RANT: Deadlifts & pizza help to prevent ebola. YA RLY!

[kvk1]

it's my gift to you

[400Lb Gorilla]

it's my gift to you

I got a gift for you, nom sayin?

















I mean my penor

[GREENFEATHER]

And, yet, it's actually one of the most real. Was beautiful out there today.

You guys need to take off your armchair photo expert goggles for a sec, you're starting to see things that aren't there.

Then lets see the unedited pic so we can be the judge.

it's my gift to you

Like herpes? The gift that keeps on giving.

[Final_Rep]

Then lets see the unedited pic so we can be the judge.

Define unedited.

Because if you think a RAW image is anything like what your eyes saw at the scene then I've got some bad news for ya.

[Farley1324]

Tony's bad-Indian-food dreams are ****ing with my head lol

[Dominik]

Define unedited.

Because if you think a RAW image is anything like what your eyes saw at the scene then I've got some bad news for ya.

It's interesting how the human brain can usually figure out when something isn't right even when that person doesn't know much about photography. What's probably throwing them off is the reflection being as bright as what is being reflected along with the strong local contrast, especially in areas like the clouds which are soft.

As for the point about dynamic range, this should help get the point across to anyone with only a passing interest in this:



Edit: here's what I think the original scene would have looked like (2nd image). And if they wouldn't believe that then they've never ventured far enough away from the tour bus to experience a beautiful sunset somewhere like that.

[theshoupguy]

Shoup those people are on crack, buy shoes that fit.

http://www.amazon.com/Clarks-Origina...RankDescending

Cliffs: they run a size big?

I have Clark's Desert Boots. Srs.

Do they hurt your footsies?

Nevermind, I found it.

It's 9.95.

God exists.

I'm showing $19.95.

Unless you're going for the pink one.


Not that there's anything wrong with that.

photarrgraphy

[im2manly]

they did a little bit, but they are breaking in nicely.

[Farley1324]

So if you're not sure if it's aliiiive or dead, poke it with a stick, and lick the stiiick, instead

[Orlando1234977]

And, yet, it's actually one of the most real. Was beautiful out there today.

You guys need to take off your armchair photo expert goggles for a sec, you're starting to see things that aren't there.

You can sell all that bullsh_t at the winter art fair on the square this weekend (or choose the summer one). Trust me people are so stoned & hyped they'll think it's real and you'll be 5 large in no time.

http://www.visitmadison.com/includes...4699/535/?sr=1

College hoops starts tonight.
ESPN and the others ranked big ole Franky the top player in the country.

1-0. 62-31

[Final_Rep]

It's interesting how the human brain can usually figure out when something isn't right even when that person doesn't know much about photography. What's probably throwing them off is the reflection being as bright as what is being reflected along with the strong local contrast, especially in areas like the clouds which are soft.

As for the point about dynamic range, this should help get the point across to anyone with only a passing interest in this:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/MNgyDo2.jpg[img]

Edit: here's what I think the original scene would have looked like (2nd image). And if they wouldn't believe that then they've never ventured far enough away from the tour bus to experience a beautiful sunset somewhere like that.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/shvK9bb.jpg[img]

Good post! I like it. The edit is pretty close too btw, but I'd say it was a bit darker in real life, at least as far as I recall.

I actually had a version where I used a graduated filter on the reflection for that exact reason. The reason the reflection is so bright is because of the tone compression in HDR Efex Pro 2. I wrestled back and forth with changing the exposure level of the reflection but in the end... well you saw.

Thx for your thoughts Dom.

You can sell all that bullsh_t at the winter art fair on the square this weekend (or choose the summer one). Trust me people are so stoned & hyped they'll think it's real and you'll be 5 large in no time.

http://www.visitmadison.com/includes...4699/535/?sr=1

I'd def. put a couple prints in there. Would be a lot of fun to see the other work too.

[GREENFEATHER]

Define unedited.

Because if you think a RAW image is anything like what your eyes saw at the scene then I've got some bad news for ya.

I got some bad news for you too.

[Dominik]

Good post! I like it. The edit is pretty close too btw, but I'd say it was a bit darker in real life, at least as far as I recall.

I actually had a version where I used a graduated filter on the reflection for that exact reason. The reason the reflection is so bright is because of the tone compression in HDR Efex Pro 2. I wrestled back and forth with changing the exposure level of the reflection but in the end... well you saw.

Thx for your thoughts Dom.

I figured it'd be slightly darker based on what I've experienced but didn't want to make it dull.

What a lot of people don't get is that presenting "reality" with no tone curve applied, neutral color, etc., will often be perceived to be boring. I mean you're talking about a two-dimensional medium. When you're standing there you're looking at a dynamic scene. Water, clouds and leaves are moving. Wildlife is present. You can hear the sound of a waterfall or waves lapping at the shore. That enhances the experience and your memory of it.

Now you could have shot that on Fuji Velvia film and the colors would be even more saturated with similar global contrast yet you haven't touched the saturation or contrast sliders. It comes off the drum scanner looking like that because that's the way it rendered on the transparency. That's not even taking into account how many famous images were manipulated in the darkroom.

And what about the millions shooting with phone cameras and compacts that automatically apply a strong tone curve and jack up the Crayola colors before baking it into a nice little JPEG for ********? They'll declare "it's unedited!" That's right, the camera did the editing for you.

So in order to create a print that someone would want to hang on their wall, as you know, it needs a little polishing. Of course some photographers take it too far but there is no right or wrong — it comes down to taste. I'll speak for myself and say that if people are asking "did it really look like that?" or "was it Photoshopped?" then I think I've failed in my job as a photographer. I want them to be talking about how beautiful a place is and not any skill that was required on my part to capture and process it.

#tl;dr

[Dominik]

Just to add to that, re: this example I posted in the photography thread, a lot of people would assume that B&W image is heavily worked.

The reality is that same shot could have been captured on film with every adjustment possible in a conventional darkroom. While I will sometimes spend hours on one image, making slight adjustments, walking away, coming back and making some more, if I get it right in the camera then it doesn't need much done at all and the time spent is just because I'm being a perfectionist.

In the top example all I did was dial back the exposure because I pushed it as far to the right as possible in camera to get a little more shadow detail from that sensor and highlight recovery because the sun was right behind the clouds. Could I live with the original shot? Sure. However as a print to hang on my wall I refined it. I don't care who likes it or not. The first person who has to be happy with it is me and anyone else who does is icing on the cake.

[Miketoc]

[mg]http://i.imgur.com/JXrW3yp.jpg[/ig]

That's fake as **** too, there's no way all those charts and graphs are built into the side of a cliff.

[Lencho]

That's fake as **** too, there's no way all those charts and graphs are built into the side of a cliff.

Bro, you don't know what his reality is when he's standing at the base of a chart-laden cliff.

[Dominik]

When I'm standing at the bottom of a cliff I see charts, graphs and dead people.

[GREENFEATHER]

The dulled, "fluffy", waves annoys the hell out of me. If you tried to sell that to me for advertising I'd tell you to go get stuffed. The same applies to running water, it's quite off putting to me.

[Dominik]

The dulled, "fluffy", waves annoys the hell out of me. If you tried to sell that to me for advertising I'd tell you to go get stuffed. The same applies to running water, it's quite off putting to me.

It's a longer exposure, as in a few seconds. It's not available for advertising. It's a print.

Catching the wave in that exact position is going to be hit and miss, and since the movement of the water is completely random you could take a thousand shots and never get one that looks like that. If the tide is too high the rock will be submerged. If the tide is too low then you'll see too much dry sand. Get too close to the rock and it overpowers the rest of the image. Stand too far back and it loses impact or becomes a distraction. For me that was exactly what I wanted to capture. Printed on baryta paper it's one of my favorite images.

You might prefer moving water frozen with a fast shutter speed but that's not realistic either since you won't see it that way with your own eyes.

Anyway the key point from the previous post is that I shoot landscapes for myself. If others like those images then that's great. If they don't then it doesn't matter. I might not like any of their images. All of this stuff is subjective. You could execute a shot perfectly but a lot of people might find it boring. Meanwhile there are plenty of poorly executed images on a technical level that evoke a strong emotional response.

I'd imagine it's the same for Frep. He shoots landscapes for himself. A lot of people like them, they're just not in this thread.

[Dominik]

The same applies to running water, it's quite off putting to me.

So if you were taking a photo of a quiet waterfall somewhere, you'd prefer it to look like the shot on the left?



Unless it's a raging torrent where you want to convey the power of that moving water then I prefer the approach on the right. Of course there's no right or wrong. You could shoot it at 1/8000 and eyeball every droplet but of course it'd be no closer to reality than a long exposure.

[Farley1324]

The waterfall on the left looks a lot more like what you would actually see if you were there. The one on the right just looks like/like you are in a video game.


AT&T rocks. Okay not really but we get a discount. To make it short, I upgraded from an S3 to an S5 back in June, signing up for the AT&T Next plan. Only ATT never added the Next installments/payments to the monthly bill. They think my line is still eligible for an upgrade.

So basically they ****ed up and I got an S5 for the sales tax and am still upgrade eligible.

I didn't 100% realize and verify that this was what happened until this morning.

[Dominik]

The waterfall on the left looks a lot more like what you would actually see if you were there. The one on the right just looks like/like you are in a video game.

Google "waterfalls", excluding large falls like Niagra Falls. What do you see? There must be a reason why a longer shutter speed is preferred.

Just like there's a reason why a lot of movies have been shot at 24fps and on 35mm film rather than digital. There's a cinematic look to that combination that you won't get with the gear used to shoot your local news. Which one is more "realistic?" Would you like Breaking Bad or The Sopranos more if it was shot handheld with an iPhone?

As for Frep, while I do think color and contrast could occasionally be dialed back, I get the feeling that unless his images looked like your travel snaps you'd still be dismissing them as "fake."

[darinaldi]

Manly and lolschach,

I'm en route to your ballsack of a state, but fortunately only as a layover before heading to someplace better. So when you suddenly feel New Jersey not sucking as much for about two hours, you'll know why.

[im2manly]

Manly and lolschach,

I'm en route to your ballsack of a state, but fortunately only as a layover before heading to someplace better. So when you suddenly feel New Jersey not sucking as much for about two hours, you'll know why.

nice, hit me up when you land. (201)-867-5309.


Baby shower is today. Thank god. Can't take her daily interrogations.

[PapaBurgandy]

nice, hit me up when you land. (201)-867-5309.


Baby shower is today. Thank god. Can't take her daily interrogations.

Nudes inbound.

[GREENFEATHER]

So if you were taking a photo of a quiet waterfall somewhere, you'd prefer it to look like the shot on the left?



Unless it's a raging torrent where you want to convey the power of that moving water then I prefer the approach on the right. Of course there's no right or wrong. You could shoot it at 1/8000 and eyeball every droplet but of course it'd be no closer to reality than a long exposure.

Yes. I don't like that sort of photo done on long exposure.

Nudes inbound.

I don't think Jenny's going to appreciate them, I hear she changed teams after high school. She was a fukn nutcase anyway.

[therorschach]

Baby shower is today.

Make sure you bring your umbrella.

[PapaBurgandy]

Yes. I don't like that sort of photo done on long exposure.



I don't think Jenny's going to appreciate them, I hear she changed teams after high school. She was a fun nutcase anyway.

Damn you, Tommy Twotone.

[Dominik]

Yes. I don't like that sort of photo done on long exposure.

Perfectly entitled to your opinion but you'd be in the minority.

A photograph is obviously two-dimensional and can only present a single moment in time so how is it supposed to accurately convey something dynamic like a waterfall? You're better off watching a video of the falls or even better standing there and experiencing it.

[Final_Rep]

What a lot of people don't get is that presenting "reality" with no tone curve applied, neutral color, etc., will often be perceived to be boring. I mean you're talking about a two-dimensional medium. When you're standing there you're looking at a dynamic scene. Water, clouds and leaves are moving. Wildlife is present. You can hear the sound of a waterfall or waves lapping at the shore. That enhances the experience and your memory of it.

Now you could have shot that on Fuji Velvia film and the colors would be even more saturated with similar global contrast yet you haven't touched the saturation or contrast sliders. It comes off the drum scanner looking like that because that's the way it rendered on the transparency. That's not even taking into account how many famous images were manipulated in the darkroom.

And what about the millions shooting with phone cameras and compacts that automatically apply a strong tone curve and jack up the Crayola colors before baking it into a nice little JPEG for ********? They'll declare "it's unedited!" That's right, the camera did the editing for you.

So in order to create a print that someone would want to hang on their wall, as you know, it needs a little polishing. Of course some photographers take it too far but there is no right or wrong — it comes down to taste. I'll speak for myself and say that if people are asking "did it really look like that?" or "was it Photoshopped?" then I think I've failed in my job as a photographer. I want them to be talking about how beautiful a place is and not any skill that was required on my part to capture and process it.

#tl;dr

Re: the bold, totally agree. But I also keep in mind there are more and more people who are starting to think they know what is real and what isn't (even though they don't) and these people will assume something is photoshopped at some level while it really isn't. I'm somewhat sad for these folks. Like people who go to a movie and can't suspend their disbelief, and only worry about the most trivial technical flaws, and their experience and immersion in the *art* of the movie is tremendously reduced.

Sounds like Farley is that person, apparently... and maybe some others ITT.

I'd imagine it's the same for Frep. He shoots landscapes for himself. A lot of people like them, they're just not in this thread.

Exactly this. I want to share the beauty of Alaska and I've always been 100% honest: I edit my photos to the point where I feel like they convey what I saw and felt at the scene at the time.

The one on the right just looks like/like you are in a video game.

This is a tiring statement. Long exposure photography has been around a lot longer than video games.

As for Frep, while I do think color and contrast could occasionally be dialed back, I get the feeling that unless his images looked like your travel snaps you'd still be dismissing them as "fake."

Aye, we've been down this road a dozen times and respect each other's thoughts on the matter.