Before and After Ribboners & High Scorers

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/09/2006 08:10:39 PM · #126

Originally posted by Nuzzer:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These are sorta boring:

Original: Entered:

Original: Entered:

Are these originals after RAW adjustments or before? If they are after, do you have the originals before any RAW adjustments to post?

Yes, these have RAW adjustment, but I never really understand that question when it's posed. There is no "standard" RAW temp or WB. Same with exposure, shadows, etc.

Here is the purple shot with "default" RAW settings (it still selects the WB, but tries to make it neutral I guess) and all little "auto" boxes clicked off.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

10/10/2006 10:57:58 AM · #127

So which most closely represents what the human eye saw?

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/10/2006 11:29:35 AM · #128

Originally posted by theSaj:

So which most closely represents what the human eye saw?

You are assuming DrAchoo is human.... (runs away)

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/10/2006 11:34:24 AM · #129

The point is not the WB adjustment, but the tint. Can you do a +150 tint adjustment in camera? I'm asking because I'm wondering about it, it is, after all, a pretty radical adjustment, and if it can be done in camera I would like to know how. It would be fun to experiment with that.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/10/2006 11:42:26 AM · #130

Before:

After tone mapping and a little PS work:

For the record, the "after" version is very close to what I was "seeing"; I saw the scene as much more luminous, with much more mid-tone contrast, than the camera did.

R.

10/10/2006 11:44:27 AM · #131

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Before:

After tone mapping and a little PS work:

For the record, the "after" version is very close to what I was "seeing"; I saw the scene as much more luminous, with much more mid-tone contrast, than the camera did.

R.

Yeah, I very much agree with you in that often I also see a scene much more luminous than what is recorded on the sensor. I love what you did here, it's just beautiful, really, really beautiful.

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 11:53:37.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/10/2006 11:44:39 AM · #132

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... Here is the purple shot with "default" RAW settings (it still selects the WB, but tries to make it neutral I guess) and all little "auto" boxes clicked off.

Awww MAN! Now I'm bummed. Here all this time I thought those skies really were purple. :(

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/10/2006 12:08:14 PM · #133

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... Here is the purple shot with "default" RAW settings (it still selects the WB, but tries to make it neutral I guess) and all little "auto" boxes clicked off.

Awww MAN! Now I'm bummed. Here all this time I thought those skies really were purple. :(

Well, I was wearing purple sunglasses. So after I saw the shot at home I said to myself, "man, that isn't how it looked" and fixed it.

Perhaps I had also been staring for a long time at a yellow piece of paper held very closely to my eyes. It's fascinating to me that the brain has it's own white balance that can be changed. Stare at that yellow paper long enough and the brain will compensate and add an opposite hue to your vision.

Ursula, I don't have my camera here. I know you can dial in any temperature you want, but I'm not sure you can do it with tint. My feeling is no, but I could be wrong. There are custom color controls aren't there? Maybe they aren't this extreme though.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/10/2006 12:21:54 PM · #134

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ursula, I don't have my camera here. I know you can dial in any temperature you want, but I'm not sure you can do it with tint. My feeling is no, but I could be wrong. There are custom color controls aren't there? Maybe they aren't this extreme though.

Yeah, there are custom colour controls, but at least on mine I don't think I can affect tint (all that much) at recording time. It would be interesting though. I was wondering if your camera could do that. It's sort of like using a radical colour filter at exposure time, but without all the loss of light.

(edited wording)

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 12:23:18.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/10/2006 12:24:30 PM · #135

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ursula, I don't have my camera here. I know you can dial in any temperature you want, but I'm not sure you can do it with tint. My feeling is no, but I could be wrong. There are custom color controls aren't there? Maybe they aren't this extreme though.

Yeah, there are custom colour controls, but at least on mine I don't think I can affect tint (all that much) at recording time. It would be interesting though. I was wondering if your camera could do that. It's sort of like using a radical colour filter at exposure time, but without all the loss of light.

(edited wording)

Why would you WANT to do it at the time of exposure, when you can take a "neutral", properly exposed image and apply all the adjustments in PP, leaving you many more options?

R.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/10/2006 12:30:07 PM · #136

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ursula, I don't have my camera here. I know you can dial in any temperature you want, but I'm not sure you can do it with tint. My feeling is no, but I could be wrong. There are custom color controls aren't there? Maybe they aren't this extreme though.

Yeah, there are custom colour controls, but at least on mine I don't think I can affect tint (all that much) at recording time. It would be interesting though. I was wondering if your camera could do that. It's sort of like using a radical colour filter at exposure time, but without all the loss of light.

(edited wording)

Why would you WANT to do it at the time of exposure, when you can take a "neutral", properly exposed image and apply all the adjustments in PP, leaving you many more options?

R.

For no other reason that I could :)

I don't know I would want to, but it would be fun to be able to.

I'm always aiming at getting what is recorded in camera to be as close as possible to the finished product. It's often not possible (like in your beach image), and I often fail misserably at it, even when possible - but it's so much fun to try.

As for Jason's purple image, I find it amazing that people will think of stuff like changing tint to +150. It makes for a fantastic image. It is very helpful to me to see what is recorded in camera and the changes made in processing (RAW conversion and PS), because I learn so much that way. Post-processing doesn't come naturally to me, I have to work at it. I don't think I would have seen the purple potential of that recorded image, Jason did, now, in the future I might too. I like that.

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 12:32:47.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

10/10/2006 12:49:44 PM · #137

Many times I feel like BASIC rules fail to achieve their goal. BASIC rules allow for tons of alteration as well. ADVANCED simply let you fix a few minor artifacts like red eye, dust, and minor cloning.

I'd really love to see a change from BASIC & ADVANCED rules. To a rule set that focused more on minimal processing and advanced processing. To me, I think touch up like spot & dust removal, should be legal at both levels.

Where as how it stands now, I feel that many are simply seeking ways around the spirit of the BASIC challenges. Sure, everything is legal. But the resulting image is far from the original.

I don't mind this in ADVANCED challenges. In fact, I love it. As these give opportunity to push one's image to what's envisioned and desired. The BASIC challenges should be more akin to what was captured IMHO.

***

That said, I find it funny, that a ribbon winner was essentially hue shifted to purple. And yet my entry received criticism for hue shifting to purple when it was not.

Go figure...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/10/2006 12:52:20 PM · #138

Originally posted by theSaj:

That said, I find it funny, that a ribbon winner was essentially hue shifted to purple. And yet my entry received criticism for hue shifting to purple when it was not.

You gotta make it look like you didn't, even when you didn't :)

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

10/10/2006 12:59:07 PM · #139

Yes, it's just too darn hard to make a photo look like you didn't do anything unrealistic as compared to the photos that are unrealistic. *LOL*

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 13:01:31.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

10/10/2006 01:17:10 PM · #140

Originally posted by theSaj:

That said, I find it funny, that a ribbon winner was essentially hue shifted to purple. And yet my entry received criticism for hue shifting to purple when it was not.

Go figure...

One possibility could be that I purposely selected a shot where the shift would result is strong purples, but at the same time allow for true blacks and whites. The human eye is amazing in its ability to detect color casts. Because I chose a simple shot (sillouette, sky, water, reflection), it was relatively easy to keep blacks (the rock registers as 0,0,0) and whites (the rim from the sun being behind the rock registers as 245,245,245). This makes the picture look "believable" to the eye (even though we know the world isn't really purple like that). Other shots which relied on color shifts were done by people who did not realize this effect or on shots which were too complicated to control in such a manner. The voter rejected these because their eye told them "fake"...

EDIT: Looking at your shot Saj, (and I realize you didn't shift), your whites read as 254/247/253 and your blacks read as (38/24/41). It was probably the lighting, but voter's eyes understood it as "must have been a shift" and rejected it.

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 13:21:28.

geewhy

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

10/11/2006 11:40:02 AM · #141

Before/After

Cropped to eliminate the shoreline and improve composition then converted to grayscale and worked on contrast.

heathen

Best-Buy Easy Point & Click

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/11/2006 12:12:01 PM · #142

My 5th place finisher in High Contrast.

Original

Someone commented on my entry that all the detail had been lost in the sand because of my "heavy" use of NI. While I did utilize NI to remove noise created during the b+w conversion and subsequent curves and levels tweeks, and to soften the clouds a bit, there wasn't a whole lot of detail in the sand to begin with.

Givemeashot

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6

10/11/2006 12:46:26 PM · #143

Not really a before and after shot... kinda behind the scenes...

Set up....

Out Come...

Other Angles...

SJCarter

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/11/2006 01:13:44 PM · #144

My one and only ribbon so far...

Orig

Edit

Oddly enough, there wasn't much PP in this one - that's unusual for me. (Maybe I should take note of that fact and ease up on my heavy handed editing!)

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/11/2006 01:21:10 PM · #145

Originally posted by SJCarter:

My one and only ribbon so far...

... so far... :D

Givemeashot

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6

10/11/2006 02:58:08 PM · #146

Originally posted by SJCarter:

My one and only ribbon so far...

Orig Edit

Oddly enough, there wasn't much PP in this one - that's unusual for me. (Maybe I should take note of that fact and ease up on my heavy handed editing!)

Great picture!! I live it !! Well Deserved Ribbion =)

Nuzzer

Canon EOS-7D

10/30/2006 12:19:03 AM · #147

How about some from the recent challanges?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III