DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Long Exposure.....it's a Minimum!
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 211, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/13/2008 10:07:14 AM · #126
Originally posted by Jac:

That doesn't guarantee everyone will be playing on the same level though. If I can sharpen, saturate, and adjust other settings in camera then this can't be considered a straight from the camera challenge. It's creating another class of processing that some will use and some will not, unfortunately, as some use photoshop well and some don't.


This may be true in some abstract sense, but it is paring the definition down to the point where it becomes unusable. I doubt that ANY of us are using cameras that don't allow any user control of the image; even really low-end point 'n shoot cameras these days have picture modes of one sort or another.

Here's the way I look at it:

In my normal workflow, I shoot RAW images, then post process them in the RAW converter for correct wb, color saturation, sharpness, exposure, whatever. To many "purists", this is a "lazy" approach to photography; it makes it too easy to correct my mistakes.

The minimal ruleset came into being because a lot of people wanted to see how we'd all do if we were FORCED to get the exposure, the wb, the sharpness, the saturation, EVERYTHING right in the camera. It's not that these people don't think we should be able to adjust anything, it's just that they think its a usable, practical, even admirable skill to be able to get all this stuff right at the moment of exposure, that this produces the purest possible image.

And up to a point I agree with that: it is absolutely true that the closer we can come to "perfect parameters" at the moment of exposure, the "better" or "more skilled" we are with camera-as-tool.

**********

Now, if I read you correctly, you're saying that this STILL separates skilled, experienced shooters from beginners. And if I follow that line of thinking, I conclude that you're wishing we could have a challenge that derived ENTIRELY from what the shooter sees-and-frames-and-captures. But the only way to accomplish this, to eliminate all other variables, would be to have everyone use the exact same camera with the exact same settings, and obviously that's not possible.

And even if it WERE possible, how would you deal with, say, white balance? If we all are supposed to use, say, the same "daylight" wb, then those shooting indoors are gonna be flat out of luck, right?

So what we're basically dealing with is a situation where you gotta have either basic competence or striking luck to do well in this challenge. I think that's about as low as we can (or even ought to) set the bar.

R.
 09/13/2008 10:26:47 AM · #127
What he said...
 09/13/2008 01:33:24 PM · #128
Yes. It is about setting up your tool. Even more, it is about previsualizing in order to set up your tool properly. So we get knowledge of tool + imagination. Not to mention that third thing: accepting what happens. Is this not beautiful?
 09/13/2008 02:25:38 PM · #129
My question is why in the world wouldn't we want to separate skilled, experienced shooters from beginners? Skill and experience counts for something, right? Minimal editing takes away skill and experience with Photoshop, but it leaves the skill and experience of understanding your camera and how it works (including things such as picture modes).

Message edited by author 2008-09-13 14:26:24.
 09/13/2008 02:53:05 PM · #130
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My question is why in the world wouldn't we want to separate skilled, experienced shooters from beginners? Skill and experience counts for something, right? Minimal editing takes away skill and experience with Photoshop, but it leaves the skill and experience of understanding your camera and how it works (including things such as picture modes).


My problem isn't understanding and working with my camera, it's finding something creative, original, and fun to shoot for this challenge. Apparently, that's the part I suck at the most.
 09/14/2008 01:32:08 AM · #131
Referring to the apparent confusion about whether in-camera settings have pre- or post-shutter affect;

On my camera I have the choice, before I press the shutter, of such things as normal sharpening or softer, vivid and more vivid, black and white, and custom colour.
These tools I may use because I must still envision my shot and decide what will best actualise that vision, just as I must before choosing aperture, shutter speed and ISO.
Technically, the camera may apply the effect post-capture, I don't know, but it is CHOSEN pre-capture.

My camera also allows me to choose any of the shots I have already captured and apply D-lighting, red-eye correction, filter effects, image overlay and cropping. These I may NOT use, because they allow me to post-process shots I've already taken.

Message edited by author 2008-09-14 01:33:01.
 09/14/2008 10:24:11 AM · #132
Maybe this means the next challenge will be Expert Editing. Woo hoo
 09/14/2008 10:25:22 AM · #133
Well I am in and pretty happy with my image... but darn it was hard not to start the old usual work flow...
 09/15/2008 01:28:33 PM · #134
i dont think i can submit this but id like to share anyways

09/15/2008 02:42:35 PM · #135
unfortunately clean sensor dust isn't allowed :(
 09/15/2008 02:51:13 PM · #136
Originally posted by Rino63:
unfortunately clean sensor dust isn't allowed :(

Actually, sensor dust is allowed. You just can't remove it post processing ;-)
 09/15/2008 02:56:33 PM · #137
I'm dying to enter this challenge but none of my shots so far meet my standards. I've decided that as much as I love my little Fuji Finepix s1000fd, I need a better camera to better my shots. Sometimes I'll look at a shot and think, Ok I buggered that up, I didn't get the lighting right, the white balance is off, I set the ISO too high; other times, I look and think, if I only my camera was more powerful, it would've really made that shot pop. Time to start saving, I might just manage to scrape enough together to get a decent Nikon or Canon by 2023. Blah.
09/15/2008 02:57:43 PM · #138
Originally posted by LadyTara:
I'm dying to enter this challenge but none of my shots so far meet my standards. I've decided that as much as I love my little Fuji Finepix s1000fd, I need a better camera to better my shots. Sometimes I'll look at a shot and think, Ok I buggered that up, I didn't get the lighting right, the white balance is off, I set the ISO too high; other times, I look and think, if I only my camera was more powerful, it would've really made that shot pop. Time to start saving, I might just manage to scrape enough together to get a decent Nikon or Canon by 2023. Blah.


Sometimes I look at my shot and think, if only that talking monkey wasn't in charge of the kick-ass camera this picture would really be something.
 09/15/2008 02:58:36 PM · #139
Originally posted by violinist123:
Sometimes I look at my shot and think, if only that talking monkey wasn't in charge of the kick-ass camera this picture would really be something.

Says the guy with the ribbon on the home page...
 09/15/2008 02:59:22 PM · #140
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by violinist123:
Sometimes I look at my shot and think, if only that talking monkey wasn't in charge of the kick-ass camera this picture would really be something.

Says the guy with the ribbon on the home page...


Sit a thousand monkeys in front of a thousand typewriters...

eta: see, I can't even figure out how to pluralize 'monkey'

Message edited by author 2008-09-15 15:00:30.
 09/15/2008 03:38:43 PM · #141
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Rino63:
unfortunately clean sensor dust isn't allowed :(

Actually, sensor dust is allowed. You just can't remove it post processing ;-)


yes, you can't remove "major" elements from your photo ehehehehhe
 09/16/2008 03:35:25 PM · #142
I'm so frustrated. I did a shoot on location. The shots looked great in the camera display -- nice and bright, but not blown. When I got the JPGs on the computer, they were dull, and needed a Levels adjustment to look the way they did in the camera. I don't understand this. How am I supposed to take a good photo for 'minimal' if the camera doesn't show me an accurate representation of the image? Using Canon Rebel XTi.
 09/16/2008 03:50:44 PM · #143
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
I'm so frustrated. I did a shoot on location. The shots looked great in the camera display -- nice and bright, but not blown. When I got the JPGs on the computer, they were dull, and needed a Levels adjustment to look the way they did in the camera. I don't understand this. How am I supposed to take a good photo for 'minimal' if the camera doesn't show me an accurate representation of the image? Using Canon Rebel XTi.

Have you set your camera's jpeg settings? I am not sure how to do this on Canon's but you could either try the vivid mode, or the custom setting to increase contrast/saturation to have the camera do the processing for you. Should help.
 09/16/2008 05:37:24 PM · #144
A long exposure challenge two days after I shoot a 15 minute exposure - oh, the timing :P
 09/16/2008 05:38:38 PM · #145
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
I'm so frustrated. I did a shoot on location. The shots looked great in the camera display -- nice and bright, but not blown. When I got the JPGs on the computer, they were dull, and needed a Levels adjustment to look the way they did in the camera. I don't understand this. How am I supposed to take a good photo for 'minimal' if the camera doesn't show me an accurate representation of the image? Using Canon Rebel XTi.

Have you set your camera's jpeg settings? I am not sure how to do this on Canon's but you could either try the vivid mode, or the custom setting to increase contrast/saturation to have the camera do the processing for you. Should help.

Thanks, Joe. I'll try that on my next shoot. I was really hoping there was something I could do to get the file on the computer to match the view in the camera. Looks like there isn't. I'll have to be more careful to check the histogram on my next attempt.
 09/16/2008 06:00:48 PM · #146
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
I'm so frustrated. I did a shoot on location. The shots looked great in the camera display -- nice and bright, but not blown. When I got the JPGs on the computer, they were dull, and needed a Levels adjustment to look the way they did in the camera. I don't understand this. How am I supposed to take a good photo for 'minimal' if the camera doesn't show me an accurate representation of the image? Using Canon Rebel XTi.

Have you set your camera's jpeg settings? I am not sure how to do this on Canon's but you could either try the vivid mode, or the custom setting to increase contrast/saturation to have the camera do the processing for you. Should help.

Thanks, Joe. I'll try that on my next shoot. I was really hoping there was something I could do to get the file on the computer to match the view in the camera. Looks like there isn't. I'll have to be more careful to check the histogram on my next attempt.

Could be that the calibration is out on your computer, or possibly the even camera LCD. Best thing would be to test some of the camera presets out before you go out shooting to see which ones work the best for you on the camera and on the computer.
 09/16/2008 06:20:59 PM · #147
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
I'm so frustrated. I did a shoot on location. The shots looked great in the camera display -- nice and bright, but not blown. When I got the JPGs on the computer, they were dull, and needed a Levels adjustment to look the way they did in the camera. I don't understand this. How am I supposed to take a good photo for 'minimal' if the camera doesn't show me an accurate representation of the image? Using Canon Rebel XTi.


Not sure how radical a difference you saw, but I did notice that while the lcd on the camera did reflect the changes I made to the picture style settings, the final image when viewed on my computers (calibrated and not) did look quite a bit different. From what I can tell, the contrast on my camera's lcd panel is quite a bit heavier than on my 'big' flat panels and laptop screens.
 09/16/2008 06:45:36 PM · #148
I just got my shot today (out in the pouring rain I might add) and while I think it pretty much sucks, I've entered it anyways. Least I can say I tried.
 09/17/2008 07:26:30 AM · #149
Resize is resize, right? I have some options, I see (bicubic, bilinear, etc.), and I notice that some work at reducing noise better than others. Thought I'd share.
 09/17/2008 12:22:46 PM · #150
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
I'm so frustrated. I did a shoot on location. The shots looked great in the camera display -- nice and bright, but not blown. When I got the JPGs on the computer, they were dull, and needed a Levels adjustment to look the way they did in the camera. I don't understand this. How am I supposed to take a good photo for 'minimal' if the camera doesn't show me an accurate representation of the image? Using Canon Rebel XTi.


The same thing just happend to me!! I realy dont think there's anything you can do about it.. Im going back tonight for a re-shoot.. guess ill just over expose a little, and hope for the best. I had custom settings for saturation and contrast n all.. maybe ill try the vivid as well.

guess its still easier than it would be with film, so im not complaining.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 01:36:12 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 01:36:12 AM EDT.