| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2005 02:43:24 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Just one question: When we say "Out of cam" are we talking no in-camera processing, ie. sharpening, contrast etc.? if not then the shot has been manipulated in camera, am I correct? Would we also be saying post raw because raw conversion also has many editing options via sharpening,brightness,contrast!
Just wonderin. |
I think it varies person to person. I am fairly loose in my definition. But I don't even want to go there - for me it is more conceptual than nit piking details. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 02:49:31 PM · #27 |
| Guys and Gals, lets not get too upset. All I am trying to say is that if you get it right in the camera, then anything you do in photoshop will be so much better. If is not really good the first time go take it again and learn what went wrong. If you want to be a photo artist. go for it. But please don't fool yourself by fixing a bad photo in photoshop and thinking you are learning photography. Photography and Photoshop are two different ideas. From the past versions of photoshop I wonder if the developers even know what a camera is, or an enlarger in a dark room. Photoshop is just starting to get a handle on it. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 02:54:02 PM · #28 |
I was referring to the original post, John is a very skilful photographer and his out of cam shots may be totally different to say mine, simply because of the in-camera settings ?
not picking an argument, just askin :) |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 02:56:22 PM · #29 |
| I totally agree with gwphoto. I am someone who did most of my work on shooting slide film too. Life is so much easier if you can get it right. Just because you have a digital doesn't mean you shoot thousand shots a day and then sit at a computer and having a hard time deleting any of the images. If you learn the basics and know what you are doing and get the exposure you want, you'd have a better time shooting and even with the final presentation. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 02:58:46 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by peecee:
I was referring to the original post, John is a very skilful photographer and his out of cam shots may be totally different to say mine, simply because of the in-camera settings ?
not picking an argument, just askin :) |
I think we are all going in very polite (this is good!) circles, so I just want to say I think we're all on somewhat the same page and my reference to nit-picking was only aimed at mysef!! ;o) I am just trying to concentrate on the joy of taking photos this week! |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:03:35 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by peecee:
I was referring to the original post, John is a very skilful photographer and his out of cam shots may be totally different to say mine, simply because of the in-camera settings ?
not picking an argument, just askin :) |
There are a lot of fine photographers here and then there a lot of people learning the craft. You have a fine camera. But have you ever taken if of auto and just used it in manual? It is really the only way to learn the craft. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:10:27 PM · #32 |
I take your point very seriously Greg, you are correct, this was drubbed into me when I first got my cam and I don't or hardly ever shoot auto,apart from the white balance or sometimes program mode.I try to shoot using the histogram as a guide etc and slowly I am learning.
I was more referring to the different parameter settings available on the better dslr, surely they can make a substantial difference to the image before software processing? |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:12:54 PM · #33 |
If you check out my web site. //www.gwphoto.ws and look at the commercial link. Everything there was shot on slide film, for printing in 4 color process, where your exposures, highlight and shadows have to bet right on. I am sure with some post processing in photoshop the images could be made better, but when mose of those photos were taken photoshop was just getting started. The shot in the kitchen took my lighting assistant and myself 4 hours to get the strobe lights right. What do you think of the photos?
Message edited by author 2005-03-29 15:15:26. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:19:36 PM · #34 |
I only use manual in certain circumstances such as shooting a bird in flight. Otherwise it is much to my advantage to shoot in aperture priority. All my settings are standard raw without in camera sharpening. Basically the better you can do in camera the better your chances of a good final print, Photoshop or not.
Photoshop is a tool just as the camera is. I would say the camera was the more important of the two as you could get a good print right from the camra without PS, but the reverse is obviously not true. That said I still consider Photoshop a valuable tool that I would hate to be without.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:22:06 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
If you check out my web site. //www.gwphoto.ws and look at the commercial link. Everything there was shot on slide film, for printing in 4 color process, where your exposures, highlight and shadows have to bet right on. I am sure with some post processing in photoshop the images could be made better, but when mose of those photos were taken photoshop was just getting started. The shot in the kitchen took my lighting assistant and myself 4 hours to get the strobe lights right. What do you think of the photos? |
I have had a quick look and will return, your pictures are,as I expected excellent, but you are not answering my question, the parameters in a dslr change the outputted image conciderably via the sharpness,contrast, saturation etc. all I am saying people who have much experience using these settings can get a much better "raw" or straight from the camera shot than the novice using the same camera on different parameters. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:28:04 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
If you check out my web site. //www.gwphoto.ws and look at the commercial link. Everything there was shot on slide film, for printing in 4 color process, where your exposures, highlight and shadows have to bet right on. I am sure with some post processing in photoshop the images could be made better, but when mose of those photos were taken photoshop was just getting started. The shot in the kitchen took my lighting assistant and myself 4 hours to get the strobe lights right. What do you think of the photos? |
I have had a quick look and will return, your pictures are,as I expected excellent, but you are not answering my question, the parameters in a dslr change the outputted image conciderably via the sharpness,contrast, saturation etc. all I am saying people who have much experience using these settings can get a much better "raw" or straight from the camera shot than the novice using the same camera on different parameters. |
You are correct. That is why they should try different settings and learn what works best for them. They should even use only manual for some tests so they get an understanding of how to best use the camera. I think of a RAW file as nothing more that a negative. Incamera processing is an advantage as long as you know how the different settings are going to effect the jpg.
Did that answer your question? If not I might be missing yoru point. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:33:11 PM · #37 |
Thanks Greg, you answered my question well.
So it must be true that a more experienced photographer would certainly have the upper hand in a " out of cam " challenge.
Thanks, a very interesting discussion, time for bed,
Regards all,
Paul. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:35:10 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Thanks Greg, you answered my question well.
So it must be true that a more experienced photographer would certainly have the upper hand in a " out of cam " challenge.
Thanks, a very interesting discussion, time for bed,
Regards all,
Paul. |
Your welcome my friend.. But to say that the more experienced photographer would have an advantage, it would only be in the techincal sence. You still have to make an image that is appealing to the buyer.
Message edited by author 2005-03-29 15:38:24. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 03:48:18 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
See, the problem with all you guys that are photoshop wizards, is that you have never really learned how to get a the best proper exposure. |
Sorry I'm late...but this is rather insulting.
For the comparison images I posted above, I got exactly the exposure I wanted to get to be able to do what I wanted to do to the image.....kept texture on the water, and still got detail in the shadows of the guys.
Had I metered it to sillouette the guys as strongly as they are in the finished product, you never would have been able to see the detail on the guitars, which I wanted to include.
The bottom line? Just because it's not your style doesn't make it inferior.
Message edited by author 2005-03-29 15:48:39.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 04:55:59 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by sfboatright:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
See, the problem with all you guys that are photoshop wizards, is that you have never really learned how to get a the best proper exposure. |
Sorry I'm late...but this is rather insulting.
For the comparison images I posted above, I got exactly the exposure I wanted to get to be able to do what I wanted to do to the image.....kept texture on the water, and still got detail in the shadows of the guys.
Had I metered it to sillouette the guys as strongly as they are in the finished product, you never would have been able to see the detail on the guitars, which I wanted to include.
The bottom line? Just because it's not your style doesn't make it inferior. |
Yup, back around full circle, that's really the point. The real issue is, what is the photographer's vision, and how can he use the tools at his disposal to achieve it? We can ignore, for the moment, the use of PS to correct "flaws" in the image, okay? I'll agree 100%, the more perfect you can make the image in camera, the better off you are. PS is not an excuse to get lazy with your camerawork,a nd the fundamentals of good photography do not change because PS has entered the picture.
But here's the thing; someone is talking about "faithfully" reproducing a scene, and how this is "pure" photography. I'd like to explore that. Tonight at twilight I wille xplore it as follows: I will emerge from my well-lit living room, which is illuminated by tungsten lights, and marvel at how pure and vibrant and blue the twilight is. And I will stand there on my deck and watch the blue fade to gray. Then I will tunr around, walk inside, and notice how yellow my livining room looks. I'll stay there a minute and watch it turn white, then go back outside and enjoy my blue twilight.
Get my point?
When it comes to colors especially, "reality" is a figment of your imagination, it's whatever you want it to be. Take a film camera, load it with velvia film, shoot your favorite local scenic, then switch to extachrome and shoot it again. Compare the slides. Both are "out of camera" and they are like night and day, color-wise.
But," I hear you saying, "choosing the right film is part of the photographer's skill set!"
Yes, indeed, that's quite correct. AND SO IS CHOOSING HOW TO HANDLE THE COLOR PARAMTERS IN PHOTOSHOP.
I could go on, but I'm sure everyone sees what I mean. PS is just a darkroom in a box. At a fundamental level, nothing is going on int here that film photographers haven't had to work aroundin their own way for decades. Contrast, color saturation, graininess, cropping, dodging, burning, dust removal, you name it.
Now, there's ANOTHER level of photoshop that involves the creation of illusions out of nothing, and I quite agree that this goes BEYOND photography, that a photograph is just a starting point here. But to use PS the way I do, at least, (most of the time anyway) is to use it as a very sophisticated darkroom that allows me to replicate with enviable precision what I saw in my mind's eye when I composed the image with my camera.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:08:22 PM · #41 |
| Robert, I think you are saying just what I am saying, just in another way. And my comments are not meant to offend somone that understands photography. I do think that people with point and shoot cameras are cheating themselves as most will never leard the craft, and by craft I mean how light effects the film (sensor, and each camera is different), and how to use those expensive cameras to get the best possible image first. In my opinion, when you make a photo and you don't have to do anything with it but print it then you have done it... You are correct about the darkroom. Filters also have been used many times to enhance a scene, but it was all done correctly the first time. Yes darkroom wizards could do wonders too. My point is that people tend to get lazy and just say, "I'll fix that in photoshop" And I do agree there are things that you have no control over and photoshop is fantastic for those things. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:12:56 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Robert, I think you are saying just what I am saying, just in another way. And my comments are not meant to offend somone that understands photography. I do think that people with point and shoot cameras are cheating themselves as most will never leard the craft, and by craft I mean how light effects the film (sensor, and each camera is different), and how to use those expensive cameras to get the best possible image first. In my opinion, when you make a photo and you don't have to do anything with it but print it then you have done it... You are correct about the darkroom. Filters also have been used many times to enhance a scene, but it was all done correctly the first time. Yes darkroom wizards could do wonders too. My point is that people tend to get lazy and just say, "I'll fix that in photoshop" And I do agree there are things that you have no control over and photoshop is fantastic for those things. |
I accept what you've just said. I'd only liek to add, if that's the true measure of what youw anted to communicate then the following was a most unfortunate way of phrasing it:
" See, the problem with all you guys that are photoshop wizards, is that you have never really learned how to get a the best proper exposure."
Agreed? It's hardly kosher to criticize people for mastering their craft, now is it?
So let us go in peace :-)
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:23:29 PM · #43 |
My comparison photos show that the edited version does not fall under basic editing because I used the healing brush to remove two or three imperfection spots that I didn't like on my subject.
Other than that, this photo follows basic editing.
I suppose that if the challenge is to get the most out of your camera rather than post your best image, the challenge is not really one of 'photography' as much as it is 'camera skill'. I could have exposed the original image in a way to get closer to what my final result looks like, but I simply could not have achieved it. I could have produced a half-assed in camera attempt at it.
Do we really need challenges to force a photogrpaher to do something they should be doing anyway? If a photographer wants to excel in the art of photography, he/she will learn proper exposure technique. I think I can, in most cases, create a proper exposure and I didn't have any challenges in past history to force me to learn that. Any way you look at it, photography is about the finished image, whether it be photojournalistic realism or photographic art. The roads to get to that finished image will vary. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 07:05:42 PM · #44 |
Now I'm confused! Since I have been on dpc I have learnt lots and probably the most important is to frame my picture in camera (I used to drop a lot) and have purchased the tools to let me do that (specific lenses). I shoot raw now so need photoshop to finish a picture. Its funny that one of the most talked about challenges recently was Ansel Adems, I believe I'm right in saying he would often spend a week in the darkroom 'finishing' a picture?
I recently proposed an 'out of camera' challenge and whilst I think it would be a great challenge I also believe that pp has its place in photography.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 07:12:26 PM · #45 |
EVERY image needs post-processing.
That would be like submitting a negative instead of a print for a film-based photography challenge.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 07:14:00 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
EVERY image needs post-processing.
That would be like submitting a negative instead of a print for a film-based photography challenge. |
What about a slide? That image does NOT need post processing... |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 07:17:34 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
EVERY image needs post-processing.
That would be like submitting a negative instead of a print for a film-based photography challenge. |
What about a slide? That image does NOT need post processing... |
Agreed, that would certainly be true. Are there many photo challenges that accept slides? I'm not aware of any, but could be living in a virtual cave when it comes to these things. :)
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 08:33:57 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Agreed, that would certainly be true. Are there many photo challenges that accept slides? I'm not aware of any, but could be living in a virtual cave when it comes to these things. :) |
My local camera club has competitions that are for slides only, and others where slides are entered along with various other formats. I think there used to be a lot of slides only photo contests, but less now since digital is taking over.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 08:43:09 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I could go on, but I'm sure everyone sees what I mean. PS is just a darkroom in a box. At a fundamental level, nothing is going on int here that film photographers haven't had to work aroundin their own way for decades. Contrast, color saturation, graininess, cropping, dodging, burning, dust removal, you name it. |
I wish you hadn't included dodge & burn in the same category as those other techniques. It really isn't a basic skill in post processing. And it's not something you can do with a camera if you have more skill and/or better equipment. And please don't tell me again that it could be done in an old fashioned, non-digital darkroom. I know that, but it's irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 10:22:33 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
EVERY image needs post-processing.
That would be like submitting a negative instead of a print for a film-based photography challenge. |
What about a slide? That image does NOT need post processing... |
Slides get post processed automatically. That's why people like slide film. |
|
