[raymondlin]

I was going to say I am sorry that you are not a fan of the look, but then I realise why am I apologizing for what I like? so I am not going to apologise for my processes, both in thoughts and photography. I don't care about whether it is film or digital either, all I care about is photography.

In terms of my images over blown on your monitor, I have bad news to tell you, it's a problem with your monitor, not mine. As I have had my images printed at professional labs and printers who does my wedding work and they come out exactly as my monitor.

In terms of the vignetting, the aim is to draw the eye more to the center, nothing more, all that old film, new Photoshop reasons means nothing to me. They are just a tool for the job. All I care is the final image, how I get there is irrelevant nor its history and technical reasons, both of which I am aware of very well.

I take all your points aboard, however, we are in disagreement on many. Not a bad thing, but its just a matter of opinion.

 

[Brandon7s]

I like your photos; very nice.

I really gotta get myself a 35mm (D60 here) prime. Something is lucrative about a fixed focal length, especially one so natural as 50mm.

 

[Head_case]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymondlin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was going to say I am sorry that you are not a fan of the look, but then I realise why am I apologizing for what I like? so I am not going to apologise for my processes, both in thoughts and photography. I don't care about whether it is film or digital either, all I care about is photography. In terms of my images over blown on your monitor, I have bad news to tell you, it's a problem with your monitor, not mine. As I have had my images printed at professional labs and printers who does my wedding work and they come out exactly as my monitor. In terms of the vignetting, the aim is to draw the eye more to the center, nothing more, all that old film, new Photoshop reasons means nothing to me. They are just a tool for the job. All I care is the final image, how I get there is irrelevant nor its history and technical reasons, both of which I am aware of very well. I take all your points aboard, however, we are in disagreement on many. Not a bad thing, but its just a matter of opinion.

Lol. I never get why people upload images and ask for opinions and then get hypersensitive about feedback

You don't seem to understand the concept of DMax; your images, are inherently high in contrast: that is, the blacks block up solid black, and the whites block up solid white, instead of showing normal gradation through the tonal range. This isn't a monitor issue (in any case, mine is calibrated by a Gretag Macbeth) - it's one of your camera's limited contrast capture medium.

You might try HDR techniques if you're interested in achieving a smoother tonal gradation/transition on your Canon. They don't work for every subject matter, but it adds an area of digital interest which is unique to digital.

 

[LFC_SL]

Oh wow thanks for the pics

I remember going on the cable ride when I was 12 and only realising just how high it goes when I saw workers maintaining the lines

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head_case /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lol. I never get why people upload images and ask for opinions and then get hypersensitive about feedback You don't seem to understand the concept of DMax; your images, are inherently high in contrast: that is, the blacks block up solid black, and the whites block up solid white, instead of showing normal gradation through the tonal range. This isn't a monitor issue (in any case, mine is calibrated by a Gretag Macbeth) - it's one of your camera's limited contrast capture medium. You might try HDR techniques if you're interested in achieving a smoother tonal gradation/transition on your Canon. They don't work for every subject matter, but it adds an area of digital interest which is unique to digital.

I appreciate feed back, but I have been down the roads you have mentioned, both HRD (sorry, its not for me), or that more normal graduation. My processing is me, my style, that's all it is, not digital vs film, I like the look, many people do. If I start adjusting it, for the sake of your criticism, I will lose what I have worked for, both in client base and a look that I am happy with. Trust me, on this road to photography, I have experiemented and I have found my voice so to speak, in subject matter, style and processing. I do understand your reasons but I have to decline applying them because by making those adjustments will take away what I think is what makes the photographs me, it is both a personal journey issue and a photographic one.

 

[markkr]

Amazing pictures!

I suck at photography... I tried, and tried, and tried... read books... practiced... still suck

 

[pcf]

Thanks for sharing the photos! I grew up in Hong Kong and your pics bring back memories for me.

Keep up the good work- digital or not, who cares.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head_case /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vignetting as a traditional optical technique in darkroom printing, obeys the cosine rule for light fall-off from image axis (corner to centre). There is no equivalence in traditional optics vignetting; Adams' relied on lenses

You think it is ok because Adams used a traditional technique that is physically sound. You think using photoshop is not because it is digital. If Ansel Adams has photoshop he might do things you will disagree as well, but he didn't do it because his only way of doing darkroom vignetting was by using chemicals and patience.

Why not just see these new post processing techniques as styles that defines modern day photographers? You might not love it, but they are not wrong. I went down your road before, thinking I have to make everything look real. And then I shot a lot, and I read a lot of books (including Adams 3 classic books) and look at a lot of pictures and now I am going to embrace the digital revolution.

Every photographer will have their own style. Love it or hate it, but nothing is wrong.

 

[Young Spade]

Very nice pictures

 

[luckybaer]

Nice shots!

 

[unl3a5h3d]

Those shots are amazing! I need to get a 50mm for my Pentax 35mm. I can't decide if I am going to get a D40 or 10D for my first DSLR? What do you guys think?

 

[Anthony1]

Great pics Raymond.. I hate using the 50mm on a 35mm setup.. I find it the most boring lens however you make it look good. Love short DOF shots and vignetting.
I use a 150mm on my hasselblad or my 50mm wide angle for all my pics.. never use the 80mm (50mm equivalent on a 35mm)

Was just in HK for a wedding and stayed in the Langham Mongkok. Had a great time.. I think HK is the NY of Asia

 

[fhuang]

no shots of any head-fier in Hong Kong

nice shots! sounds like you had fun in Hong Kong.

 

[raymondlin]

Added more to my Flickr

Processed the rest of them now and this is the final set.

1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8

 

[Born2bwire]

Ooooooh... colorific. I think the night life has a lot of possibilities for photography in Hong Kong. So much neon and flourescet lighting. I really need to get out one night to Mong Kok or Nathan Road and try taking some pictures but probably need to invest in a tripod for that.

Hmmm... some of those spots look mighty familiar to me....

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymondlin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Added more to my Flickr Processed the rest of them now and this is the final set. 5

Now that I look at it, you must have been further east I think. Star Ferry Pier I guess.