| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/23/2005 10:47:55 AM · #26 |
| I really think one can learn photography all the while applying editing techniques... in fact, in the world of glamour, photografers that did not master the softwares were either left behind or had to hire graphic artists. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 10:59:40 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by bruski:
Event photographers ... |
Having shot a medium sized event this weekend, I can tell you out of the 2,000 shots I took in two hours, none of them have been, or will be, edited. I specifically chose event photography because a lot of the time, just due to volume, there's no chance of editing them.
Originally posted by bruski:
photojournalists do adjust all their images too. They do not take the images straight from the camera and send them to print. No they can't alter the image as far as content goes, but they do take out dust spots, do color correction, crop and sharpened every image. |
I agree that some do, but "all" I think is a bit of a sweeping statement. A good number of the images I send to magazines have very little editing. I agree to a degree about cropping because obviously that depends on layout, etc. |
But you did some editing, even if a little. =) |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 11:02:20 AM · #28 |
| Photoshop is a great tool. Until receintly I was very limited on my knowledge of that program. My newest portfolio additions shows that. (I think!). Without using the program, all my photo's would be on the bottom. Very rare do I have a out the camera ready to print shot. My limits I guess. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 11:35:38 AM · #29 |
Yawn.
IMHO:This topic is so tired.
To take a shot 'straight from the camera' only proves one thing.
The quaility of your lens and or camera.
None of the 'great' and famous living and dead photographers did (do) 'straight from the camera'.
Please note: I said IMHO
:)
If a shot is presented here that is "over Photoshoped" the voters will decide. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 01:21:24 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Of course the images would not look as "polished" as they do in one of our regular challenges, especially Advanced Rules challenges. The voters would just have to take that into consideration. But I think they are up to it. We are learnig to accept the occasional sensor dust spot in the Basic Rules challenges. |
Since when have the voters taken anything into consideration? They normally look for the smallest possible explanation of the topic description and for the most part crucify anyone that deviates from that voter's personal interpretation. Have some sensor dust? You will likely receive 20 comments on that alone, and most will not even talk about anything else. Any flaw is magnified significantly and not always commented on in a way to to either improve or acknowledge that the flaw could not be helped. You think voters are going to forgive an image that doesnt have the right white balance, color balance, contrast, sharpness or the like?
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 02:04:33 PM · #31 |
Mostly, My partner, and I, shoot film. Digital is relatively new to us. Most of our work is purchased as original transparency (that would be a medioum, or large, format slide, for those of you who do not know). Obviously, no editing is done. What is photographed, is what is sold. The skill is in the actual photography, not in the post processing.
My last entry into a challenge (triangles)was cropped, adjusted in selective colring green only and USM very lightly. I was pleased with my outcome in the challenge.
On my profile page are a couple "straight from the camera shots" that I uploaded for different reasons. They were prepared only to upload.
My point is: There is a greater challenge, for those who choose to partake, in shooting for the final result straight from the camera. NOT everyone can, or does, rely on post processing in PS.
To limit the post processing to exclude cropping especially would be an excellent exercise for DPC er's.
Not everyone enters every challenge, those who can will, those who can't won't. All have something to learn from it. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 02:43:04 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by justine:
Yawn.
IMHO:This topic is so tired.
To take a shot 'straight from the camera' only proves one thing.
The quaility of your lens and or camera.
None of the 'great' and famous living and dead photographers did (do) 'straight from the camera'.
Please note: I said IMHO
:)
I disagree with this completly! (O.K. IMHO) I had a Nikon EM 35mm camera. I had no "darkroon" experiance. The photographers "eye" will always exceed any digital knowledge - the shot is what matters. There will always be the argument as to where the "line" is drawn, but I feel true photograhy has to have a "human" feeling to it, not the digital darkroom remake.
If a shot is presented here that is "over Photoshoped" the voters will decide. |
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 03:08:40 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Since when have the voters taken anything into consideration? They normally look for the smallest possible explanation of the topic description and for the most part crucify anyone that deviates from that voter's personal interpretation. Have some sensor dust? You will likely receive 20 comments on that alone, and most will not even talk about anything else. Any flaw is magnified significantly and not always commented on in a way to to either improve or acknowledge that the flaw could not be helped. |
The voters can be very unforgiving at times. But there have also been many times when images that don't fit "the smallest possible explanation of the topic description" have been voted very high, even ribboned. Picking out the smallest of flaws may be viewed as overly critical at times, but it also serves to point out weaknesses. And that, if addressed with a proper learning attitude, can be very helpful to a photographer's developement.
Originally posted by moodville:
You think voters are going to forgive an image that doesnt have the right white balance, color balance, contrast, sharpness or the like? |
I think the voters were forgiving of some very hurried editing in the case of the winner of the recent Silhouettes II challenge. And the voters would know going in that all the entries would be "unpolished". The aim of this suggested challenge would be to help users learn how to get the best possible "white balance, color balance, contrast, sharpness or the like" out of their camera. To learn what it is capable of, and how to use it to best advantage.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 05:58:35 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Since when have the voters taken anything into consideration? |
Don't forget most of the voters are also entrants.
Originally posted by moodville:
They normally look for the smallest possible explanation of the topic description and for the most part crucify anyone that deviates from that voter's personal interpretation. .... You think voters are going to forgive an image that doesnt have the right white balance, color balance, contrast, sharpness or the like? |
It is in my opinion a misnomer that a raw image must be out of balance in any way. A properly exposed image on my D10 requires little if any tweaking. SHARPNESS; forgive me everyone ... BUT DPC er's (not everyone, but alot of 'em) are guilty of sharpening beyond reality. Sharpening should be applied sparingly to achieve an effect of normalicy (IMHO). DPC entries are so sharpened that "normal" appears "soft" or "blurry".
I repeat it would be "a excellent exercise". All have something to learn from it. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 06:05:02 PM · #35 |
This would be a good exercise in composition and technical expertise at the camera, instead of on the computer. Get it right when you shoot it. That's an important exercise for improving your photos, so I think it's a great challenge for us to try.
Certainly more educational than "granular" and many of the topical challenges ;)
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 06:13:35 PM · #36 |
| I think a lot of us have missed the point here, nobody said that post processing was bad in anyway, it was just suggested that we have a ( one ) challenge for 'straight from the camera' for those of us that aren't great with photoshop, but great with getting it 'straight from the camera'... i think it's a fair call...... |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 06:46:18 PM · #37 |
Dial up in-camera sharpening, saturation, and contrast before shooting this challenge. Be sure to shoot each shot at several variations of each setting, in all permutations. Then pick best one to enter.
Assume I have 3 settings on each variable. That's what, 27 permutations? And add to that the 3 bracketing shots I normally make. In theory, this is 81 variations to cover all the variables. And this is assuming I have the white balance right and don't have to bracket that. That's silly, of course, it can be narrowed down by experience, but still...
My point is, it's basically impossible to UNDO these adjustments once they are made in-camera. And it's impossible to tell, from the camera's LCD screen, if an image has been (for example) a little bit oversharpened. It's MUCH more sensible to shoot with no added sharpening and then dial it in with PP.
I repeat what i said before: I can see virtue in a no-crop challenge, and a no-crop, no-effects challenge, but I see little purpose in a no-touch challenge, given the HUGE variables in what cameras are capable of producing and how they may be set up.
Robt.
Of course, I'm just one voice. I'm not trying to browbeat anyone. if such a challenge is posted I'll happily enter it. I'm only expressing my own, personal feelings about how valid such a challenge would be...
Message edited by author 2005-05-23 18:47:21.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 07:09:27 PM · #38 |
| How about a staight from the camera challenge one week and then only the people who entered that challenge use the same photo for the next challenge and can do anything they want(no limits)to the same photo. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 07:27:50 PM · #39 |
| chiqui74 - I just wanted to tell you how nice it is to see Leo quoted. He was a one-of-a-kind. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 07:29:20 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by fsteddy:
How about a staight from the camera challenge one week and then only the people who entered that challenge use the same photo for the next challenge and can do anything they want(no limits)to the same photo. |
What a great idea.... now that is what i would call a challenge......
and imho, ( everybody that is against this so called 'straight from the camera' challenge), this would obvioulsy give them a challenge as it is going against what they normally do, thats what i thought a challenge was..... putting yourself outside your square..... this site has certainly done that for me......! |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 07:33:14 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by fsteddy:
How about a staight from the camera challenge one week and then only the people who entered that challenge use the same photo for the next challenge and can do anything they want(no limits)to the same photo. |
Or two challenges at once? One with the basic, out of the camera look and then another one a few days later with edits in? |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 07:49:01 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by justine:
Yawn.
IMHO:This topic is so tired.
To take a shot 'straight from the camera' only proves one thing.
The quaility of your lens and or camera.
None of the 'great' and famous living and dead photographers did (do) 'straight from the camera'.
Please note: I said IMHO
:)
If a shot is presented here that is "over Photoshoped" the voters will decide. |
sorry Justine but from my experience i have to dissagree. Last October i took this photo //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=181327 with my point and shoot kodak... i had no idea how to work it... it was on auto settings and i was trying to see how well it would work inside... that is what i came up with, i entered it into an international competition and won 2nd prize with it.....there is no post processing done on it what so ever, as i didn't know how to do photoshop at the time.....
so i feel no matter what camera you have you can still get fantastic photos straight from the camera, and i am a huge believer in the fact that it comes from your eye.... not from the computer... the computer helps, but shouldn't 'make' the image....
just my story......
Message edited by author 2005-05-23 20:02:46. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 07:50:37 PM · #43 |
No need to be sorry.
:)Everyone has an opinion, makes the world go round.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 07:52:23 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by justine:
No need to be sorry.
:)Everyone has an opinion, makes the world go round. |
thanks...:):):)... and yes thats so true
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 08:15:29 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by roadrunner:
Originally posted by justine:
No need to be sorry.
:)Everyone has an opinion, makes the world go round. |
thanks...:):):)... and yes thats so true |
Here's a link to the image runner posted:
It's a fine image. It worked very well out of camera for a couple reasons: first, the in-camera parameters are set for good sharpness, and second the average value of the tones is spot-on to 18% gray: the very bright shafts of window light on the wall provided enough strong white to skew the exposure up and give great depth to the shadows. It's a wonderful picture, and it definitely proves that "seeing" is the key ingredient to winning photography.
But here's my point (and again, it's just my opinion): by preference, I have in-camera sharpening OFF, and in-camera contrast LOW, so as to get an image that i can work with and fine-tune to perfection. I'm not talking extreme 'shopping, just loving attention to the details. Too often in-camera sharpening produces noticeable fringing in contrasty areas, and too often extra contrast in-camera produces an image where the extremes of the tonal range are unworkable. The camera has only 3-4 settings MAX to work with in each area; photoshop offers infinite variability.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "your" camera offers a range of 0-1-2-3 for sharpening and 0-1-2-3-4 for contrast. Let's presume that that these steps cover the full "normal" range of those settings; soft to harsh, low contrast to high contrast. Now, suppose, as a "careful" photographer, that I determine my contrast should be 2.5 and my sharpness 3.5, BEFORE taking the picture. If I'm limited to in-camera settings, I am out of luck; I have to compromise. But Photoshop gives me a range of, let's say, 0-100 for each setting, where 0 is the same as above and 100 is equal to 4 above. See what I mean? By working with PS I can fine-tune this image to EXACTLY what it should be. In most cases, in-camera settings, even if you get them "right", are a compromise, because the increments are so broad.
It'd be like cooking, if someone told you "You may use any spices you choose, but only in increments of 1 tablespoon." If the perfect rendition of the recipe would use 1 1/2 tablespoon of cinammon, I'm either gonna have too much or not enough cinammon in the finished product.
None of this is to say I don't see the value of a challenge that allows NO cropping and NO "effects"; I just see little value in REQUIRING that we do in-camera adjustments that can be better done in post-processing, where they can be precisely controlled.
We could, for example, set up a challenge which was framed as follows:
Special Rules: Your image may not be cropped or rotated, except for 90-degree rotation for vertical shots. ONLY the following adjustments are allowed: contrast, saturation, brightness, and sharpening. You may NOT use selections; every adjustment must be applied to the entire image. You may NOT use individual color adjustments in saturation: ONLY the master channel may be adjusted, and ONLY the saturation slider may be used. If you want a B/W image, ONLY total desaturation of the master channel may be used to attain it. Selective color may not be used. Channel mixer may not be used. All images must be worked on in RGB mode; NO conversion to other modes is allowed in the workflow.
This, or something like it, would combine the best of both worlds; it would force the photographer to deal with the image as the camera interprets it, but allow for fine-tuning of this image to specific local conditions.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 08:37:31 PM · #46 |
This was shot today and no post-processing in PS. When shooting photojournalism you want to do as little to the image as possible to keep it a true to the scene as possible. With a Mets flash
File Name
05-23-05-061.JPG
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS 10D
Shooting Date/Time
5/23/2005 2:01:09 PM
Shooting Mode
Manual
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/180
Av( Aperture Value )
8.0
Metering Mode
Center-weighted averaging
ISO Speed
400
Lens
18.0 - 125.0 mm
Focal Length
34.0 mm
Image Size
3072x2048
Image Quality
Fine
Flash
Off
White Balance
Auto
AF Mode
One-Shot AF
Parameters
Contrast +1
Sharpness +2
Color saturation Normal
Color tone Normal
Color Space
sRGB
File Size
2666KB
Drive Mode
Single-frame shooting
Owner's Name
©SOFAP
Camera Body No.
Message edited by author 2005-05-23 20:41:49.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 08:49:34 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by roadrunner:
Originally posted by justine:
No need to be sorry.
:)Everyone has an opinion, makes the world go round. |
thanks...:):):)... and yes thats so true |
Here's a link to the image runner posted:
It's a fine image. It worked very well out of camera for a couple reasons: first, the in-camera parameters are set for good sharpness, and second the average value of the tones is spot-on to 18% gray: the very bright shafts of window light on the wall provided enough strong white to skew the exposure up and give great depth to the shadows. It's a wonderful picture, and it definitely proves that "seeing" is the key ingredient to winning photography.
But here's my point (and again, it's just my opinion): by preference, I have in-camera sharpening OFF, and in-camera contrast LOW, so as to get an image that i can work with and fine-tune to perfection. I'm not talking extreme 'shopping, just loving attention to the details. Too often in-camera sharpening produces noticeable fringing in contrasty areas, and too often extra contrast in-camera produces an image where the extremes of the tonal range are unworkable. The camera has only 3-4 settings MAX to work with in each area; photoshop offers infinite variability.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "your" camera offers a range of 0-1-2-3 for sharpening and 0-1-2-3-4 for contrast. Let's presume that that these steps cover the full "normal" range of those settings; soft to harsh, low contrast to high contrast. Now, suppose, as a "careful" photographer, that I determine my contrast should be 2.5 and my sharpness 3.5, BEFORE taking the picture. If I'm limited to in-camera settings, I am out of luck; I have to compromise. But Photoshop gives me a range of, let's say, 0-100 for each setting, where 0 is the same as above and 100 is equal to 4 above. See what I mean? By working with PS I can fine-tune this image to EXACTLY what it should be. In most cases, in-camera settings, even if you get them "right", are a compromise, because the increments are so broad.
It'd be like cooking, if someone told you "You may use any spices you choose, but only in increments of 1 tablespoon." If the perfect rendition of the recipe would use 1 1/2 tablespoon of cinammon, I'm either gonna have too much or not enough cinammon in the finished product.
None of this is to say I don't see the value of a challenge that allows NO cropping and NO "effects"; I just see little value in REQUIRING that we do in-camera adjustments that can be better done in post-processing, where they can be precisely controlled.
We could, for example, set up a challenge which was framed as follows:
Special Rules: Your image may not be cropped or rotated, except for 90-degree rotation for vertical shots. ONLY the following adjustments are allowed: contrast, saturation, brightness, and sharpening. You may NOT use selections; every adjustment must be applied to the entire image. You may NOT use individual color adjustments in saturation: ONLY the master channel may be adjusted, and ONLY the saturation slider may be used. If you want a B/W image, ONLY total desaturation of the master channel may be used to attain it. Selective color may not be used. Channel mixer may not be used. All images must be worked on in RGB mode; NO conversion to other modes is allowed in the workflow.
This, or something like it, would combine the best of both worlds; it would force the photographer to deal with the image as the camera interprets it, but allow for fine-tuning of this image to specific local conditions.
Robt. |
firstly , thank you so much for adding the link.... i still don't know how to do that yet....
secondly, i'm not sure my little kodak actually has parameters, and if it does i didn't touch them, everything was set to auto, the only in camera thing i touched here was to set it to black and white....bout the only thing i knew to do....lol...... even on my 20D i have the parameters set to the default functions as i feel they can be too sharp sometimes or too saturated... just my opinium, im more into natural look... and do love to see others work when they are extremely great with photoshop....i do admire them for being computer literate... as i am certainly not...lol....
thanks so much for taking the time to add the link and respond... i certainly don't want to get into an argument over should we shouldn't we, i just thougt for a 'challenge' it would be fun...... and very interesting....
Admin... pls don't do it yet as my camera is at the doctors getting cleaned....lol.. and the kids have my kodak on a school excursion.....
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 08:51:07 PM · #48 |
I had sofap load that up for you, bear music. He chose one out of a dozen taken at the scene_at random. Realize, please, at a scene like this, no time is taken to set the scene, it is live. The sharpening was done in camera, and to me it looks a little soft in comparison to DPC images, but in reality it is not bad at all (actually, right on). The color is true, the contrast is ok as well,...
Message edited by author 2005-05-23 20:53:11. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 08:56:26 PM · #49 |
Left a comment for ya roadrunner. AND WELCOME TO THE SITE
Message edited by author 2005-05-23 20:57:58. |
|
|
|
05/23/2005 09:02:28 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by sofapez:
Left a comment for ya roadrunner. AND WELCOME TO THE SITE |
Ah Ha... yes just read it.... thank you so much....so far the site is extremely informative and taken me beyond my normal thoughts..... great to get so much input from others.... better than any photography course ......
cheers
|
|
