<<< o >>>waste reflection 11 comments + add yours
chromasia.com

This was another of the shots I took the other day and I wasn’t really sure how it would turn out – after all, a waste bin isn’t all that photogenic. But I think it’s reasonably ok, and captures something of what I was after.

One thing that did occur to me while working on this image (partially prompted by a comment on yesterday’s entry) is the line between what constitutes a relatively straight photograph and an obviousy post-processed one. Yesterday’s entry is clearly post-processed, but is this one?

All of my recent images started out as RAW images and thus require various adjustments – Levels, Curves. saturation and sharpness – but at what point does this become obvious post-processing? Clearly the image is post-processed, but this isn’t what people mean when they mention post-processing and digital imagery. For my own part, I guess I use what’s available to create the image that I envisage, or, more often than not, the image that emerges out of the process of working with the original.

camera
capture date
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
focal length
image quality
white balance
optical filter
 
Canon G5
10.51am on 19/2/04
f2.8
1/15
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
50
17.6mm
RAW
auto
B+W UV 010
 
 
4x3
comment by Andrew at 11:05 PM (GMT) on 22 February, 2004

Again, nice eye for the symmetry. :)

comment by Mike Golding at 11:45 PM (GMT) on 22 February, 2004

"reasonably ok", try very good and you would be getting close. The line certainly has not been crossed, so much so that it does make me wonder what has been tweaked exactly.

comment by nantel at 11:55 PM (GMT) on 22 February, 2004

Wild guess, one of those round metallic trashcan?

comment by Deceptive at 12:56 AM (GMT) on 23 February, 2004

Very good. I love the colours and the straight line hitting the top left hand corner. The sharp reflection of the door works very well. I would have been tempted to clean the bin up a bit in Photoshop in the top right but thatís a minor detail. I really like this, great abstract.

comment by tomo at 05:24 AM (GMT) on 23 February, 2004

beautiful blue and texture.

comment by rod at 06:30 AM (GMT) on 23 February, 2004

Great image. You must have steady hands, low light, slow shutter speed. I'm shaky shaky shaky. If the colors were a little more harsh I'd say it was post-processed.

comment by milly rose at 09:14 AM (GMT) on 23 February, 2004

Very good. Nice angle, i though it was a bowling ball.

comment by djn1 at 09:20 AM (GMT) on 23 February, 2004

Given the discussion about post-processing I thought it might be interesting to put a few of the versions of this image online. If you're interested there are three different versions of this shot here – the 'original', the version I posted on the 22nd, and a new version (amended in light of Deceptive's comment).

The main version is now the final one, so if you're reading this for the first time and wondering what Deceptive might be referring to, go have a look at the second image on the examples page.

comment by Tom Brandt at 05:14 PM (GMT) on 23 February, 2004

Wow! Very good photo. If you think this is "reasonably ok" I think I have a lot of work to do before I ever begin posting any of my shots. Thanks for posting, I look forward to each new days posting.

comment by Keith at 09:47 PM (GMT) on 23 February, 2004

Thanks for posting the original versions. I have a Canon G5 at work and was noticed how I've been able to push the blues to be a lot richer than shots taken with my own coolpix 5000, and then I started checking out your site and noticed your blues being very saturated too. I have been wondering how much level corrections you do on your photos, this clears up a lot of things for me.

And as always, another great shot.

comment by chikuichi at 09:06 AM (GMT) on 28 February, 2004

I love your picture!!