| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2003 10:38:00 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by alansfreed:
Originally posted by eloise:
See, and to me it doesn't, because they're completely different skillsets, and require separate learning. |
Thanks for helping me make my earlier point! Yes, they are two skill sets, and they work together. They're both necessary elements in becoming a better photographer. |
Actually, no, they're not. :-> Only the first one is. The second is required for becoming a better photo *editor*. I do admit that some skills used in photoshopping, and knowledge of how light works and so on that they give you, can aid you in becoming a better photographer, but it is not a necessary or sufficient condition.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 10:56:41 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by eloise:
Actually, no, they're not. :-> Only the first one is. The second is required for becoming a better photo *editor*. I do admit that some skills used in photoshopping, and knowledge of how light works and so on that they give you, can aid you in becoming a better photographer, but it is not a necessary or sufficient condition. |
While you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, it seems to fly in the face of the entire history of photography. People that get held in the highest regard as great photographers typically gain that accolade through the quality of their final prints. Photography is both an art and a craft and a large part of the craft is creating beautiful final prints. Ansel Adams is the most obvious and visible in this category but he is far from alone. Although some photographers use master print makers to do the final edits, its pretty unusual, other than in the commerical arena. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 11:04:05 AM · #128 |
This is only true to some extent and only seems to be for B&W negatives.
The photogs that shoot slide films have a lot less latitude for dodging and burning, because the slide film is a transparency, and not a negative (so if the shadow area is dark, well, you really can't bring out the details by shining lights through it, because it will still be blocked) While it's true some of the B&W photog masters do a lot of doging and burning, the newer color slide breeds such as Galen Rowell do not have that luxury. He instead, uses graduated neutral density filters to get the shot right in the first place. Also, it's much much more expensive to have your own color lab to do any of those work, than it is for B&W.
Maybe digital is the first "color" medium to allow dodging and burning like B&W guys do.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by eloise:
Actually, no, they're not. :-> Only the first one is. The second is required for becoming a better photo *editor*. I do admit that some skills used in photoshopping, and knowledge of how light works and so on that they give you, can aid you in becoming a better photographer, but it is not a necessary or sufficient condition. |
While you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, it seems to fly in the face of the entire history of photography. People that get held in the highest regard as great photographers typically gain that accolade through the quality of their final prints. Photography is both an art and a craft and a large part of the craft is creating beautiful final prints. Ansel Adams is the most obvious and visible in this category but he is far from alone. Although some photographers use master print makers to do the final edits, its pretty unusual, other than in the commerical arena. |
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 11:08:21 AM · #129 |
This is actually a POOR example to show how it is done. Sorry, but you're basically ADDING colors to colors that aren't there before. Dodging and burning only changes the intensity value of a given color (if done right). What you're essentially doing and what the photo show is basically digital art (or getting close to it).
Originally posted by Konador:
Dodge and Burn would make a great addition to the rules, and it's not at all hard to learn.
Here is an example I did a few weeks ago, during the fauna challenge. It was the first time I'd ever attempted to use dodge/burn and the results are far better than the original image. Think what you could do with a little practice :)
 |
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 11:13:00 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by paganini:
This is only true to some extent and only seems to be for B&W negatives.
The photogs that shoot slide films have a lot less latitude for dodging and burning, because the slide film is a transparency, and not a negative (so if the shadow area is dark, well, you really can't bring out the details by shining lights through it, because it will still be blocked) While it's true some of the B&W photog masters do a lot of doging and burning, the newer color slide breeds such as Galen Rowell do not have that luxury. He instead, uses graduated neutral density filters to get the shot right in the first place. Also, it's much much more expensive to have your own color lab to do any of those work, than it is for B&W.
Maybe digital is the first "color" medium to allow dodging and burning like B&W guys do.
|
I used to think this too until I started working with some local photographers and saw the amount of additional artwork they do on the final negative or positive prior to final printing. Mind you, it does't come cheap - typically they charge about $200-$400 per hour for the work, and people still pay for it.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 11:13:43. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 11:31:11 AM · #131 |
I vote for either no rule changes or for changes to be used exclusively in a subset of challenges - whether that be by having a third "spot editing allowed" challenge or to be applied to occasionaly challenges (maybe every other week editing is allowed or something like that).
I feel that people learn best when they have actual challenges to face. A proficient editor can fix a lot of problems with an actual shot but it is a different skillset to the one I believe this site aims to help us work on - TAKING of photographs, not the overall process of creating a perfect print.
Take the turtle shot given here as an example. People have said the editing made it worse and I largely agree - the loss of detail in the grassy shadow at the back of the turtle doesn't work for me at all. Somebody else with more experience of the technique might have been able to make that particular image sparkle but it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the picture that was taken. The composition, the choice of image, the sharpness of it, the framing, the moment that was caught. These are plenty of things to be working on and this site is helping me to do that. For me the limits on what we can post-process make a lot of sense - they make the task a challenge even for those who can do wonderful post processing and DCPrints allows them to edit to their heart's content to produce images they consider closer to perfection. This site is about meeting a challenge and improving a subset of the skills necessary to become a proficient digital photographer. I see that others would like it to test more skills but personally I think it would be a pity because it adds so much more to be learnt and disadvantages even further those who already have a long way to go. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 11:34:03 AM · #132 |
Perhaps this is the true reason for digital :-) I think for example, Velvia slides already have enough saturation for most people's needs and given that slide film only capture about 3.5 stops of light (B&W negative film is more like 4-5), i didn't think you can recover much of the shadow areas -- i think the solution people use for slide films is to over expose by a bit, so that the shadows are seen, and use the exposure time during printing to compensate for the exposure.
BTW, do those guys that do slide dodging/burning have to make a duplicate slide first? If so, then the resolution on the duplicate slide is similar to a 6 megapixel camera :) i.e. they lose resolution.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
This is only true to some extent and only seems to be for B&W negatives.
The photogs that shoot slide films have a lot less latitude for dodging and burning, because the slide film is a transparency, and not a negative (so if the shadow area is dark, well, you really can't bring out the details by shining lights through it, because it will still be blocked) While it's true some of the B&W photog masters do a lot of doging and burning, the newer color slide breeds such as Galen Rowell do not have that luxury. He instead, uses graduated neutral density filters to get the shot right in the first place. Also, it's much much more expensive to have your own color lab to do any of those work, than it is for B&W.
Maybe digital is the first "color" medium to allow dodging and burning like B&W guys do.
|
I used to think this too until I started working with some local photographers and saw the amount of additional artwork they do on the final negative or positive prior to final printing. Mind you, it does't come cheap - typically they charge about $200-$400 per hour for the work, and people still pay for it. |
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 11:36:04 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by paganini:
BTW, do those guys that do slide dodging/burning have to make a duplicate slide first? If so, then the resolution on the duplicate slide is similar to a 6 megapixel camera :) i.e. they lose resolution.
|
Mostly I think they are working with medium and large format colour negatives though. I could believe there is not so much latitude to work with slides. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 11:52:21 AM · #134 |
| No. I would like to keep it to no spot editing. Although I have a couple of dodged & burned photos in my portfolio, when I take photos for the challenges, I take them knowing that I cannot do any spot editing, including dodge & burn, and therefore challenge myself even more to get the best shot possible in camera. Personally, I think I would get too lazy knowing that I could correct the exposure problems in PS. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 11:57:34 AM · #135 |
seems like several discussions (though admittedly loosely related to the issue) are going on. What's the count so far, John?
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 12:48:36 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by karmat:
seems like several discussions (though admittedly loosely related to the issue) are going on. What's the count so far, John? |
40 yes
20 no |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 01:15:16 PM · #137 |
| Based on the results of this thread, I have asked Drew and Langdon if they would conduct a site poll regarding the use of the dodge/burn tool for challenge photos. I have requested that the poll description refer back to this thread for details. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 01:43:24 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Based on the results of this thread, I have asked Drew and Langdon if they would conduct a site poll regarding the use of the dodge/burn tool for challenge photos. I have requested that the poll description refer back to this thread for details. |
I think I'm neutral on this issue but I'd just like to say 3r4 days ago I bought Photo Shop Elements v2.0 and You can do dodge and burn with that
Program along with a lot of other things and it's not that expensive.
One store had it for $79. with a upgrade refund of $30. but I got mine
at Walmart for $58.66 + tax without refund. I'm not saying a person should get this but so far I'm real happy with mine. I used the dodge tool to remove spots from a old picture of my parents which was taken in the 1960's
Happy shooting Sue |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 01:55:31 PM · #139 |
I vote "yes" for both D&B and limited spot editing.
D&B because it IS a technique I've used for many years in both B&W and Color printing. I often use split ND filters in the field but even these photos sometimes need a little help.
Limited spot editing because I have experienced dust and/or spots on my CCD which I did not notice while shooting the photos. While I can correct them for other purposes, they are essentially verboten for entry into a challenge unless I can crop out the offending problem. The last time this happened it was a gnat which got into the camera while I was changing lenses. What a mess and I shot several hundred pictures that morning day. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:12:48 PM · #140 |
I'd vote yes for dodging and burning AND removal of hot pixels or dusts/scratches, but i'd vote NO for removal of unwanted elements or additional elements in a photograph. Not sure how you can enforce it, so maybe the best is NOT to allow any cloning.
So i'd vote yes for doging and burning and NO for removal of anything. (i.e. no use of clone tools) |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:22:43 PM · #141 |
| I believe you should allow dodging and burning as it doesn't alter the content of the photo, just exposure (back when we were exposing photo paper to light). |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:37:17 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by paganini:
This is actually a POOR example to show how it is done. Sorry, but you're basically ADDING colors to colors that aren't there before. Dodging and burning only changes the intensity value of a given color (if done right). What you're essentially doing and what the photo show is basically digital art (or getting close to it). |
Well the only tool I used was dodge/burn and a very minor hue/saturation adjustment applied to the whole image. I guess that makes you wrong.
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 14:39:32.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:50:31 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by paganini:
This is actually a POOR example to show how it is done. Sorry, but you're basically ADDING colors to colors that aren't there before. Dodging and burning only changes the intensity value of a given color (if done right). What you're essentially doing and what the photo show is basically digital art (or getting close to it). |
Well the only tool I used was dodge/burn and a very minor hue/saturation adjustment applied to the whole image. I guess that makes you wrong. |
That's the difficulty with using dodge/ burn on colour images, it does change the final colours at different rates (because its applied to each R, G, and B channel and changes the values non-linearly) so it stretches out the original hue relationships as well as the tonal relationships.
It might be worth exploring working on dodge/burn on only the L channel of an LAB image to see if that can be avoided though. |
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:52:03 PM · #144 |
It just means you take a very poorly exposed photo (as the highlights are washed) and then try to make it better by using dodging and burning tools in a very heavily way. Look at how it changes the intensity + the colors. Have you seen a turtle with that much BLUE? :) Too much dodging/burning will affect colors.
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by paganini:
This is actually a POOR example to show how it is done. Sorry, but you're basically ADDING colors to colors that aren't there before. Dodging and burning only changes the intensity value of a given color (if done right). What you're essentially doing and what the photo show is basically digital art (or getting close to it). |
Well the only tool I used was dodge/burn and a very minor hue/saturation adjustment applied to the whole image. I guess that makes you wrong. |
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:53:57 PM · #145 |
But these colours were there in the first place. None of them were added. If you look in the original you can see areas of blue on the turtle.
Also, to eloise, I never said the final image was good, I just said I thought it was better. The original was taken on a very sunny day which is poor lighting, so I burned the darker areas to bring out the texture more. I could have done it less, agreed, but I got it the way I wanted it to look, and thats all that matter to me. I couldn't care less if you would rather have a snapshot.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 02:56:49 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by paganini:
It just means you take a very poorly exposed photo (as the highlights are washed) and then try to make it better by using dodging and burning tools in a very heavily way. Look at how it changes the intensity + the colors. Have you seen a turtle with that much BLUE? :) Too much dodging/burning will affect colors. |
No i've never seen a turtle with that much blue. Do you therefor think there should be a LIMIT to how much dodge/burn is done within the proposed new rules, so the photographs are kept natural looking? It isn't like the current rules stop un-natural photos.
How many times have you seen a green-duotoned old man with a beard in real life? :)
Message edited by author 2003-06-06 15:00:09.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 03:22:30 PM · #147 |
All i am saying is that the example you show is used erroneously :) Dodging and burning is only used to extend the dynamic range, not to shift the colors. Besides, it's apaprent that from the dodged and burned photos that it's already digitally manipulated, and hence, not really a photograph. (i.e. it crosses the line into digital art)
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by paganini:
It just means you take a very poorly exposed photo (as the highlights are washed) and then try to make it better by using dodging and burning tools in a very heavily way. Look at how it changes the intensity + the colors. Have you seen a turtle with that much BLUE? :) Too much dodging/burning will affect colors. |
No i've never seen a turtle with that much blue. Do you therefor think there should be a LIMIT to how much dodge/burn is done within the proposed new rules, so the photographs are kept natural looking? It isn't like the current rules stop un-natural photos.
How many times have you seen a green-duotoned old man with a beard in real life? :) |
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 03:27:38 PM · #148 |
This is turning into a technique thread. Let's try to steer this back to "yes" I agree or "no" I don't agree, and maybe even "why" if you so choose.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 04:47:14 PM · #149 |
actually, if you don't like Ben's example, that makes it an even better poster-child for promoting the use of dodge and burn.
why? because it shows that it's not some magic tool that automatically makes a winning picture, that some people will use to "instantly win".
Just like anything else in photography, it has to be done right or well or pleasingly :).
|
|
|
|
06/06/2003 05:25:42 PM · #150 |
Actually i do support dodging and burning, but i am afraid that people will turn photos into digital art :) or pretty close to it. Also, you can dodge or burn unwanted elements in a photograph into the background as well (i.e. hide them) instaad of usingi t as a way to enhance contrast.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
actually, if you don't like Ben's example, that makes it an even better poster-child for promoting the use of dodge and burn.
why? because it shows that it's not some magic tool that automatically makes a winning picture, that some people will use to "instantly win".
Just like anything else in photography, it has to be done right or well or pleasingly :). |
|
|
