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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> PP and usage of digital filters question
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 63 of 63, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/06/2013 09:36:17 AM · #51
Originally posted by vawendy:

Definitely agree in some cases -- definitely disagree in other cases.

I have certainly PPd the snot out of some things to save a shot. Though my pp skills aren't anything compared to others, so I'm not sure that's saying much.

Where I disagree is the fact that nature photographers can't control their environment. Yes. If you're doing a studio shot, it's laziness not to bother getting it right and depending upon pp to fix everything that you didn't want to bother with. Street photography and nature photography you just don't have that option. Either you just don't bother shooting, because you can't have perfection, or you depend upon the fact that you can do the darkroom techniques -- you can dodge and burn, you can saturate or desaturate, you can bring out what you want. Ansel Adams did things that I couldn't even begin to do in photoshop in his darkroom. Yes, he waited for the light, and that's probably why he didn't shoot many wildlife shots, but what he did with the negative was truly unbelievable. The camera is just part of the tool. It seems silly not to use all the parts of photography -- which as always been the taking of the photo AND the processing of the photo. Has photoshop allowed us to go overboard? Yes. Do people assume that we're going overboard all the time? Yes. Are we? You'll never know. Look at the minimal editing on white on white. People are seriously doubting some of the photos. I have a comment that doubts mine. It's definitely minimal.

Sometimes you may be surprised what's edited and just how much. :)


totally understand and agree and disagree too in varying degrees i do understand all through history people have processed to a greater or lesser degree, and some people including and especially wildlife and street photos have in the modern age been PP a lot more than in the past, but some were not, including photo jounralism which prides itself on out of the camera shots, does that mean that they didnt capture the shot in the same terrifying flying by the seat of your pants way that street and wildlife shots are taken and PP, or is it that we see todays shots and assume they're all PP because they had to be or just because they do regardless for print purposes, and the sign of the modern age where in digital everything has to be larger than life and more perfect than perfect to be good? i'll leave that upto the individuals to question that one for themself...

as for surprise about whats edited and just how much, sadly to be honest i would not be surprised but i think others might and sadly this is where my thoughts go when i say the above stuff... it doesnt mean i dont PP at all or how much etc.. i just see so much of it over done and that perception is that its a good photo just because of that and so the majority thinks that they cant and dont get a fair shot at the coveted ribbons because of it, and that the undercurrent of frustration is warranted... i hope that makes sense without upsetting too many apple carts lolal
 03/06/2013 11:28:20 PM · #52
Very interesting read and interesting points of view.

Regardless of the different opinions my initial question was whether the various plug-in's are only more convenient to use or if by using them one can achieve effects that would not be possible by just using of LR (or any raw converter) and PS (or GIMP).

Please continue, I am really curios.
03/06/2013 11:36:43 PM · #53
Originally posted by nam:
Originally posted by mikeee:
Ooh, here's an idea. If I give somebody one of my pics from a previous challenge would they PP it in one of these packages so I can see what the difference actually is? I am currently limited to GIMP 2.8 (through a combination of tghtness and lack of better information).


Did you get some more takers? I only saw one in the thread (Kevin). I'd be happy to play, probably just using the presets as they are but to give you an idea of some of the filters. I have Topaz Adjust and the Nik filters.

And I'll try to see what can be done with obsolete (older than GIMP) technology ...
 03/07/2013 08:48:02 AM · #54
Originally posted by Tiberius:
Very interesting read and interesting points of view.

Regardless of the different opinions my initial question was whether the various plug-in's are only more convenient to use or if by using them one can achieve effects that would not be possible by just using of LR (or any raw converter) and PS (or GIMP).

Please continue, I am really curios.

The abstract answer would be "No, a plug-in can't accomplish anything Photoshop's not capable of."

A plugin uses Adobe's imaging engine, its capabilities, to execute complex instructions efficiently. Would I know HOW to accomplish all this with Photoshop alone? Assuredly not. Could I LEARN? I suppose so, but WHY? Why would I undertake a project that involves, say, 13 separate steps and blending modes, to accomplish a task that I can now do by moving a couple of sliders in Topaz or Nik? Even Photoshop itself has "automated" many tasks we used to do by hand; that's the history of the product. If enough people are doing it, they'll find a way to make it easier.

So the practical answer would be "Yes, you can do stuff with Nik or Topaz that you can't reasonably accomplish without them, or a similar program."

Message edited by author 2013-03-07 08:48:18.
 03/07/2013 09:20:36 AM · #55
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by nam:
Originally posted by mikeee:
Ooh, here's an idea. If I give somebody one of my pics from a previous challenge would they PP it in one of these packages so I can see what the difference actually is? I am currently limited to GIMP 2.8 (through a combination of tghtness and lack of better information).


Did you get some more takers? I only saw one in the thread (Kevin). I'd be happy to play, probably just using the presets as they are but to give you an idea of some of the filters. I have Topaz Adjust and the Nik filters.

And I'll try to see what can be done with obsolete (older than GIMP) technology ...


Just Kevin at the moment. I missed the generous offers below and I'll send the image out tonight.

Though looking at my 'B is for B_____' scores, I may need to get that entry done properly too!

Message edited by author 2013-03-07 09:23:30.
 03/07/2013 10:01:10 AM · #56
Originally posted by mikeee:
Though looking at my 'B is for B_____' scores, I may need to get that entry done properly too!


I won't volunteer to try that one as my own entry is sub 5 as well.

I've had a very quick attempt at your image, but it's very challenging and I'm not sure I can even get as good a result as you managed, but I'll try and have a more in depth attempt soon.

Kevin
 03/07/2013 10:22:59 AM · #57
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So the practical answer would be "Yes, you can do stuff with Nik or Topaz that you can't reasonably accomplish without them, or a similar program."


I understand. Thank you very much.

I am on trial with Silver Efex Pro 2. A bit intimidating at the beginning but couple of moves after and I understand what you just explained. And the manipulation of the structure independently in the highlights, midtones, and shadows is good, I mean awesome.

... smoke, here i come

Edit: Did I say thank you?

Message edited by author 2013-03-07 10:23:39.
 03/07/2013 05:38:44 PM · #58
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tiberius:
Very interesting read and interesting points of view.

Regardless of the different opinions my initial question was whether the various plug-in's are only more convenient to use or if by using them one can achieve effects that would not be possible by just using of LR (or any raw converter) and PS (or GIMP).

Please continue, I am really curios.

The abstract answer would be "No, a plug-in can't accomplish anything Photoshop's not capable of."

So the practical answer would be "Yes, you can do stuff with Nik or Topaz that you can't reasonably accomplish without them, or a similar program."


all they do like lightroom is take the hard work out of doing the same with photoshop depending on your level of skill and as you quite rightly said they all use the photoshop engine! its about the level of skill with photoshop or any of the plugins that we are talking about! The question, you have to ask with so many people using Nik plugins silver efex and color efex, are they actually getting around the rule set with point source filtering? especially if the applied filter is working on more than one point in the image to work its magic on...
 03/07/2013 05:51:34 PM · #59
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tiberius:
Very interesting read and interesting points of view.

Regardless of the different opinions my initial question was whether the various plug-in's are only more convenient to use or if by using them one can achieve effects that would not be possible by just using of LR (or any raw converter) and PS (or GIMP).

Please continue, I am really curios.

The abstract answer would be "No, a plug-in can't accomplish anything Photoshop's not capable of."

So the practical answer would be "Yes, you can do stuff with Nik or Topaz that you can't reasonably accomplish without them, or a similar program."


all they do like lightroom is take the hard work out of doing the same with photoshop depending on your level of skill and as you quite rightly said they all use the photoshop engine! its about the level of skill with photoshop or any of the plugins that we are talking about!

You can essentially make your own (limited-purpose) "plug-in" by recording an Action in Photoshop.
 03/07/2013 06:36:08 PM · #60
Is Silver Efex legal in advanced?

Thanks
 03/07/2013 06:47:44 PM · #61
Originally posted by Tiberius:
Is Silver Efex legal in advanced?

Thanks

Sure is. In basic also if you don't use the control points or the vignetting/edge darkening tools.
 03/07/2013 06:54:41 PM · #62
Thanks!

Tried in PS and set the layer to luminosity. Would have taken me tons of work to achieve the same results in PS, IF.
03/07/2013 06:59:49 PM · #63
Originally posted by Tiberius:
Thanks!

Tried in PS and set the layer to luminosity. Would have taken me tons of work to achieve the same results in PS, IF.

There ya go! That's the whole idea. Great stuff!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/02/2025 06:31:20 PM

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: 10/02/2025 06:31:20 PM EDT.