| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/23/2005 09:04:50 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by sofapez:
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,... |
Fine. Make it a "Slice of Life: Candids Straight From Your Camera" challenge. I certainly DO recognize that there's a whole genre of work out there that is immediate and gritty and does not depend on anything but a good eye and a quick shutter response. But we rarely see this sort of work in DPC. For landscapes, portraits, studio shots, whatever you have time to look at and think about, reliance on in-camera settings that can be better-tuned in PP seems pointless to me.
I repeat: I have NO problem with restricting PP to attain a literal rendition of what the camera "sees" in some challenges, I just question the value of using THE CAMERA'S PROCESSOR to do what can be done more precisely in PP.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2005 09:14:47 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Fine. Make it a "Slice of Life: Candids Straight From Your Camera" challenge. I certainly DO recognize that there's a whole genre of work out there that is immediate and gritty and does not depend on anything but a good eye and a quick shutter response. But we rarely see this sort of work in DPC. For landscapes, portraits, studio shots, whatever you have time to look at and think about, reliance on in-camera settings that can be better-tuned in PP seems pointless to me.
I repeat: I have NO problem with restricting PP to attain a literal rendition of what the camera "sees" in some challenges, I just question the value of using THE CAMERA'S PROCESSOR to do what can be done more precisely in PP.
Robt. |
Your a FINE photog Robt., great eye. I enjoy your work very much. We (sofap and myself) won't make you enter a challenge like this, but we'd love it if you did. I am sure many other DPCer's would too.
DPC is more of an art site than anything else in my humble opinion. We are members for the love of it(and the companionship of course). It gives us a reason to go out and shoot something that is not work related and is for us. We get the added benefit of learning a few things and hopefully we get to help a little to by stretching others imagination and abilities somewhere along the line.
There are many schools of thought on digital, post processing and so on. My opinion may be right or wrong, but it is mine. |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 12:02:07 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
... I have NO problem with restricting PP to attain a literal rendition of what the camera "sees" in some challenges, I just question the value of using THE CAMERA'S PROCESSOR to do what can be done more precisely in PP. |
One value would be to learn what your camera is capable of, what is the result of the various settings each camera has available. One of the biggest advantages of digital over film is being able to shoot a shot dozens of times with different settings at hardly any cost at all. I'm surprised that you don't want to shoot all those 81 different combinations just to see what your camera can do. Heaven forbid you might even find one that you like the way it is "straight from the camera" without any photoshopping. Stranger things have happened.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 12:21:55 AM · #54 |
The reason people dont use the in-camera settings such as contrast and sharpening is that it cannot be removed in PP and sometimes you want control over those things. It's all well and good to tell people to turn those settings on for a challenge but not everyone shoots specifically for a challenge. Therefore you're telling people to go around for a week shooting with settings on their camera that they dont want to use just so they can enter a challenge. Yes, the option of sitting out is a possibility.
I'm actually all for this challenge. Having been through the first one and felt the frustrations in getting an appropriate shot and having to suffer through the voting I think those who havent experienced this type of challenge are in for a few surprises. |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 12:37:33 AM · #55 |
| What's the big deal just have one! be done with it... |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 12:42:48 AM · #56 |
Yah what Spurs said...
But I am still trying to figure out the point of this topic/challenge is it:
A) Beginners and Point and Shoot users think the playing field will be evened out?
B) This will level the big camera/little camera playing field?
C) Some believe that Post Processors don't have an eye for real photography?
D) We need to learn to use our cameras to their fullest potential?
E) All of the above?
I say bring it.
I also believe that some will be disappointed when the bell curve plays out exactly as it does when post processing is allowed.
Sorry, but this has been hashed out over and over...I go to my corner now...
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 12:51:22 AM · #57 |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:05:01 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by moodville:
I'm actually all for this challenge. Having been through the first one and felt the frustrations in getting an appropriate shot and having to suffer through the voting I think those who havent experienced this type of challenge are in for a few surprises. |
I'm glad you told us you are in favor of it, I wasn't quite sure.
Maybe the shots will be better this time around and you will be surprised.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:12:04 AM · #59 |
| The only thing I think..is it should be a free study. This would give you more time to get something right and a month to shoot. |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:12:07 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by moodville:
...snip...
I'm actually all for this challenge. Having been through the first one and felt the frustrations in getting an appropriate shot and having to suffer through the voting I think those who havent experienced this type of challenge are in for a few surprises. |
I don't recall this being done before, and I can't find it in the history. What was it called? Please post a link. Some of us who haven't been here long enough to remember might want to have a look! |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:19:17 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by sofapez:
Your a FINE photog Robt., great eye. I enjoy your work very much. We (sofap and myself) won't make you enter a challenge like this, but we'd love it if you did. I am sure many other DPCer's would too.
DPC is more of an art site than anything else in my humble opinion. We are members for the love of it(and the companionship of course). It gives us a reason to go out and shoot something that is not work related and is for us. We get the added benefit of learning a few things and hopefully we get to help a little to by stretching others imagination and abilities somewhere along the line.
There are many schools of thought on digital, post processing and so on. My opinion may be right or wrong, but it is mine. |
Yup, we're all critters with opinions. Yours is certainly as valid as mine, if not more so.
As I said earlier (6:43 PM) "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...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-05-24 01:19:49.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:24:16 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by bear_music:
... I have NO problem with restricting PP to attain a literal rendition of what the camera "sees" in some challenges, I just question the value of using THE CAMERA'S PROCESSOR to do what can be done more precisely in PP. |
One value would be to learn what your camera is capable of, what is the result of the various settings each camera has available. One of the biggest advantages of digital over film is being able to shoot a shot dozens of times with different settings at hardly any cost at all. I'm surprised that you don't want to shoot all those 81 different combinations just to see what your camera can do. Heaven forbid you might even find one that you like the way it is "straight from the camera" without any photoshopping. Stranger things have happened. |
Harvey,
Actually, I been there and done that... I have filled CF cards with variations of the same shot and culled them carefully. It's based on this that I express my personal opinion that for even "straight" shots its preferable to leave camera settings off and do a strict PP routine in Photoshop, where I can fine-tune very precisely.
One excellent reason for doing it this way: I've found from personal experience that sharpening and contrast levels need to be adjusted to different optimum levels for different print sizes, and for different papers in the same print size. I have half a dozen printer versions of some of my better images...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:24:19 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Yup, we're all critters with opinions. Yours is certainly as valid as mine, if not more so.
As I said earlier (6:43 PM) "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...
Robt. |
Good! I am glad you would enter it! |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:26:38 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
Yah what Spurs said...
But I am still trying to figure out the point of this topic/challenge is it:
A) Beginners and Point and Shoot users think the playing field will be evened out?
B) This will level the big camera/little camera playing field?
C) Some believe that Post Processors don't have an eye for real photography?
D) We need to learn to use our cameras to their fullest potential?
E) All of the above?
I say bring it.
I also believe that some will be disappointed when the bell curve plays out exactly as it does when post processing is allowed.
Sorry, but this has been hashed out over and over...I go to my corner now... |
Can I take D please.
Even the most ardent advocates of post processing every image would have to admit that getting the best image possible from your camera is a worthy goal.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:32:53 AM · #65 |
not to add fuel to the fire but I used to work for a newspaper and for Allsport photography and my entire job was to edit and clean up the pictures from Live events.
It does happen and there are entire departments dedicated to doing just that. Nothing I ever saw went out without a little tweaking. It's just the nature of the medium. |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:34:42 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Actually, I been there and done that... I have filled CF cards with variations of the same shot and culled them carefully. It's based on this that I express my personal opinion that for even "straight" shots its preferable to leave camera settings off and do a strict PP routine in Photoshop, where I can fine-tune very precisely.
One excellent reason for doing it this way: I've found from personal experience that sharpening and contrast levels need to be adjusted to different optimum levels for different print sizes, and for different papers in the same print size. I have half a dozen printer versions of some of my better images...
Robt. |
So far, my experience with digital and film is starting with a solid image to begin with results in a better image in the end...
I send mine to a professional lab and output is generally excellent. If I start with a good image from the camera I have more latitude to tweak if or when desired. |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:41:36 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Actually, I been there and done that... I have filled CF cards with variations of the same shot and culled them carefully. It's based on this that I express my personal opinion that for even "straight" shots its preferable to leave camera settings off and do a strict PP routine in Photoshop, where I can fine-tune very precisely.
One excellent reason for doing it this way: I've found from personal experience that sharpening and contrast levels need to be adjusted to different optimum levels for different print sizes, and for different papers in the same print size. I have half a dozen printer versions of some of my better images...
Robt. |
If you think you learned something from those CF cards filled with variations why are you argueing so staunchly against allowing others the opportunity to learn the same things?
I really don't understand your thinking. You would propose that we all need to learn to immitate an artist who worked in another medium with what is now antiquated technology, but you don't see any value in a chance to develope our skills at using our cameras to their best advantage. No disrespect intended but that just doesn't make any sense to me.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:46:53 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
not to add fuel to the fire but I used to work for a newspaper and for Allsport photography and my entire job was to edit and clean up the pictures from Live events.
It does happen and there are entire departments dedicated to doing just that. Nothing I ever saw went out without a little tweaking. It's just the nature of the medium. |
Did you and your colleagues ever develope a bit of respect for a photographer that made your job easier by providing images that needed little or no tweaking?
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:51:56 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by sofapez:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Actually, I been there and done that... I have filled CF cards with variations of the same shot and culled them carefully. It's based on this that I express my personal opinion that for even "straight" shots its preferable to leave camera settings off and do a strict PP routine in Photoshop, where I can fine-tune very precisely.
One excellent reason for doing it this way: I've found from personal experience that sharpening and contrast levels need to be adjusted to different optimum levels for different print sizes, and for different papers in the same print size. I have half a dozen printer versions of some of my better images...
Robt. |
So far, my experience with digital and film is starting with a solid image to begin with results in a better image in the end...
I send mine to a professional lab and output is generally excellent. If I start with a good image from the camera I have more latitude to tweak if or when desired. |
Hey, nobody ever said anything about not starting with a solid image from the camera. You gotta compose well, you gotta expose properly, for sure. But the camera has software in it that interprets the raw data in the manner YOU tell it to. You can set contrast, sharpness, all that stuff.
Photoshop likewise has software (IS software, for that matter) that interprets the raw data as you tell it to. I prefer to give myself the latitude to do that sort of adjusting at leisure, on my 22-inch screen. I've found NO way to UNsharpen and image that's oversharpened in camera, I've found NO way to put back in details that have been lost through excessive contrast set in camera. These shots may look great on the LCD, but they don't look so great blown up.
Look at it this way; I come from a Zone System background; it's all I did, basically, for 25 years in my personal work. So I'm biased towards "intelligent post-processing". It is, of course, vital that you have the end result in mind when you make the original exposure, I'm not disputing that. I'm wondering if people are thinking I'm saying it's ok to do sloppy work on the camera end 'cuz PS can rescue it?
That's NOT the case at all. I spend a LOT of time setting up my exposures, usually. I almost always know exactly what I'm looking for in the finished image. That's how I was trained. It's just that I prefer to do the processing myself, rather than let a machine process it for me. And that's what the camera is; it's a machine for making pictures. It has very limited intelligence, as it were. I trust my own brain more than I trust the camera's brain, so all I ask the camera to do is deliver to me a properly exposed, neutral image which I can then tweak to perfection.
As an artist, I believe this is the bestw ay to go. I might feel differently if I were doing this on a mass production scale, of course. But I don't see any compelling reason to turn ANY of these decisions over to the camera, when I can make themmyself so easily. I mean, basic PP of the sort I'm referring to here takes all of 30 seconds per image... Unless there's a problem. And if there IS a problem, I'd rather be working at it myself than trusting the camera to resolve it for me.
I'm not trying to browbeat anyone by the way; each of y'all do whatever works best for you. I just find the discussion fascinating, and I feel others may benefit by hearing these different perspectives on the issue.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 01:57:23 AM · #70 |
I agree with the points about processing being better on the computer, it's why I shoot RAW. But like all the other challenges, it's nothing more than a game. In this case, there's something to be gained from the restrictions of this one-shot game: if you want to enter, it forces you to compose in the camera, as well as master exposure, etc.
To some professionals, this is second nature, but as a learning site, with many amatuers, I personally can't think of a better general exercise.
And again, it's only a challenge--not a proposal to change the site. For those that don't want to change from RAW for this one, it's no worse than having to sit out "Wacky Holiday Decorations XXII", or for that matter, having to vote on it ;) |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 02:02:53 AM · #71 |
HEY! Coolhar, if your calling film antiquated... I beg your parden! Film will be around awhile longer, Digital still cannot compete (I know I'm gonna get it from this)with some medium and most large format film and cameras. OK Go For It!
Robt., Please don't take it so personally. There is nothing wrong with your thinking, your photog skills are awesome. Its just one image, and I personally am eager to see what DPCer's can do without post processing. I beleive we can all learn from one another with such a challenge. |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 02:07:04 AM · #72 |
Not taking it personally at all, just calrifying my position. Peace to you, brother sofa, I believe we live on the same page in all significant matters :-) We certainly shared a career path anyway...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 02:13:37 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Not taking it personally at all, just calrifying my position. Peace to you, brother sofa, I believe we live on the same page in all significant matters :-) We certainly shared a career path anyway...
Robt. |
Thumbs up! Love a good debate....
Message edited by author 2005-05-24 02:17:49. |
|
|
|
05/24/2005 02:18:42 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by sofapez:
HEY! Coolhar, if your calling film antiquated... I beg your parden! Film will be around awhile longer, Digital still cannot compete (I know I'm gonna get it from this)with some medium and most large format film and cameras. OK Go For It! |
Yes, film will be around for a while, but it will play a diminishing role. And I certainly hope that the cameras, the films, the developing chemicals and techniques in use today are better than those that were available in the 60s.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2005 02:22:57 AM · #75 |
| How about posting some of these out the cam, pics now...I wanna see them lmao. |
|
