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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> I need names...
Pages:  
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 266, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/28/2006 12:32:54 PM · #201
Originally posted by TomFoolery:

But you say if I even adjust the levels just a tad makes it no longer a photo but digital art and that is a minor tweak...very minor.


Also, my eye (or moreso my nervous system) has the ability to change exposure on the fly to adjust to what I am focused on in the scene. The closest tool I have available to that function in photoshop is dodging and burning.
 07/28/2006 12:32:56 PM · #202
Originally posted by amandalore:


Close your eyes:))


haha, but then I see much more unusual stuff that my PSing skills just can't come close to at this point. Once I find a way to PS images to look like my dreams, is that wrong too? [/quote]

Hey, I'm on your side;) Personally I never use PS..All my images are straight from camera with no divil PS:))
 07/28/2006 12:33:12 PM · #203
Hi, my name is Roz. Sometimes people call me Shecoya.. other times they call me Doof.. depends on the day the mood and the person. But you said you needed names.. there are a few of mine.. ;)

*insert cheesy i'm staying outta this raking up schtuff thread: smile here*
 07/28/2006 12:44:50 PM · #204
I think DPC is an awesome experimentâ€Â¦with the rules in place I would assume most all photos entered in all the challenges are still photos outrightâ€Â¦there are a few that have almost been changed completelyâ€Â¦some of the things that I think change the photo to digital art is adding things to an image, changing colorsâ€Â¦like all the reads to blue, without a filter on cameraâ€Â¦layering two photos together to get one outcomeâ€Â¦these things are what I would like to call a fusion of photography and graphic art for they wouldn’t been seen if it weren’t for the camera clicking initiallyâ€Â¦and yes I still think you have to know what is going on with your cameraâ€Â¦ie - be a good photographer. If someone was just shooting everything in auto and getting photos they didn’t know how to fix in camera to get what they are looking for then look to PS to fix all their problems they are looking in the wrong placeâ€Â¦for PS can only do so muchâ€Â¦you mess with something so drastic and it diminishes the quality of the original photoâ€Â¦your final outcome looks like garbage and I would think the entire process has been a waste of timeâ€Â¦you should go back and learn your camera and get the shot as close to perfect as you can with the camera and that will allow you to use PS lightly and give you a very beautiful PHOTO. So yes I am obviously one who thinks Photography needs a little help in producing a clean ready for print imageâ€Â¦but without knowledge of the camera and the basics of what it can do you will be lost and I don’t think you can really call yourself a photographer till you know how to manipulate your camera to get things to look closer to how you see it in your headâ€Â¦and then as others have said processing is an act by itself and needed much of the time even by masters of photography.

Clint

07/28/2006 01:17:09 PM · #205
Originally posted by Shecoya:
other times they call me Doof..


that's me. I do that.
 07/28/2006 01:29:44 PM · #206
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by Shecoya:
other times they call me Doof..


that's me. I do that.


"I've just recently learned that in "Nude Photography" it's the models that are supposed to be nude. Don't make the same mistake I did. Very Embarrassing."

After that confession I don't think you are in any position to call anyone names;P

And...ahem..could we see your mistakes?:))
07/28/2006 01:49:22 PM · #207
Jimmie, I really would like to know, specifically, how my editing of this image is not really "true and what nature and God provide."

Original, straight from camera, only resized:


Edited version:


Thanks! :)

07/28/2006 01:52:57 PM · #208
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Jimmie, I really would like to know, specifically, how my editing of this image is not really "true and what nature and God provide."


Jimmie's been backing down from his original position. He's now basically saying that excessive editing that "changes" things is bad, not editing that "restores" them. I doubt he'd find anything wrong with this particular approach of yours. But then, I ain't Jimmy... Nice shot btw!

R.
 07/28/2006 01:53:57 PM · #209
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Jimmie, I really would like to know, specifically, how my editing of this image is not really "true and what nature and God provide."


Jimmie's been backing down from his original position. He's now basically saying that excessive editing that "changes" things is bad, not editing that "restores" them. I doubt he'd find anything wrong with this particular approach of yours. But then, I ain't Jimmy... Nice shot btw!

R.


Thanks...I guess I got distracted somewhere around page 5...didn't realize we weren't still beating the same dead horse. ;)
 07/28/2006 01:57:24 PM · #210
Originally posted by laurielblack:


Thanks...I guess I got distracted somewhere around page 5...didn't realize we weren't still beating the same dead horse. ;)


We're not, we're beating Jimmie;)
 07/28/2006 02:00:10 PM · #211
He knocks this picture as unnatural:


yet praises this one (which is set up - the fireworks aren't even real):


Not slamming on Judi btw (be afraid, be very afraid)just talking about the "naturalness" of the pics.
 07/28/2006 02:02:56 PM · #212
Originally posted by Megatherian:


Not slamming on Judi btw (be afraid, be very afraid)just talking about the "naturalness" of the pics.


I'm gonna tell..I'm gonna tell:P
 07/28/2006 02:04:45 PM · #213
Truely, if you are looking for "natural" shots that don't need any post-processing then you should be shooting with a film SLR and slide film. And if you're shooting slide film then it better be kodachrome and nothing else. Kodachrome gives the most natural colors of any slide or print film ever IMO. To say that only masters can shoot a scene and not do any post work on it is rather short-sighted. As has been mentioned before, Ansel Adams, Dorothy Lang and others that made photography into what it is, had to work in the darkroom.
 07/28/2006 02:09:39 PM · #214
I'd advise going all the way back to Da Vinci and the camera obscura.
 07/28/2006 02:18:28 PM · #215
Originally posted by amber:
Originally posted by laurielblack:


Thanks...I guess I got distracted somewhere around page 5...didn't realize we weren't still beating the same dead horse. ;)


We're not, we're beating Jimmie;)


haha, lol
 07/28/2006 02:37:05 PM · #216
let's just go to a scene, photograph it unedited, print it and compair to what you see in real life vs. what's on the print. I wonder if you could make it closer to what you see than that?
 07/28/2006 03:05:08 PM · #217
Originally posted by Megatherian:
He knocks this picture as unnatural:


yet praises this one (which is set up - the fireworks aren't even real):


Not slamming on Judi btw (be afraid, be very afraid)just talking about the "naturalness" of the pics.


My guess is he was fooled into thinking it was a natural shot, which Judi pulled off very well I might add.
 07/28/2006 03:06:57 PM · #218
well, I believe that a properly editted photo can be more real than an uneditted photo. I know, it sounds pretty much like a line from the Matrix, but it is rather true.

With good editting, you are making up for the limitations of the camera as a capture device or the limitations of the scene you are capturing.

Let's take HDR imaging for example. It requires quite a bit of computation to put together 3, 4, even more exposures, but the result is more realistic in dynamic range than a single exposure.

Even our eyes don't capture the full spectum of light from infrared to ultraviolet. Imagine how much your perception of the world would be different if you could see the heat coming from a subject.
 07/28/2006 04:12:48 PM · #219
Originally posted by amber:

"I've just recently learned that in "Nude Photography" it's the models that are supposed to be nude. Don't make the same mistake I did. Very Embarrassing."

After that confession I don't think you are in any position to call anyone names;P

And...ahem..could we see your mistakes?:))


well no...I'm way better looking behind the camera. ;)
 07/28/2006 04:56:04 PM · #220
Originally posted by Jimmie:
...it is not in taking the shot... it is in changing and altering to when it is beyond what was originaly presented... when you put the taken shot side-by-side with the posted shot...and the two are not even similar, that is where the problem lies... and I post on other sites, also... I only put up a few here to see how the thing works.Minor tweaking is not the root of the problem... full-blown alterrations.....


Like coolhar, I'm one of the few that agree (mostly) with you. I would love to see some of the ribboned images side by side with the originals. I'm curious as to how much cropping and manipulation is done before we see the final pic. I'm not saying I never crop or do some adjusting but I don't crop away half the original image to better compose the shot and then make adjustments to it when it was 2 stops under...and I'm NOT saying all ribbon winners (or non-ribbon images) are guilty, but I'm sure there are some that go overboard in their processing.

I'm not quite where I want to be with my technical skills so I do need to do some minor tweaking in postprocessing but I'm almost always happy with my original composition. My PP typically consists of "auto levels", "auto contrast", and USM.

Here are two of mine that are straight out of the camera with only resizing and USM though:

Excuse the slight tilt...I was on a boat!




07/28/2006 10:56:00 PM · #221


Hey! Checked out your bio page. You live right there with my oldest son. Mike (the oldest son) works at WINK radio in Corning/Elmira. He does afternoon drive-time 3-7 pm. WINK, this is Mike Loy.... that's the one.

Is that waterfall at Watkins Glen? Or one of the gazillion at Cornell?

Message edited by author 2006-07-28 23:00:20.
 07/28/2006 11:44:36 PM · #222
Originally posted by Jimmie:
Hey! Checked out your bio page. You live right there with my oldest son. Mike (the oldest son) works at WINK radio in Corning/Elmira. He does afternoon drive-time 3-7 pm. WINK, this is Mike Loy.... that's the one.

Is that waterfall at Watkins Glen? Or one of the gazillion at Cornell?


Cool! Small world! Yep, I know WINK 106...but shh, I usually tune in to their rival 94 Rock. ;-) I do listen to WINK now and then though. I'll have to make it a point to listen one afternoon.

The waterfall is in Montour Falls (Havana Glen park), just south of WG. There are lots of waterfalls in this area as well as near Cornell.

07/28/2006 11:54:38 PM · #223


Cool! Small world! Yep, I know WINK 106...but shh, I usually tune in to their rival 94 Rock. ;-) I do listen to WINK now and then though. I'll have to make it a point to listen one afternoon.

Hey, Missy!!!!! You can listen to whatever you want before 3 and after 7... kekekekekke He is also doing weekends in Rochester on some big market station there.

(kekekeke= Japanese version of lol)
 07/29/2006 12:00:24 AM · #224
LOL, sure thing. (re: before 3, after 7)
 07/29/2006 12:07:34 AM · #225
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
LOL, sure thing. (re: before 3, after 7)


Hey, call the request line at WINK and tell him you met me on a photo site. He will get a kick out of it. My name is Jim and his mother and I live in Central Illinois. When he was a wee lad he had a dog named Oliver. Then request something odd... like Iced Earth's "High Water Mark" or some such. ;)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 05:41:19 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: 08/18/2025 05:41:19 PM EDT.