show better and the sky would not be a question for discussion. Everyone has a valid point of view and I'm assuming were here to learn and try to help one another. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Bill
coronadophoto.com

[HeatherJL]

http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/wave2.gif

As always Scott, I enjoyed viewing your photos. http://geoparent.com/community/icons/thumbgrin.gif I look through your galleries every so often to get ideas, etc.

And despite the slight disagreement that ensued, I learned a lot from this post and now I won't feel so bad when my sky looks white.

For the record, I believe in constructive criticism, but approach makes all the difference. :)

[scottbergerphoto]

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. For criticism to be useful it must be accompanied by a suggestion on how to make something better, otherwise it's just criticism without the constructive. The picture under discussion presents a common problem with film and digital, the limited tonal range of the sensor or film. The lighting was less that perfect, and frankly I was trying to get a good shot of the motorcycle without really thinking about the sky. Sometimes you have to sacrifice part of the picture to get a subject. I would have been more upset if I didn't expose the bike properly. That being said, if I was more proficient at photoshop, and the sky being blown out bothered me (it didn't before but it does now :) ), I guess I would have fudged it to look better.

http://www.pbase.com/image/22212814.jpg
Regards,
Scott