| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2011 09:47:49 AM · #76 |
Well your post said it will be a different ballgame with advanced editing. That implies someone with photoshop skills may have an advantage by editing their bokeh. I'd like some tips on how I can enhance my entry. Maybe my PP skills (with outside tips) can get my entry from a 4.9 to a 6.5 or so.
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by kenskid:
What can be done in Advanced editing that can't be done in Basic editing as it relates to the actual bokeh being enhanced? |
Gee, I have no idea. |
|
|
|
|
04/21/2011 09:49:40 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by kenskid:
What can be done in Advanced editing that can't be done in Basic editing as it relates to the actual bokeh being enhanced? |
Gee, I have no idea. |
you can add a bit of gaussian blur selectively to your picture to "enhance" the bokeh, add gradient to a blown out area, use selectively sharpen/Topaz InFocus for sharper focused areas. you can mask out areas that you want to bring to the foreground...I'm sure there's more to be done "selectively". You can also use vignettes, lens distortion and spot healing/clone stamp to get rid of imperfections....(dirty lens)
|
|
|
|
04/21/2011 10:01:31 AM · #78 |
Ahhh now I see why hahn feels it would be a different ballgame. Kind of gives people with post processing skills an unfair advantage over those who are "stuck with what they shoot". Sort of like a city boy like me competing with someone who lives in the mountian wilderness when entering a wildlife challenge.
Originally posted by Ja-9:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by kenskid:
What can be done in Advanced editing that can't be done in Basic editing as it relates to the actual bokeh being enhanced? |
Gee, I have no idea. |
you can add a bit of gaussian blur selectively to your picture to "enhance" the bokeh, add gradient to a blown out area, use selectively sharpen/Topaz InFocus for sharper focused areas. you can mask out areas that you want to bring to the foreground...I'm sure there's more to be done "selectively". You can also use vignettes, lens distortion and spot healing/clone stamp to get rid of imperfections....(dirty lens) |
|
|
|
|
04/21/2011 10:08:49 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Ahhh now I see why hahn feels it would be a different ballgame. Kind of gives people with post processing skills an unfair advantage over those who are "stuck with what they shoot". Sort of like a city boy like me competing with someone who lives in the mountian wilderness when entering a wildlife challenge. |
Coyote bait. |
|
|
|
04/21/2011 10:20:39 AM · #80 |
Hee hee....
This thread interests me because I have a buddy (you may know) that always says people with photoshop have an unfair advantage over people who are "true photographers". He feels that nearly every photo on the site 1x.com would never make it if the photographer didn't have extreme photoshop skills.
I try to tell him that what he thinks is not the case and that skill and decent glass will give you something great to start with and post processing only enhances what is already a good shot.
After he reads this thread about advanced vs basic, he is going to be giving me the "I told you so" all day.
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Ahhh now I see why hahn feels it would be a different ballgame. Kind of gives people with post processing skills an unfair advantage over those who are "stuck with what they shoot". Sort of like a city boy like me competing with someone who lives in the mountian wilderness when entering a wildlife challenge. |
Coyote bait. |
|
|
|
|
04/21/2011 10:31:43 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Hee hee....
This thread interests me because I have a buddy (you may know) that always says people with photoshop have an unfair advantage over people who are "true photographers". He feels that nearly every photo on the site 1x.com would never make it if the photographer didn't have extreme photoshop skills.
I try to tell him that what he thinks is not the case and that skill and decent glass will give you something great to start with and post processing only enhances what is already a good shot.
After he reads this thread about advanced vs basic, he is going to be giving me the "I told you so" all day.
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Ahhh now I see why hahn feels it would be a different ballgame. Kind of gives people with post processing skills an unfair advantage over those who are "stuck with what they shoot". Sort of like a city boy like me competing with someone who lives in the mountian wilderness when entering a wildlife challenge. |
Coyote bait. |
|
ahhh, but NONE of those things are complicated or hard to do...many of those steps were/can be achieved in the Dark Room...if you were a "true" photographer that shot with film and did your own processing you can bet there was very little that was "pure" (IMO-a very unskilled opinion I might add) |
|
|
|
04/21/2011 10:41:30 AM · #82 |
May be true but it still doesn't change the fact that my bud says post processing skill is an unfair advantage over those who can't afford software or simply does not have the computer skill to enhance a photo.
Originally posted by Ja-9:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Hee hee....
This thread interests me because I have a buddy (you may know) that always says people with photoshop have an unfair advantage over people who are "true photographers". He feels that nearly every photo on the site 1x.com would never make it if the photographer didn't have extreme photoshop skills.
I try to tell him that what he thinks is not the case and that skill and decent glass will give you something great to start with and post processing only enhances what is already a good shot.
After he reads this thread about advanced vs basic, he is going to be giving me the "I told you so" all day.
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Ahhh now I see why hahn feels it would be a different ballgame. Kind of gives people with post processing skills an unfair advantage over those who are "stuck with what they shoot". Sort of like a city boy like me competing with someone who lives in the mountian wilderness when entering a wildlife challenge. |
Coyote bait. |
|
ahhh, but NONE of those things are complicated or hard to do...many of those steps were/can be achieved in the Dark Room...if you were a "true" photographer that shot with film and did your own processing you can bet there was very little that was "pure" (IMO-a very unskilled opinion I might add) |
|
|
|
|
04/22/2011 12:13:07 PM · #83 |
Firstly: I am going to bomb on this challenge in a monstrous way, because I am "Choosing" to enter a bokeh that does not incorporate the typical elements. Guess what: I'm cool with it. Don't get me wrong, I like my photo's to score well, but if I take no risks (in either form or processing) then I am not learning and/or expanding my skills. That said, I am okay if not every one of my photos scores well. . .especially in cases where the "popular" majority believes my photo does not meet the criteria when this is based solely on opinion.
Second: Post Processing is the name of the game in photography anymore. No one I know that shoots photo's for ass, cash or grass--and most who shoot for fun--fails to use heavy after capture software processing. For good or ill it has become a permanent part of the photographer's landscape. I sympathize with Kenskid's opinion, and agree, heavy post processors have an edge. However, I am shooting with a Canon 1000d, and could safely say that someone who owns a heavier Canon or Nikon (though not an Olympus--just teasing) has a natural edge on me due to equipment. Not to mention those folks who can afford laser triggers, studio lighting etc.
I would re-write the editing rules as follows (3 levels)
1) Straight from Camera
2) Editing (What would be advanced, as this is sort of standard anymore) and
3) Artistic (What we call Expert, now).
|
|
|
|
04/22/2011 02:08:30 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
May be true but it still doesn't change the fact that my bud says post processing skill is an unfair advantage over those who can't afford software or simply does not have the computer skill to enhance a photo. |
This is kind of like saying sports car owners have an unfair advantage in road races since not everyone can afford a sports car...
One thing I guarantee you, though; take away PP (use straight-from-camera rulesets) and the advantage will skew strongly towards two kinds of shooters; those who have (and know how to use effectively) professional lighting setups, and those who have (and know how to use) customizable shooting modes in their high-end dSLR cameras.
R. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 02:25:22 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kenskid:
May be true but it still doesn't change the fact that my bud says post processing skill is an unfair advantage over those who can't afford software or simply does not have the computer skill to enhance a photo. |
This is kind of like saying sports car owners have an unfair advantage in road races since not everyone can afford a sports car...
R. |
Oh, aye, the world is full of unfair advantages...
One can use the Gimp which is free, and learn pp from the wonderfully skilled and generous and patient people here.... And then again, one can choose not to, and simply concentrate on how to use the bokeh of which one's equipment is capable in a simply astounding and creative way. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 02:47:10 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
This thread interests me because I have a buddy (you may know) that always says people with photoshop have an unfair advantage over people who are "true photographers". |
I try not to step into threads like this anymore, but sometimes I just cannot help myself. Who exactly are these "true photographers" and where did they come from? I learned to shoot with a fully manual 35mm camera and then developed my own film and printed in a darkroom. When I didn't have access to a real darkroom, I taped up every crack that would allow light into my bathroom, put my enlarger over my sink and the developed my prints while bending over trays of chemicals in my tub. I would adjust my development temperature, time and sometimes even the chemicals to alter how the film would render the impression left by exposure to light. In the darkroom I used different types of papers, filters to adjust contrast, and all kinds of cardboard and paper shapes between the lens and paper to burn, dodge and create vignettes. For me, this was all part of the photographic process. I do the same things in photoshop today, but it's a lot easier on my body and on the environment, does this somehow make me less of a photographer? Should I tell my client that I cannot tone down the rosacea on her face because it will make me less of a photographer? I may not be a great photographer, but I did put in the time to learn the process from capture to final print. Now I'm not a true photographer because somebody else doesn't have photoshop?? |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 02:55:05 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Originally posted by kenskid:
This thread interests me because I have a buddy (you may know) that always says people with photoshop have an unfair advantage over people who are "true photographers". |
I try not to step into threads like this anymore, but sometimes I just cannot help myself. Who exactly are these "true photographers" and where did they come from? I learned to shoot with a fully manual 35mm camera and then developed my own film and printed in a darkroom. When I didn't have access to a real darkroom, I taped up every crack that would allow light into my bathroom, put my enlarger over my sink and the developed my prints while bending over trays of chemicals in my tub. I would adjust my development temperature, time and sometimes even the chemicals to alter how the film would render the impression left by exposure to light. In the darkroom I used different types of papers, filters to adjust contrast, and all kinds of cardboard and paper shapes between the lens and paper to burn, dodge and create vignettes. For me, this was all part of the photographic process. I do the same things in photoshop today, but it's a lot easier on my body and on the environment, does this somehow make me less of a photographer? Should I tell my client that I cannot tone down the rosacea on her face because it will make me less of a photographer? I may not be a great photographer, but I did put in the time to learn the process from capture to final print. Now I'm not a true photographer because somebody else doesn't have photoshop?? |
Well said.. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 03:15:37 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Originally posted by kenskid:
This thread interests me because I have a buddy (you may know) that always says people with photoshop have an unfair advantage over people who are "true photographers". |
I try not to step into threads like this anymore, but sometimes I just cannot help myself. Who exactly are these "true photographers" and where did they come from? I learned to shoot with a fully manual 35mm camera and then developed my own film and printed in a darkroom. When I didn't have access to a real darkroom, I taped up every crack that would allow light into my bathroom, put my enlarger over my sink and the developed my prints while bending over trays of chemicals in my tub. I would adjust my development temperature, time and sometimes even the chemicals to alter how the film would render the impression left by exposure to light. In the darkroom I used different types of papers, filters to adjust contrast, and all kinds of cardboard and paper shapes between the lens and paper to burn, dodge and create vignettes. For me, this was all part of the photographic process. I do the same things in photoshop today, but it's a lot easier on my body and on the environment, does this somehow make me less of a photographer? Should I tell my client that I cannot tone down the rosacea on her face because it will make me less of a photographer? I may not be a great photographer, but I did put in the time to learn the process from capture to final print. Now I'm not a true photographer because somebody else doesn't have photoshop?? |
Well said x 2. BTW, I think this is the crux of this argument, which is philosophically,
"WHAT IS PHOTOGRAPHY?"
I think that including processing (Software or Darkroom) as part of the art is essential, and we as a community need to push towards that view. Just as learning which chemicals, lighting, and time had to be used to process a photo in dark room, so now do we MUST learn photo editing to reach the peak of our art.
It is awesome to have challenges where our hands are tied in one way or another, but overall, Software Editing (and unfortunately its expense) is a tool of the trade--no different than the lenses I use, and no longer an option for the daring.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2011 03:17:40 PM · #89 |
In the old chemical days, where the "true photographers" the guys who got their prints at the local drug store, or the guys who spent their weekends in the dark room?
I always thought the truly dedicated could be seen by their fingernails gone soft and yellow by submersion in fixative, torturing their negatives into prints through masks and friskets and clever chemical exposure, of making your own emulsions for their paper because you cant buy what you want. The guys who's sweaters had holes in the front, and were pasty white from getting less sun than a mushroom over a weekend. They were the ones with the big prints with rich blacks and glowing whites that knocked your socks off.
Since photography gave up glass plates and contact printing, the image is only half made once you snap the image. There need to be as many important decisions made in post as their are in set up. Digital just made it easier than chemical, same rules apply. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 03:53:06 PM · #90 |
I agree with all the comments I've read. It is unfortunate that software is so expensive and true, not everyone can afford it. It's not just the cost that prohibits PP software but the time involved in learning it. That said, it's not a reason to limit challenges to basic or no editing. I do agree that there should be a "Straight from the camera" challenge from time to time to force all of us to use the most basic of photography skills like composition, perspective, exposure, focus, and white balance. No crop or adjustments to make up for lack of vision. I know it would force me to slow down and really look through the viewfinder before pulling the trigger. Not to mention having to move around and use my feet rather than a mouse and keyboard. And don't try to compare the darkroom to current editing software. How many photographers minus the very serious experts ever used their personal darkroom to add the effects you see in photos today.
So lets have our cake and eat it too.
Just saying. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 05:23:26 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by crowis:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Originally posted by kenskid:
This thread interests me because I have a buddy (you may know) that always says people with photoshop have an unfair advantage over people who are "true photographers". |
I try not to step into threads like this anymore, but sometimes I just cannot help myself. Who exactly are these "true photographers" and where did they come from? I learned to shoot with a fully manual 35mm camera and then developed my own film and printed in a darkroom. When I didn't have access to a real darkroom, I taped up every crack that would allow light into my bathroom, put my enlarger over my sink and the developed my prints while bending over trays of chemicals in my tub. I would adjust my development temperature, time and sometimes even the chemicals to alter how the film would render the impression left by exposure to light. In the darkroom I used different types of papers, filters to adjust contrast, and all kinds of cardboard and paper shapes between the lens and paper to burn, dodge and create vignettes. For me, this was all part of the photographic process. I do the same things in photoshop today, but it's a lot easier on my body and on the environment, does this somehow make me less of a photographer? Should I tell my client that I cannot tone down the rosacea on her face because it will make me less of a photographer? I may not be a great photographer, but I did put in the time to learn the process from capture to final print. Now I'm not a true photographer because somebody else doesn't have photoshop?? |
Well said x 2. BTW, I think this is the crux of this argument, which is philosophically,
"WHAT IS PHOTOGRAPHY?"
I think that including processing (Software or Darkroom) as part of the art is essential, and we as a community need to push towards that view. Just as learning which chemicals, lighting, and time had to be used to process a photo in dark room, so now do we MUST learn photo editing to reach the peak of our art.
It is awesome to have challenges where our hands are tied in one way or another, but overall, Software Editing (and unfortunately its expense) is a tool of the trade--no different than the lenses I use, and no longer an option for the daring. |
hear...hear...this is great...and well said by many on this thread.
So I've taken about 300+ pictures over about 3 days now (sad to say) as I love Boken and I'm really, really trying to get it right...sigh so if I don't have SOMETHING in those 300+ pictures....I should just blooming give it up...lol |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 06:02:58 PM · #92 |
| It's been too cold here for me to find many bugs to try to defend my title! Dang! |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 06:30:46 PM · #93 |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 06:30:53 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's been too cold here for me to find many bugs to try to defend my title! Dang! |
Are you kidding? Photographers usually have to put bugs in the refrigerator so they'll hold still ... and stay in focus within that shallow DOF you're using ... maybe you're just nor crawling under the right rocks ... ;-) |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 07:01:17 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's been too cold here for me to find many bugs to try to defend my title! Dang! |
Are you kidding? Photographers usually have to put bugs in the refrigerator so they'll hold still ... and stay in focus within that shallow DOF you're using ... maybe you're just nor crawling under the right rocks ... ;-) |
I never thought of that idea. Hmmmm. I wonder if it will work for kittens and small children. : )
|
|
|
|
04/22/2011 07:20:33 PM · #96 |
| Th other one that works for bugs is super glue, and I know that it works on infants (but Im not allowed to talk about it as part of the out of court settlement) |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 07:22:52 PM · #97 |
| I don't know...staple guns and duck tape is superb ... just not so pretty to photograph...lol |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 07:33:19 PM · #98 |
I wonder if I can repeat my success :)
Even a second place, it's out of 362 images ;) |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 08:29:08 PM · #99 |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 11:45:52 PM · #100 |
| Been poorly all this year and only used my camera on two occasions - saw the Bokeh challenge announced on Monday morning, thought Yay, I actually feel like getting out into the garden and trying to get my mojo back. Promptly had major exacerbation of breathing problems, and ended up spending three days in hospital; but out now, and am going to take some photos today when the sun comes up, just have to see if I can remember how to use my camera! |
|
