|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/28/2006 05:29:34 PM · #176 |
well, good, then. i'll, just , um, go over there...
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 06:05:39 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
the last straight from the camera challenge produced this shot:
A very beautiful image that would probably ribbon in any regular challenge. I don't see the need for them (straight from the camera challenges) myself. |
For what it is worth, look at Gaurawa's notes for this "straight from the camera" entry:
"Normally I shoot in the 'failthful' settings of camera, but for this challenge I had to define an user setting with high sharpness, contrast and saturation, the images looked way too saturated in the lcd, I played with different saturation settings and kept clicking, picked whichever worked best on my monitor."
There you have it; the user himself points out that depending on how he set his camera (this ought to be obvious anyway) he got wildly varying results. He shot a whole bunch of different combinations of settings, and picked the one that looked best to enter in the challenge!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing this at all; that's exactly how I'd have done it too. And it's a fine picture.
But my point is, how is this in any way more useful, more "pure", more-whatever-adjective-you-choose, than just taking a properly-exposed image and adjusting sharpness, hue/sat, levels etc to produce the optimal result in post-processing?
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 18:06:19.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 06:13:54 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
the last straight from the camera challenge produced this shot:
A very beautiful image that would probably ribbon in any regular challenge. I don't see the need for them (straight from the camera challenges) myself. |
For what it is worth, look at Gaurawa's notes for this "straight from the camera" entry:
"Normally I shoot in the 'failthful' settings of camera, but for this challenge I had to define an user setting with high sharpness, contrast and saturation, the images looked way too saturated in the lcd, I played with different saturation settings and kept clicking, picked whichever worked best on my monitor."
There you have it; the user himself points out that depending on how he set his camera (this ought to be obvious anyway) he got wildly varying results. He shot a whole bunch of different combinations of settings, and picked the one that looked best to enter in the challenge!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing this at all; that's exactly how I'd have done it too. And it's a fine picture.
But my point is, how is this in any way more useful, more "pure", more-whatever-adjective-you-choose, than just taking a properly-exposed image and adjusting sharpness, hue/sat, levels etc to produce the optimal result in post-processing? |
this was actually my point too. straight from the camera doesn't really mean anything. I mean the two new nikons can make composits in camera. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 06:23:24 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But my point is, how is this in any way more useful, more "pure", more-whatever-adjective-you-choose, than just taking a properly-exposed image and adjusting sharpness, hue/sat, levels etc to produce the optimal result in post-processing? |
this was actually my point too. straight from the camera doesn't really mean anything. I mean the two new nikons can make composits in camera. |
ok, maybe a straight-to-the-camera doesn't mean anything to YOU, but as a beginner I find it very educational to see how much I can achieve in the camera alone. No challenge appeals to everyone, nor should it.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 06:28:42 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
ok, maybe a straight-to-the-camera doesn't mean anything to YOU, but as a beginner I find it very educational to see how much I can achieve in the camera alone. No challenge appeals to everyone, nor should it. |
I understand what you're saying, but the BEST way to see what you can achieve "in the camera alone" is to shoot in RAW, and then adjust the camera settings in the RAW converter to see the effects of the various settings.
The EOS Viewer Utility that shipped with your camera (or can be downloaded from Canon's site) is a very simple RAW converter that has each of the camera parameters duplicated in the converter. You can immediately see the effect of variations such as WB, more or less exposure, contrast, color saturation, and sharpness.
MUCH more instructive, to my mind, than shooting multiple variations of the same shot and trying to compare them side by side.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 06:38:48 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The EOS Viewer Utility that shipped with your camera (or can be downloaded from Canon's site) is a very simple RAW converter that has each of the camera parameters duplicated in the converter. You can immediately see the effect of variations such as WB, more or less exposure, contrast, color saturation, and sharpness. |
very cool, and I admit that in the last challenge I mucked around with in-camera b/w and sepia settings, but I also like the idea of a challenge that inspires me to use the BIG THREE (f-stop, shutter speed, ISO) to best effect, as well as framing a shot in the camera. I've heard you say that you should simply try to get the proper exposure in-camera because that lets you adjust the most afterwards, and that is my philosophy as well. But good framing is a useful skill and the rest is simply fun, but in an important way: it inspires a newbie like me to see what my magical instrument can do all by its lonesome. It's a great exercise. When I used to do practice swings in baseball I would use one hand at a time so I could focus on that one hand and what it needed to do, and build strength in that one hand. When the game was on, though, always two hands. So I guess it depends on whether or not you consider dpchallenge a real game or a practice swing... :)
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 06:45:16 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The EOS Viewer Utility that shipped with your camera (or can be downloaded from Canon's site) is a very simple RAW converter that has each of the camera parameters duplicated in the converter. You can immediately see the effect of variations such as WB, more or less exposure, contrast, color saturation, and sharpness. |
very cool, and I admit that in the last challenge I mucked around with in-camera b/w and sepia settings, but I also like the idea of a challenge that inspires me to use the BIG THREE (f-stop, shutter speed, ISO) to best effect, as well as framing a shot in the camera. I've heard you say that you should simply try to get the proper exposure in-camera because that lets you adjust the most afterwards, and that is my philosophy as well. But good framing is a useful skill and the rest is simply fun, but in an important way: it inspires a newbie like me to see what my magical instrument can do all by its lonesome. It's a great exercise. When I used to do practice swings in baseball I would use one hand at a time so I could focus on that one hand and what it needed to do, and build strength in that one hand. When the game was on, though, always two hands. So I guess it depends on whether or not you consider dpchallenge a real game or a practice swing... :) |
Yes, getting the correct exposure is key. My posts pretty much all say "correctly exposed original" or some variation of same. But the contrast, the saturation, the WB, all that stuff can be done exactly as the camera does it in PP from RAW. Variations in f/stop, shutter speed, ISO of course must be done in-camera.
Look at it this way; if you tried to shoot in jpg all the permutations of ISO, shutter speed, and f/stop multiplied by all the permutations of WB, contrast, saturation and sharpness, you'd fill a gigabyte card on the single shot.
You can eliminate most of those variations by correctly exposing a single shot for each ISO and f/stop etc, then using the converter to play with the adjustable parameters.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 09:26:10 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by Bosborne:
First off, congrats to Ursula on a beautiful shot. And this leads me to my questions....
....is this a photography site, or a "Let's see how well I can post process my shot in order to win" site?
Maybe it should be renamed to: dpppchallenge.com. (digital photo post-processing challenge)
It seems that some of the winning shots have major adjustments in Basic Editing and when it's Advanced editing, it's anything goes....
Just wondering what other folks think.
(Not pickin' on ya Ursula, but when I saw all the post processing, it just made me wonder)
Edit to fix spelling of Ursula. Sorry.. |
so it seems we finally get back to the begining ----i guess the question should be how much talk is there on this site about working your camera to its fullest-photography or or talk about taking a photo and how to devbelope it to its fullest in photoshop!? |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 10:03:03 PM · #184 |
I don't think that anyone was really slamming Ursula or anyone else for their post processing. I think her picture is phenomenal and it certainly deserved the ribbon that it received. I absolutely love it. I also think that post processing is wonderful and I am trying to learn more about it all the time. I wish I had the post processing knowledge that she and other people on this site have. But by the same token, is their anything wrong with having a straight from the camera challenge every couple of months or so. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to enter just like I don't have to enter challenges that I don't like.
Ursula, I feel bad that you were the one that was singled out for this discussion. You certainly didn't deserve it. It just seems like some people don't want to understand the view that straight from the camera is cool too. |
|
|
|
09/28/2006 10:18:49 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
I don't think that anyone was really slamming Ursula or anyone else for their post processing. I think her picture is phenomenal and it certainly deserved the ribbon that it received. I absolutely love it. I also think that post processing is wonderful and I am trying to learn more about it all the time. I wish I had the post processing knowledge that she and other people on this site have. But by the same token, is their anything wrong with having a straight from the camera challenge every couple of months or so. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to enter just like I don't have to enter challenges that I don't like.
Ursula, I feel bad that you were the one that was singled out for this discussion. You certainly didn't deserve it. It just seems like some people don't want to understand the view that straight from the camera is cool too. |
Don't feel bad. I never felt slammed or attacked or anything like that. If anything, I felt bad for Becky (however funny that may be) and also for Arcady, who decided to stop talking here, which was sad.
I think my original comment on the image (that it doesn't look anything like what came from the camera) was a reflection of my own uncertainty about some of these issues. It's not easy to put things into words that make sense to many people, and it is even more difficult to make categorical statements that make sense over time. What I mean is that I don't think it's possible to really and precisely define things such as "how much is too much".
My view is that in general you need to have a good photo/good idea for starters, and a bit of luck. I think it's important to visualize your end product all the way along. I prefer to use the least amount of editing possible to maximize the idea and the looks of an image. I like the tools we have and want to be able to use them well, but it's got to be the full range - brain, feelings, eyes, camera, lenses and other accessories, lighting, computer, processsing, print.
To be honest, the part that is missing for me right now is the end product, the print. I am working on that, I would love to become a "master digital printer", and someday I think I will.
Added: There's nothing wrong with having a straight from the camera challenge ever so often, and we've had a few. You're right, if someone doesn't care to participate, so be it. What I don't particularily like though is the thinking that somehow "straight from the camera" makes for a more purer form of photography. That IMO is off the mark. Unfinished doesn't make purer. Getting it right right away rather than a bit later doesn't make it purer. But that's just my opinion.
Message edited by author 2006-09-28 22:22:24. |
|
|
|
09/29/2006 01:46:54 AM · #186 |
this was actually my point too. straight from the camera doesn't really mean anything. I mean the two new nikons can make composits in camera. [/quote]
ok, maybe a straight-to-the-camera doesn't mean anything to YOU, but as a beginner I find it very educational to see how much I can achieve in the camera alone. No challenge appeals to everyone, nor should it. [/quote]
YES ! Exactly, this is my feeling as well.
I think many have lost sight of what it is that makes many of us 'want' to take photos.
Personally I like to take photos of 'things' that I see that are 'cool, neat, different or simply inspiring! Many of us whom are new to photography would very much like to DEVELOP the "primary skills" to be able to capture 'that subject and/or content' as closely, if not "exactly" as we see it. Does this make us purist’s? Certainly not. We are merely eager to learn how to use our cameras and the applicable hardware that goes with them. After all, isn't this the first step in actually taking a photo and eliminating a ton of Post Processing?
I absolutely have no problem with any post processing of photos. As a matter of fact, I have had to do LOT's of it with the crappy little camera I used to own. Although my skills using Photoshop and Elements is pretty limited (due to my lack of patience..), my Wife on the other hand, is an absolute GURU when it comes to Post Processing and digital manipulation. It would be pretty easy for me to get all the help I would need in order to create amazing, color, and texture perfect images. All I have to do is turn around in my chair and ask...
Post Processing is definitely an Art, and no doubt has its place in Digital Photography, but it's not why I am here, and judging by the amount of members here at dpchallenge, I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one in that boat.
One of the most valuable things I first learned about Photography, Art, and Digital Manipulation (not necessarily in that order...) is that ANYONE (no matter how good they are at what they do) who tells you that "you NEED to do it this way", which of course means THEIR WAY" is quite simply a "DIGITAL FACSIST" and there is definitely no short supply of them....
/FC
|
|
|
|
09/29/2006 02:26:53 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by floppychicken:
It would be pretty easy for me to get all the help I would need in order to create amazing, color, and texture perfect images. All I have to do is turn around in my chair and ask...
/FC |
That's not going to happen unless yo produce a properly exposed image with the correct lighting to make the texture available for her to work with.
Even the most sophisticated photoshop gurus cant turn a big black blob into a beautiful flower.
Edit: Don't take that personally, I wouldn't know your photo taking skills, since I have yet to see any of your work ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-09-29 02:33:04.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2006 02:35:42 AM · #188 |
 
And for what it's worth... these two images that also ribboned in the same challenge "appear" to have very little PP work done to them. Just something to think about.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2006 03:48:42 AM · #189 |
[i]Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
[quote=floppychicken] It would be pretty easy for me to get all the help I would need in order to create amazing, color, and texture perfect images. All I have to do is turn around in my chair and ask...
/FC |
[i]That's not going to happen unless yo produce a properly exposed image with the correct lighting to make the texture available for her to work with.
Even the most sophisticated photoshop gurus cant turn a big black blob into a beautiful flower.
Oh Absolutely..! I completely agree with you, 'crap in, is usually crap out', the photo still needs to be decent, unless of course, you are watching CSI reruns, or movies where some UBER GEEK takes a 'horrific' digital security camera image and re-engineers it (post process'it?) into a beautiful 11 x 14 glossy and thereby identifying the secret double AGENT ! (hahahahah..yeah, right.)
Anyway, that's sorta the point I was trying to make. I would assume that most photographers would want to take 'the best possible photo' in the first place. That ultimately, is my intent.
You asked about my skills,... Well, I personally don't think I really have any yet ! I have been doing too much bloody research and not nearly enough picture taking...I think I have a pretty good starter camera, I just need to start using it. So in a nutshell, I am looking to find out how my camera works, and what I can do to improve my Photo taking skills (if you can call them that.... :)
Edit: Don't take that personally, I wouldn't know your photo taking skills, since I have yet to see any of your work ;-)
No worries ! "Thou did not offend!" I take very little seriously, much less personally...
/FC |
|
|
|
09/29/2006 12:17:19 PM · #190 |
| I don't understand why some people here complain about post-processing that is done by some to improve their photos. No one is forcing them to use those techniques, or to even be here. There are plenty of other sites that do not have this sort of thing. Frankly, I believe that many members are breaking new ground in photography here. And what makes it so incredible is the fact that the majority of them are not professionals. Take a look for yourself at some of the other sites. Sure, there are some professionals that do excellent work and are very good at photoshop. I think that most of us are here to learn and in my "googling around" I have yet to find a better site to learn. |
|
|
|
09/29/2006 12:33:42 PM · #191 |
Being new to DPC, I've been observing the voting process for a few weeks before wading in myself, and I think there's two criteria I'll be using when voting that relate to post-proc. The first involves how well the post-proc was executed, the second involves how relevant the post-proc is to the impact of the image.
As examples, consider a couple of my own images:
 
On the first, while the processing is obvious, in my opinion, it works well with the image and is well done (i.e. I colored between the lines, no obvious editing artifacts, etc.) In the second, however, the editing is very obvious (lighting problems, color problems, poor merging of the digital tattoo into the skin, grainy hair, bad border between the spiked hair and the background, etc.), so obvious that it detracts from the impact of the image. I look at it and I think "Wow, what bad post-proc" before I think "Haha, Charlie doesn't have a tattoo in real life!"
Now, compare that to another of my images:
This one has at least as much processing done to it as the Pleasantville image (crop, HSL, curves, smart sharpen, NeatImage), but none of it is obvious. While I may have been able to "fix" some of the issues, such as contrast and color balance, in-camera, the SS and NI are both things that help improve an already competent image and can't be done any other way. Well done, not obvious, improves the image, and enables me to present the image I was trying to capture when I released the shutter.
For me, Photoshop is just another tool in my kit, just like my wide-angle lens, my infrared filter, or my tripod. In my mind, telling a digital artist not to use it is akin to telling a painter he can only use red paint or a certain brush. Sure, a good artist will still be able to produce good art, but it limits for no other reason than binding the hands of the artist. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 06:16:24 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 06:16:24 PM EDT.
|
