| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/06/2013 01:44:48 PM · #101 |
The thing of it is, some people are calling it laziness, not bothering to get it right in the first place. And sometimes that is indeed true. But many times it's taking into account the problems that you are encountering, and adjusting other things so that you can deal with it in post processing. Unless you're working in a studio with a full range of lighting equipment, there are many, many times where you have to deal with something that just isn't the ideal photographic environment. Knowing what you can and can't do with your processing, and how you're going to deal with those issues before you shoot can make or break your shot. For instance, simply knowing that it's far easier to bring back details in your shadows than to recover blown highlights can change the way you adjust your settings.
Knowing what you want your image to look like makes a huge difference in how you shoot it. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:46:07 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why don't you post an example (small is OK) of a picture, and describe in as much detail as you can how you want it to look, and perhaps what processing you may have already tried, and how that falls short of accomplishing your aim. |
i did earlier:
//i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff365/mike_311/Proofs/Matt%20and%20Kacy/IMG_4249-Edit.jpg
i think the voters agreed the original even processed as best i could under advanced, couldn't match what my mind envisioned in the final product as seen in the link.
its kind of hard to get the result i envisioned when the sun wasn't cooperating and i had to continue with the shoot.
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 13:48:01. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:48:22 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Previsualizing the finished result...I feel like I have never understood that concept. Does everyone do that but me? Does that mean that when you leave the house with your camera & associated gear you already know, & can see in your mind, what your photograph is going to look like? And you can reliably get exactly what you previsualize? |
With me it's more making me shot look like what I see. :)
When I take a picture of a backlit bird or squirrel, I know that I'm going to overexpose to expose for the animal, but that I'm going to process it for both the background and the animal to bring them back together. I know what I want my final picture to look like, and I set my settings to a point that I know that I can get those results from my RAW file. My eye can process the animal in the shadows and see the gorgeous colors in the background, but if I shoot it, one is either severely underexposed or overexposed and I need to fix it.
(I have the problem that in the winter, my deck railing is completely in shade and the yard is in sun. It's a nasty shooting situation. I'm starting to add flash, but the animals aren't real crazy about it.) |
Try hot lights - a tightly focused beam like a spotlight would easily make them bright enough without startling the snot outta them. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:50:45 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Previsualizing the finished result...I feel like I have never understood that concept. Does everyone do that but me? Does that mean that when you leave the house with your camera & associated gear you already know, & can see in your mind, what your photograph is going to look like? And you can reliably get exactly what you previsualize? |
With me it's more making me shot look like what I see. :)
When I take a picture of a backlit bird or squirrel, I know that I'm going to overexpose to expose for the animal, but that I'm going to process it for both the background and the animal to bring them back together. I know what I want my final picture to look like, and I set my settings to a point that I know that I can get those results from my RAW file. My eye can process the animal in the shadows and see the gorgeous colors in the background, but if I shoot it, one is either severely underexposed or overexposed and I need to fix it.
(I have the problem that in the winter, my deck railing is completely in shade and the yard is in sun. It's a nasty shooting situation. I'm starting to add flash, but the animals aren't real crazy about it.) |
Try hot lights - a tightly focused beam like a spotlight would easily make them bright enough without startling the snot outta them. |
the point is why? when the alternative works just fine. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:55:40 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why don't you post an example (small is OK) of a picture, and describe in as much detail as you can how you want it to look, and perhaps what processing you may have already tried, and how that falls short of accomplishing your aim. |
i did earlier:
//i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff365/mike_311/Proofs/Matt%20and%20Kacy/IMG_4249-Edit.jpg
i think the voters agreed the original even processed as best i could under advanced, couldn't match what my mind envisioned in the final product as seen in the link.
its kind of hard to get the result i envisioned when the sun wasn't cooperating and i had to continue with the shoot. |
This has nothing to do with the issue of the editing or the concept behind it or your approach to previsualization. It has EVERYTHING to do with your particular style being incompatible with the tools you are given in the set and refusing to accept a different style of end product.
ETA: I'm not casting stones here, but mean to say that's why you'll always hate it, because your style, what you want to achieve, is bounded elsewhere. It's like a color photographer railing against a BW competition. Different considerations that will never appease.
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 13:56:58. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 01:58:32 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
This has nothing to do with the issue of the editing or the concept behind it or your approach to previsualization. It has EVERYTHING to do with your particular style being incompatible with the tools you are given in the set and refusing to accept a different style of end product. |
so i should just abandon what i expect because it didn't exist rather than fabricating it? |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 02:06:27 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
ETA: I'm not casting stones here, but mean to say that's why you'll always hate it, because your style, what you want to achieve, is bounded elsewhere. It's like a color photographer railing against a BW competition. Different considerations that will never appease. |
i completely agree with your point and i'm not railing against a more minimalistic approach, merely the concept that careful planning will always produce better outputs, it won't. sometimes you just have to make do.
as much as i enjoy editing i could have saved about 3hrs of editing the shoot from last night if my camera could get it right all the time. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 02:13:37 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
ETA: I'm not casting stones here, but mean to say that's why you'll always hate it, because your style, what you want to achieve, is bounded elsewhere. It's like a color photographer railing against a BW competition. Different considerations that will never appease. |
i completely agree with your point and i'm not railing against a more minimalistic approach, merely the concept that careful planning will always produce better outputs, it won't. sometimes you just have to make do.
as much as i enjoy editing i could have saved about 3hrs of editing the shoot from last night if my camera could get it right all the time. |
Well, here's the thing. Do you think that shooting with P mode will yield better or worse results so far as your end vision is concerned than A/S/M?
If you said worse, then you agree with the premise that careful planning will produce better results. The only difference between that and minimal is the degree, and the degree comes into play in that your definition of "right" is not compatible with the bounds the camera can produce.
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 14:14:11. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 02:14:30 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
For instance, simply knowing that it's far easier to bring back details in your shadows than to recover blown highlights can change the way you adjust your settings.
Knowing what you want your image to look like makes a huge difference in how you shoot it. |
Interesting. Im the exact opposite. I know if skew my histogram to the right, I can reduce exposure in PP without introducing noise. However, if I shoot underexposed to avoid blown out highlights, I will introduce noise when I push up exposure in post. Since I try avoid noise at all costs, I shoot tocthe right of the histogram (while trying to avoid clipping). |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 02:18:52 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
This has nothing to do with the issue of the editing or the concept behind it or your approach to previsualization. It has EVERYTHING to do with your particular style being incompatible with the tools you are given in the set and refusing to accept a different style of end product. |
so i should just abandon what i expect because it didn't exist rather than fabricating it? |
No, not in the least. I'm just saying this to point out what you are actually arguing. Nobody says you have to change your style. Don't enter the challenges you aren't interested in. I could only enter landscape challenges or ones which I could shoehorn, but there is another word for that behavior.
The point that others go back to is that the challenges are intended to be learning exercises. To delve into styles, ideas, subjects you wouldn't normally. In other words, to take what you're comfortable and normally like doing and say "well, yeah, you can do that, but try doing it like this?" It's a game of photographic pig. The shots themselves are periodically dumb and absurd and almost never useful to the actual game of basketball. But playing the game improves your real game. So, too, are concerted exercises the equivalent of random trick shots. The more trick shots you know, the more of a repertoire you pull from when the money hits the table, the better your product. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 02:19:58 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
Originally posted by vawendy:
For instance, simply knowing that it's far easier to bring back details in your shadows than to recover blown highlights can change the way you adjust your settings.
Knowing what you want your image to look like makes a huge difference in how you shoot it. |
Interesting. Im the exact opposite. I know if skew my histogram to the right, I can reduce exposure in PP without introducing noise. However, if I shoot underexposed to avoid blown out highlights, I will introduce noise when I push up exposure in post. Since I try avoid noise at all costs, I shoot tocthe right of the histogram (while trying to avoid clipping). |
a better approach is to view the histogram and expose either to the right OR left depending on the curve, you want to clip as little of either the highlights or shadows as possible. both approaches have there merits, but neither is a catch all.
even using the histogram has its limits and will at time be scene dependent. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 02:21:52 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
The point that others go back to is that the challenges are intended to be learning exercises. To delve into styles, ideas, subjects you wouldn't normally. In other words, to take what you're comfortable and normally like doing and say "well, yeah, you can do that, but try doing it like this?" It's a game of photographic pig. The shots themselves are periodically dumb and absurd and almost never useful to the actual game of basketball. But playing the game improves your real game. So, too, are concerted exercises the equivalent of random trick shots. The more trick shots you know, the more of a repertoire you pull from when the money hits the table, the better your product. |
i really cant disagree with anything you just said. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 02:24:59 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
... there are many, many times where you have to deal with something that just isn't the ideal photographic environment.... |
Been there, etc.... |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 02:32:47 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by vawendy:
.....
(I have the problem that in the winter, my deck railing is completely in shade and the yard is in sun. It's a nasty shooting situation. I'm starting to add flash, but the animals aren't real crazy about it.) |
Try hot lights - a tightly focused beam like a spotlight would easily make them bright enough without startling the snot outta them. |
the point is why? when the alternative works just fine. |
Huh? What alternative? Flashes scare the animals because they're startling - animals don't seem to mind a light that is constantly on nearly as much in my experience.
Given that her backyard is a strong back-light situation, what other choices does she have, other than blow out the BG, or add light? |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 02:39:29 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by mikeee:
It's a shame we can't enter the same image in both challenges with different processing rules for each and see how they do. |
Nothing against running a side challenge once the challenge has ended, and getting participants of both to post before and after shots. Would be interesting. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 03:16:11 PM · #116 |
This is where I get confused. Trying to get a usable shot of a wild animal is one thing. Having a previsualization that it will look like a studio shot & then setting up studio lights on the deck to achieve this previsualization...I would want to recalculate my previsualization. Plus, what if the studio lighting was clearly reflected in the squirrel's eyes? How does that look like a wild animal shot?
What if you're in the middle of a shoot & have a sudden previsualization, like for mike_311 and the burst of sunlight from the BG. Is he going to be able to press pause on the shoot while he sets up the studio lighting to create the previsualized effect?
Those who favor getting it right in camera seem to be carrying around an awful lot of equipment so that they can get it right in front of the camera as well. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 03:27:33 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
This is where I get confused. Trying to get a usable shot of a wild animal is one thing. Having a previsualization that it will look like a studio shot & then setting up studio lights on the deck to achieve this previsualization...I would want to recalculate my previsualization. Plus, what if the studio lighting was clearly reflected in the squirrel's eyes? How does that look like a wild animal shot?
What if you're in the middle of a shoot & have a sudden previsualization, like for mike_311 and the burst of sunlight from the BG. Is he going to be able to press pause on the shoot while he sets up the studio lighting to create the previsualized effect?
Those who favor getting it right in camera seem to be carrying around an awful lot of equipment so that they can get it right in front of the camera as well. |
well i think there point is its an exercise to help prepare you as best you can, even though in the real world where you just can't control everything.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2013 03:33:10 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Those who favor getting it right in camera seem to be carrying around an awful lot of equipment so that they can get it right in front of the camera as well. |
Nobody is suggesting that people should always shoot and process according to Minimal rules -- the challenge/contest is an exercise in pre-visualization and lighting/exposure control. What is being encouraged it to understand your camera and how it interacts with the environment, so you'll be able to come as close as you can to an "ideal" exposure as often a possible. No one expects it to happen every time. I have maybe one out of 2000 frames which I want to print without any post-processing at all; on the contrary, I am often trying to rescue horribly-exposed shots which I have no opportunity to re-shoot: check out my Before/After Gallery
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by mikeee:
It's a shame we can't enter the same image in both challenges with different processing rules for each and see how they do. |
Nothing against running a side challenge once the challenge has ended, and getting participants of both to post before and after shots. Would be interesting. |
There will be an Out-takes thread for each challenge automatically created at roll-over. If you enter the Minimal challenge, post your edited version in the Minimal thread to show how much (or little) better it could have been. If you enter the Edited challenge, post your starting image there ...
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 15:33:41. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 03:34:40 PM · #119 |
I'm fascinated by abstracts, which is probably why I have little practical understanding of previsualization. A landscape is all done, all visualized, before the viewer gets to see it. All the viewing audience can do is admire the natural beauty and/or the technical prowess of the photog. Everyone agrees pretty much on what it is they're looking at.
A comp has a very short time, less than 1 second, to be interesting, or not. A comp that's interesting needs to offer multiple opportunities to repeat that first second, especially if it's an abstract. Otherwise, the viewer will have an "access denied" moment & move on.
I am trying to offer the 3 things human vision needs to succeed: line, shape, & tone. If I can offer these things in a seductive, interesting way, the viewer will not move on. The viewer will linger, visually tracing detail that doesn't add up to anything, line that is sharp & clear but without meaning, tone that offers variation of light & shadow that only seems like it's going to reveal form. The pattern-recognition talent of the brain will insist on finding something to recognize, but only if the viewer lingers, looking for more than that first second. If not, then it's a failed abstract.
I'm hoping the viewer will find a reason to linger, & find enough line, shape, & tone to see whatever their brain finds for them. The viewer completes the work. Each viewer completes the work in their own unique way.
This is my most successful abstract so far.
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 15:41:47. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 03:41:03 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
This is where I get confused. Trying to get a usable shot of a wild animal is one thing. Having a previsualization that it will look like a studio shot & then setting up studio lights on the deck to achieve this previsualization...I would want to recalculate my previsualization. Plus, what if the studio lighting was clearly reflected in the squirrel's eyes? How does that look like a wild animal shot?
What if you're in the middle of a shoot & have a sudden previsualization, like for mike_311 and the burst of sunlight from the BG. Is he going to be able to press pause on the shoot while he sets up the studio lighting to create the previsualized effect?
Those who favor getting it right in camera seem to be carrying around an awful lot of equipment so that they can get it right in front of the camera as well. |
The idea is to understand the go around so you may apply it when the time comes. Consider photojournalism. We like to think that the photojournalist was blissfully walking along and then BAM! magically saw that photo and instantly reacted. This is false. Read up on Bresson, read up on any number of photogs, and it takes diligence and waiting. It isn't just about equipment, it's about waiting for conditions, about waiting for composition, subjects. Expert is the opposite in that you never need to wait for things to perfectly coincide as you can manipulate them into each other. Think of this as the ultimate hunt.
Equipment DOES help, and more specifically, UNDERSTANDING your equipment. This was shot with nothing more than a camera and a tripod. 
But a huge portion of the color, the contrast, is all due to settings, and waiting as the light developed. I have one that I edited and hung as a canvas, but really, this is pretty close to that end product that was edited. Like I said to Mike, some styles won't ever align with Minimal, but that isn't the point of the challenges, either. Knowing your equipment, how the light works, means understanding the go-arounds. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 03:49:34 PM · #121 |
And I agree with all you said.
Sometimes, you have to wait for the light. Sometimes you have to have the camera already in your hand. I see that sink every day in the breakroom at work. In 4 years, I have never seen that light again.
 |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 03:55:39 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
And I agree with all you said.
Sometimes, you have to wait for the light. Sometimes you have to have the camera already in your hand. I see that sink every day in the breakroom at work. In 4 years, I have never seen that light again.
|
And so far as abstracts go, yes, they are often the product of experimentation and serendipity. But this does not preclude minimal either. If anything, the biggest limitation in this sense is the strictness of BW conversion, which can dramatically change a scene, particularly an abstract. So here's the thing. If you find you like it, quickly change to a BW conversion that you have preset. On my LX5, for instance, I have a specially set mode for the BW I prefer, which is high contrast, very sharp, super black blacks and blown whites. Always ready on the dial for when the time comes, even though I normally shoot RAW+jpeg standard. Subjects are fleeting, but anticipate, see before seeing. Here's a decent example. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 04:12:46 PM · #123 |
As I heard the story, Galen Rowell saw the storm developing and ran a half mile across fields to get into position in time to capture this image of a rainbow over the Portola Palace in Tibet.
His site has several years' worth of articles written for Outdoor Photographer; I particularly recommend:
A Lucky Day
Originally posted by Galen Rowell:
Pre-visualization does not necessarily mean that you have visited a location before, but that you pre-visualize the way the image will look on film before you take the photograph, instead of merely taking a snapshot with the naïve expectation that the outcome will be like you see. The problem with pre-visualization is that unless you think about it and take action, it’s a passive enterprise. In other words you found the picture by looking through your normal visual system without thinking about how things look on film. You got your feet in those Kodak footprints that are sometimes put where the landscape photograph is supposed to be right, and only then do you say to yourself, "oh this is going to look good on film so maybe I want to compose this a little differently than I ordinarily would." That’s very low-level passive pre-visualization. At a higher, more active level, pre-visualization means that you are always viewing things by mentally translating what you see into the foreign language of film and imagining the visual power in this way of seeing that is not before your eyes. Taking it a step further, if you can go to a location before hand on a different day or in different lighting, you can further imagine the way the lighting might be at the ideal time of day, what time of day that is, and return with a more powerful pre-visualization in mind and a little more spare time. |
Message edited by author 2013-03-06 16:13:30. |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 09:21:20 PM · #124 |
|
|
|
03/06/2013 10:08:13 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hmmmmmmm |
O....M....G |
|
