I totally agree.
Having grown up in the film era, I am used to taking a shot and living with the outcome. All the post processing seems a little, a don't know, like cheating. It moves from photography to art. Which is fine in itself - the results can be awesome. I got beaten out in the photography division at our last succulent show and sale by someone who used her iPhone's app to process her photo ("just a single click") to the point where you couldn't tell what it was - but it was very striking.
I guess it boils down to whether you see photography as faithfully capturing a moment in time or a tool for artistic expression. Both are valid.
But even with film, there was processing in the dark room. Ansel Adams did a lot. The dodge and burn tools in Photoshop are darkroom legacies.
I mostly use Photoshop to correct bad pixels or airbrush out dust marks (my old camera has a fair bit that needs professional cleaning), though I've sometimes messed with exposure and contrast. Of course, what I see on my screen may not match what you see on your screen (indeed, the image I see in Photoshop is not the same as what I see in Preview), while a print is static (unless it fades).
|
Thread: 035 Misc Photography Crew
-
09-17-2014, 10:47 AM #121
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: California, United States
- Age: 60
- Posts: 3,217
- Rep Power: 15673
Peace: Lift Long and Prosper!
Alamagan Dågan - and proud of it!
Lean, mean, geek machine
-
09-17-2014, 11:12 AM #122
-
09-17-2014, 11:18 AM #123
- Join Date: Nov 2006
- Location: Taree, NSW, Australia
- Age: 61
- Posts: 2,292
- Rep Power: 9705
love this last shot !
in relation to your insect shot as compared to my bee shot,I love the closeness that you achieved
makes me realise I have way too much background compared to the subject
Q: given my equipment how could I obtain a result more like yours,zoom in closer ?*Compare yourself to yourself. Everyday become a stronger version of yourself.*
-
09-17-2014, 12:05 PM #124
- Join Date: Nov 2009
- Location: Hawaii, United States
- Age: 68
- Posts: 2,747
- Rep Power: 7126
-
-
09-17-2014, 01:21 PM #125
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
Personally, I process every photo I post. I shoot in RAW format, which essentially is a format specifically for post processing software. RAW is a format with a large amount of information. Some can be art, some can be very well done, and some can be very poorly done. IMO. For those unfamiliar with post processing software, there is an art to it. You won't make bad photos good with processing, but you can turn good photos into junk. I think it only becomes "cheating" when you blatantly lie about your work (claim a multi-exposure is a single exposure, claiming domestic animals are wild, etc).
Practice with your macro and super macro function on a subject that doesn't move (flowers, coins etc). Try to get closer and closer... once you are so close you can't focus on the subject, you are as close as you can get.
The biggest issue I've seen with night work is the color of the light that IS around. Most of the lights around here will cast a yellow/orange glow on everything. Adjusting the white balance will fix that. You can do it in post process, or buy a white balance card. Most of it comes down to practice.
For my post process work, I use Lightroom (an Adobe product), when I tried panoramas, I've stitch them in Photoshop. I use a program for Photomatic when I do HDR (which I have not posted ITT).
-
09-17-2014, 03:25 PM #126
-
09-17-2014, 03:48 PM #127
-
09-17-2014, 03:53 PM #128
Yeah, RAW is awesome; especially for correcting white balance. I freakin' love digital photography. Digital photography and all the great technology that's come as a result, provides the artist more tools to work with which allow for greater creative expression. That being said, I'm grateful to have started way back in the film era using the Zone System to shoot and develop film.
Hey ACC: these photos you're posting here are huge man. I have to scroll horizontally for 5 minutes to find the submit button. Could you perhaps post 'em smaller here and we can source the full res versions at imgur.
Geoff, if the insect you're trying to photograph crawls inside your nose, you're too close M8.
-
-
09-17-2014, 04:01 PM #129
-
09-17-2014, 04:04 PM #130
-
09-17-2014, 04:20 PM #131
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
I did a bit of film as a kid, but it never went past my grandmother taking the film to the K-Mart photo center to get developed.
I also think that with digital photo, the bar has been raised in what is a considered a high end quality photo. More and more people have access to cheaper cameras, cheaper lenses, and no more money spent on film and developing.
Hey ACC: these photos you're posting here are huge man. I have to scroll horizontally for 5 minutes to find the submit button. Could you perhaps post 'em smaller here and we can source the full res versions at imgur.
Typically, anything I produce, I want to be big enough for large print. This is especially true for wildlife, it's a technical challenge I enjoy.
So when can we see some more of your work?
Thanks... if you enjoy it, you should start getting some pics up. You don't need a fancy camera, just a good eye.
-
09-17-2014, 07:13 PM #132
I got linked to this by a guy in an aquarium forum,as he was chatting about speedlights and how they are beneficial in fish photography.
Seriously,thought you macro guys might like it.A few bug pics.
http://beingmark.com/macro-illustrated/
-
-
09-17-2014, 07:22 PM #133
-
09-17-2014, 09:25 PM #134
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: California, United States
- Age: 60
- Posts: 3,217
- Rep Power: 15673
Thanks - I didn't know that! Will have to give it a try.
So true. Which is why I can't photograph much more than the moon from home.
Hmm, they show up as a moderate size for me, maybe 800 pixels across. But if I download them they are huge.
Absolutely! What used to be really good bird photography is now practically run of the mill. Your shots could easily have been cover material 30 years ago.Peace: Lift Long and Prosper!
Alamagan Dågan - and proud of it!
Lean, mean, geek machine
-
09-17-2014, 09:25 PM #135
I completely agree with you that digital equipment has created greater opportunity to those with limited financial resources. Years ago, you needed seriously expensive cameras and lenses to get what can essentially be achieved today with a few hundred bucks of equipment, access to a PC and a copy of PS Lightroom. I have a kit lens that came with a Nikon body that's amazingly sharp for something that was very inexpensive. I actually use it often as its very lightweight and effective in general daylight conditions.
As for IMGUR: after uploading at full res, you can choose from a few size options for posting links. As for me posting images: I thought about what I could say to explain why I can't post any work related images (which is essentially all I shoot with the exception of my fish which you've already seen), without sounding like a complete tool and concluded that it wasn't possible. I know that you're an inquisitive fellow who likely wont be content with that lame attempt at an explanation but I'm sorry; it's all I got. Hopefully I'm still welcome to hang out here and will try to contribute something constructive to the thread.
Wow, those images are breathtaking. I think a few are gonna give me nightmares!
-
09-18-2014, 12:31 PM #136
-
-
09-18-2014, 08:30 PM #137
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: California, United States
- Age: 60
- Posts: 3,217
- Rep Power: 15673
-
09-18-2014, 08:52 PM #138
-
09-18-2014, 09:49 PM #139
-
09-19-2014, 03:22 PM #140
-
-
09-19-2014, 03:49 PM #141
- Join Date: Nov 2009
- Location: Hawaii, United States
- Age: 68
- Posts: 2,747
- Rep Power: 7126
One of the chinese themed building at the Hilton Hawaiian Village. took with my iphone.
close up (very close I suppose) of Niagara Falls, last year.
Antelope Canyon, Page, AZ. I think these slot canyons are an amazing subject for photographers. Natural light is the only way the real effect of the sunlight peaking through the "slots" can be taken. Flash will wash the colors of the rocksI'm open to any suggestions and have a difficult time accepting limitations without an honest effort on my part, you can count on that!
"iCan, iWill, iHave"
There are always choices, no bad ones, no good ones, only "great" ones,
"Oh, great!" :)
-
09-19-2014, 03:54 PM #142
-
09-19-2014, 04:32 PM #143
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
Thanks for the tip.
... and I understand the life of a superstar and the need to keep a low profile. Input is always welcome.
That's a beautiful piece of land. The iphone can take some amazing shots under the right conditions.
Can barely give the stuff away. I've seen full blackroom set ups very inexpensive. I was considering purchasing a film camera and playing around with it.
This canyon shot is great. I can imagine this place being a great spot to play around with HDR.
I'll be heading to the Great North Woods this Saturday. I'm guessing foliage should be peaking and should make some great shots. I'll be heading down what's known as moose alley as well, so I'll be hoping on some wildlife shots as well.
-
09-19-2014, 07:59 PM #144
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: California, United States
- Age: 60
- Posts: 3,217
- Rep Power: 15673
-
-
09-19-2014, 08:05 PM #145
-
09-19-2014, 08:07 PM #146
-
09-20-2014, 08:12 AM #147
-
09-20-2014, 08:31 AM #148
Just looked at some of the sheets with shutter speed
I would not recommend anything slower than 1/60's to someone that doesn't know what they are doing or without a tripod. The water shots etc should clearly state using a tripod - what tripod do you use acc?
I need a new one and have been looking at a few lately
i was going to post this but think i forgot
http://www.brainjet.com/random/3531/...f-3531#slide/0
-
-
09-20-2014, 10:28 PM #149
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
I purchased the Mefoto Road trip. Several gentlemen in the main photography thread had recommended it to me. It's an Arca Swiss style head, and the Roadtrip can handle 17lbs, weighs less than 3lbs folds fairly small and can be used as a monopod.
The prices are very reasonable ranging from $120 for the 7lb rated Daytrip, to $370 for the carbon fiber Globetrotter rated to 27 lbs at 2.6lbs. The backpacker seemed a good in between coming in at just under $200, and more than sturdy for my needs.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ripod_Kit.html
-
09-20-2014, 10:53 PM #150
Similar Threads
-
So, how many here are just here for the lulz?
By dbx in forum Over 35 MiscReplies: 154Last Post: 08-16-2014, 05:56 PM -
Official Misc Photography Crew - part 2
By jmelanson in forum Misc.Replies: 8261Last Post: 03-04-2013, 11:39 AM
Bookmarks