Comments on: Nik Silver Efex Pro 3.0 Follow-up

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:59:07 +0000

RB
As far as I can see you are not Forceing anyone to view the site, so I am always perplexed by folks who visit a free site, and feel compelled (and justified) to offer criticism of what is appropriate content for you to put on your site.
Even harder to explain, is that if the basis for criticsm is the relative lack of clothing of persons depicted in the small image at the top of the post, why choose your site to complain about? I am told, that there are more than a few sites on the web that are Totally dedicated to people without any clothes at all. If this is true, then your critics are missing a huge opportunity elsewhere.
You should find out if this is really true , and if such sites do exist, you should provide a link as a service to these readers so their criticism can have maximum effect.
To be totally fair, you might have to do some research, and include some objective metrics— such as Square centimeters of skin vs square Cms of total screen area as
measured on a 23″ cinema display.
By compiling a database of “Skin ratios” you would then be able to post it at the bottom of each page as a helpful guideline for weather or not viewers should be offended.
(some calculus may be necessary in the calculation of the area of various non-rectilinear shapes, but since these shapes often recur algorithms could be developed)
Over time, enough data could be collected so that you could provide SEER (skin exposure efficiency rating) on each page.
Just like air conditioners at Sears This Page has a SEER of xx Other pages have SEERs from xx to xxx.
By providing this service you will greatly aid these concerned readers by helping them to realize that their efforts are really needed…elsewhere.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:04:43 +0000

For fine art, they don’t have to be VISIBLY naked, just UNDERSTOOD to be naked (without saying so). Also, use a broken mannequin in lieu of real broken naked people . If you don’t have a whole mannequin, just stick a leg or arm in the dirt or out in the water making sure that it perfectly follows the rule of thirds. The s**thouse and/or the tractor still has to be real though (and broken).

Also, don’t listen to the critics. They don’t know fine art and they don’t buy anything off of your links.

By: RB

RB — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:45:38 +0000

Jason,

I was fresh out of tractors yesterday – I am expecting a new batch soon. As for naked people I got too many nasty grams from my last naked people post to post naked people images for a while but you are right I really should have chucked a naked person in the foreground or maybe the water for this image.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:25:39 +0000

I like Silver Efex because I can stay within the Aperture workflow.

I don’t have PS simply because I’m not forking over $600+ for software that I will rarely use with a steep learning curve.

I’ve been very pleased with Silver Efex. The presets are useful for getting close to the final image and any of the presets can then be further adjusted and/or a control point used for local adjustment. Furthermore, presets can be exported and shared so that we can all have a “RB landscape preset” even if there are no Ansel Adams Lightroom presets (we still have not decided if there should be).

Is it worth it? It is for me, simply because it quickly gives high-quality results without a steep learning curve all without leaving the Aperture workflow. The interface is polished and straightforward.

PS: The above image can never be a fine art image. There are no naked people, broken things, or broken naked people things. If you towed a broken tractor up there or a S**thouse with the door falling off, it would then be worthy of consideration. Or better yet, simply exhibit a black image, say that it represents your anguish taken with your Leica and sell prints (small ones). I can say this because I KNOW art.

By: RB

RB — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:06:37 +0000

Answer to smart-alec #1,

If this were a fine art image I would crop it to 5×7 aspect ratio, add a vignette. Print a digital negative of exactly the right tone curve (yes I can do that) and contact print it on “silver gelatin” paper.

I would use some fancy language to imply that it was shot on a 5×7 view camera with a really expensive 65mm german lens and enlarged but not really claim that it was.

The title would be Jacob’s nose number 7. It was in the middle of like 14 or 15 images I shot today and the place where the grass is growing is called Jacob’s nose but I would not explain that.

Oh and I would probably spend like 15 minutes on it instead of 15 seconds and do some local adjustments.