| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2006 08:16:11 PM · #101 |
| I don't even consider this photography. It is computerography. I think this is an insult to photography purists. I'm done !!! |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:20:46 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Ashuuter:
I don't even consider this photography. It is computerography. I think this is an insult to photography purists. I'm done !!! |
Try this ... |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:21:56 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Ashuuter:
I don't even consider this photography. It is computerography. I think this is an insult to photography purists. I'm done !!! |
What a way to pose an argument. I can see it now "Your honor my client is in the right ... I'm done!".
And scene ...
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:24:19 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Ashuuter:
I don't even consider this photography. It is computerography. I think this is an insult to photography purists. I'm done !!! |
Try this ... |
That is the coolest! Thanks for posting that. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:26:06 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
That is the coolest! Thanks for posting that. |
You're welcome -- I have it bookmarked, and post it whenever I can find an excuse to do so ... : ) |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:26:56 PM · #106 |
My last 6 entries was processed on a new laptop, and all scored 6+.
When I got home, and opend the photos on my calibrated monitor, I was so ashamed. The photos looked way way way over processed, with way too much color and contrast, and the sharpening was horrible.
If I could delete them off my profile, I would. But I would probably delete quite a big portion of my profile if I had the chance.
That being said, I want to make one point, and that is:
A sunset landscape will include a lot of color and contrast. If you have seen a really colorful landscape, you know that the colors do pop and that it can be pretty amazing. So, a lot of landscapes we see in these challenges are not "overprocessed", they simple have a lot of color/contrast in them due to the correct exposure.
Here is one example were there is almost no post-processing at all:
Once you get light control you can overexpose dark areas, and the colors pop out like crazy. Sometimes you even get a raw file with so much color in it, it looks totally overprocessed, and you aren't able to use it. So, just because you see a lot of color and contrast, don't always jump to the conclusion it's saturated to death.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:30:50 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by terje:
My last 6 entries was processed on a new laptop, and all scored 6+.
When I got home, and opend the photos on my calibrated monitor, I was so ashamed. The photos looked way way way over processed, with way too much color and contrast, and the sharpening was horrible.
If I could delete them off my profile, I would. But I would probably delete quite a big portion of my profile if I had the chance.
That being said, I want to make one point, and that is:
A sunset landscape will include a lot of color and contrast. If you have seen a really colorful landscape, you know that the colors do pop and that it can be pretty amazing. So, a lot of landscapes we see in these challenges are not "overprocessed", they simple have a lot of color/contrast in them due to the correct exposure.
Here is one example were there is almost no post-processing at all:
Once you get light control you can overexpose dark areas, and the colors pop out like crazy. Sometimes you even get a raw file with so much color in it, it looks totally overprocessed, and you aren't able to use it. So, just because you see a lot of color and contrast, don't always jump to the conclusion it's saturated to death.
|
Question, how do you manage to get skies like that if you overexpose dark areas? I mean, in the example above you're shooting into the light. Granted, it's cloudy, but still, the rock faces are sort of facing a bit away from the sun, towards you, so if you exposed for the rock face (the dark part), how did the skies not get way overexposed? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 20:33:04. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:38:17 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Question, how do you manage to get skies like that if you overexpose dark areas? I mean, in the example above you're shooting into the light. Granted, it's cloudy, but still, the rock faces are sort of facing a bit away from the sun, towards you, so if you exposed for the rock face (the dark part), how did the skies not get way overexposed? Or am I misunderstanding something here? |
I spot metered the clouds and the foreground, and calculated that I needed to darken the cloud area with 3 F-stops, then I placed a hard grad ND over the clouds. This also caused a minor problem with the top part of the rocks getting darker, but it enabled me to increase the color in the water/grass and foreground.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:39:53 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by ursula:
Question, how do you manage to get skies like that if you overexpose dark areas? I mean, in the example above you're shooting into the light. Granted, it's cloudy, but still, the rock faces are sort of facing a bit away from the sun, towards you, so if you exposed for the rock face (the dark part), how did the skies not get way overexposed? Or am I misunderstanding something here? |
I spot metered the clouds and the foreground, and calculated that I needed to darken the cloud area with 3 F-stops, then I placed a hard grad ND over the clouds. This also caused a minor problem with the top part of the rocks getting darker, but it enabled me to increase the color in the water/grass and foreground. |
Thank you. That makes sense. Do you use the ND a lot for your outdoors shots? |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:45:00 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Thank you. That makes sense. Do you use the ND a lot for your outdoors shots? |
Pretty much all of the time. Even started using it on my indoor shots now. ;-)
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:47:14 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by ursula:
Question, how do you manage to get skies like that if you overexpose dark areas? I mean, in the example above you're shooting into the light. Granted, it's cloudy, but still, the rock faces are sort of facing a bit away from the sun, towards you, so if you exposed for the rock face (the dark part), how did the skies not get way overexposed? Or am I misunderstanding something here? |
I spot metered the clouds and the foreground, and calculated that I needed to darken the cloud area with 3 F-stops, then I placed a hard grad ND over the clouds. This also caused a minor problem with the top part of the rocks getting darker, but it enabled me to increase the color in the water/grass and foreground. |
Now that's the kind of tips I joined DPC for....Thanks! |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:49:00 PM · #112 |
Yeah I was following along too. Thanks. One question. The filter you are talking about is a Graduated Neutral Density Hard Edge with Horizontal Orientation?
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 20:49:53. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 08:56:53 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Yeah I was following along too. Thanks. One question. The filter you are talking about is a Graduated Neutral Density Hard Edge with Horizontal Orientation? |
Better answer the question with a linkie.
edit: I want to add that I endorse Lee Filter products, but not Phootos.com.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 21:06:00.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:09:04 PM · #114 |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:22:15 PM · #115 |
Getting back to the original question, though (side comments VERY appreciated terje) I think there's just a level of experience influxing to the site that may not have been there pre-2005. If I remember right, that's the year that everything exploded membership wise here. Some were total newbies, like me, and some were already established and talented photographers. Combining that with the already skilled in PS masses, it's created a culture of people who like to experiment and like to see others successful experiments. And who like to see something new and excting, yes. Looking back over the last few challenges, it seems all flavors of processing are doing well. Maybe some are just so attuned to hating the "over" processed, that that's all they notice anymore?
Some of the oversharpened stuff is a bit weird, and sometimes comes from editing on laptop and poor quality LCD's, it seems. I've noticed that switching between work and home screens will make a severe difference in the level of grain that I can see in images at work. I think it's the lower contrast ratios not being able to show all the levels of the grayscale well enough or something.
Okay, the "vaseline" picture, I went back and found it, but it seems that was a one-off fluke in a strange challenge. Most times, people will absolutely flatten you if you go to that extreme with noise removal.
Over-saturation, hey, as long as your eyes aren't bleeding, you're cool. I think sometimes I change things from the original picture to make them how I saw them in my head, instead of how the came out on the sensor. If this looks over-saturated to others, maybe I need my brain adjusted. oh well.
p.s.- the photographer decides when their processing is done. not the viewer. thus, over-processing is an oxymoron.
just because you don't like the result does not mean that there is a technical flaw, it just means that you don't like their style. It's everyones perogative, voter and submitter. If you're concerned over the "direction of things", get all your friends to join, who will vote more traditional styles up, and hyper-processed images down, and then the dynamic of what's on the front page will change.
I wonder sometimes how much the people who complain about the winners here are still voting. Not accusing, just wondering.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:27:04 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by terje:
My last 6 entries was processed on a new laptop, and all scored 6+.
When I got home, and opend the photos on my calibrated monitor, I was so ashamed. The photos looked way way way over processed, with way too much color and contrast, and the sharpening was horrible.
|
I don't think that enough attention is paid to the difference in photo's introduced by the variety of monitors they are being viewed on. Unless you have multiple systems, you have no idea how other DPCers actually see your entry. I was shocked recently when visiting a friend and looking at my entries on their system--all washed out and very unappealing; then looked at them on a neighbors system and had the exact opposite reaction--over processed and over saturated!! So, now I'm really confused as to what to do post-processing wise!!! |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:27:11 PM · #117 |
Terje, thank you for all the information! It's very much appreciated.
Your pictures are beautiful! |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:31:59 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by ursula:
Question, how do you manage to get skies like that if you overexpose dark areas? I mean, in the example above you're shooting into the light. Granted, it's cloudy, but still, the rock faces are sort of facing a bit away from the sun, towards you, so if you exposed for the rock face (the dark part), how did the skies not get way overexposed? Or am I misunderstanding something here? |
I spot metered the clouds and the foreground, and calculated that I needed to darken the cloud area with 3 F-stops, then I placed a hard grad ND over the clouds. This also caused a minor problem with the top part of the rocks getting darker, but it enabled me to increase the color in the water/grass and foreground. |
But how can you call this "straight from camera" with a straight face? Whether the filter is applied before exposure or a gradient is applied in post processing, the result is the same: a very striking gradation of tonalities that cannot be captured without some form of artificial help to deal with the extreme tonal range.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 21:32:51. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:42:48 PM · #119 |
I need to inserts a short opinion here. I have nothing against the digital darkroom and its creative use. It is after all just an extension. Often times the artist wishes to over ride the fidelity in nature or on subjects. Processing can also be employed to present dramatic studies. One can only judge the end result and determine if the experiment worked or failed.
What I do not like is the lack of attention to the preparation of any image and then to employ post processing to twist and convolute the end result. This is aimed at those landscapes and sunsets and sunrises where in the photographer took no pains to employ the proper filters to enhance the image and then push the controls to introduce colors not even found in nature. With skies that defy common sense with magenta and pure yellows and grass that is bluer than green and more like blue goop.
I understand that some images when presented as artistic studies work but then a lot of the needed decisions are made to present a cohesive study. These attempts push the reality factor right into fantasy but then we all know that we are looking at a dressed up imaginary world.
So, if your object is fidelity then attention must be paid to the preparation of the image from exposure, to f stop selection, speed and filtering. You then try to maintain a balance so that no one color predominates to the extent of distraction. It is not an easy task to hold this balance. Just because it looks attractive it does not mean it is good. This is qualified by your objectives. Fidelity is hard to produce but something attractive can be produced without much effort. The final decision is all yours on what you want to achieve.
Here, I forgive the artist and his vision if it fails. However, I shy away from images that are just captured and pump-up to give ungraceful colors and condensed tonal values even if they have some appeal. The moment one follows deeper into the image we see its shortcomings.
Many a newcomer is impressed with extensive processing to the point of ignoring a full tone, rich contrast image with interesting subjects. The former, onced pushed, loses tonal integrity because any color pushed will afect other colors and most important will eradicate fine transitional toning which can not be regained.
The graphic artist is well aware of these lost tones and since their object is impact they intentionally drop them, but then, this is why it is called graphical and while it has much artistic merit, it is not interested in fifelity.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 21:47:02. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:43:53 PM · #120 |
Funny thing my two highest scores have no post processing except a slight unsharp mask and slight croping. (I'm just not good at the PP work).
If you don't like something just vote low (and comment why). However, I think it is unreasonable to think ones idea of photography should be shoved down the throats of others.
Just shoot, have fun, there is always a ton to learn and experience.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 21:44:56. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:44:20 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But how can you call this "straight from camera" with a straight face? Whether the filter is applied before exposure or a gradient is applied in post processing, the result is the same: a very striking gradation of tonalities that cannot be captured without some form of artificial help to deal with the extreme tonal range.
R. |
It's merely a tool to overcome a limitation in the camera. My eyes can see 13-15 F-stops, while my camera can only capture 6-7 F-stops.
The only thing that's perfect is nature itself, we can never replicate it. We only strive to capture it as we see it.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:46:52 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But how can you call this "straight from camera" with a straight face? Whether the filter is applied before exposure or a gradient is applied in post processing, the result is the same: a very striking gradation of tonalities that cannot be captured without some form of artificial help to deal with the extreme tonal range.
R. |
It's merely a tool to overcome a limitation in the camera. My eyes can see 13-15 F-stops, while my camera can only capture 6-7 F-stops.
The only thing that's perfect is nature itself, we can never replicate it. We only strive to capture it as we see it. |
Oh, absolutely. I have no quarrel with it. But the thrust of this thread is that people are "overprocessing" nature for dramatic impact. My point is that applying a sky gradient by a filter in front of the lens is no different than (and no "better" than) doing the same thing in post processing later.
R. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:58:10 PM · #123 |
I completely agree with you graphicfunk.
The work of Rarindra Prakarsa can sometimes be viewed as "overprocessed", however his work shows character, preparation and excellent execution both in terms of light and composition.
At first glance I might agree that it's overprocessed, yet the final product lovely to watch, and I wouldn't wanna view it any other way.
What many view as "flaws" in this processing, I think might be related to the fact that he used a Canon G5, which has more limitations in terms of dynamic range and pixel noise than a more fancy dSLR.
So, my conclusion is, I don't mind overprocessed photos if they produce quality work in the end. But, I'm sure every single one on this site has a different meaning of when a photo is overprocessed or not.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 10:06:45 PM · #124 |
I like big butts and I won't deny.
Oops wrong thread.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 10:14:38 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Oh, absolutely. I have no quarrel with it. But the thrust of this thread is that people are "overprocessing" nature for dramatic impact. My point is that applying a sky gradient by a filter in front of the lens is no different than (and no "better" than) doing the same thing in post processing later.
R. |
I will disagree on the "No Better Than" part concerning gradient filters applied to the camera "Pre-Shutter" versus Photoshop filters "Post-shutter"
Gradient filters applied "Pre-Shutter" preserve the detail, preventing loss of data due to blown out or completely under-exposed scenes as a result of the camaera's inability to resolve the dynaimic range.
Filters applied "Post-Shutter" can only work with the pixels actually captured in the photo and may not work at all if the data is lost.
So...I guess my point, building on my earlier comment about getting it right before the shutter is released, is use photography to capture the moment the best you can using the techniques pre-shutter. Later..if you want to snap up the photo by any photoshop or printing method known to mankind..cool. You are at least making choices based on artistic license and preference rather than trying to overcome poor photographic technique.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 22:15:57. |
|
