U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-17-2011, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,724 posts, read 10,623,647 times
Reputation: 14474

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog View Post
The right way to do this is take two quick consecutive shots, one exposed for the scene, and one exposed for the moon. Then merge the two photos in post. Using a moon from a different scene is a no-no in my book, because it's not real. That moon isn't even in the same phase as the original, nor the same size. So it's not a historically accurate recording of the scene. However, a bracketed shot is historically accurate. And you're right, a GND wouldn't have reduced the exposure enough. You get an A for execution though as your composition looks pretty good.

Oh, and good job leaving your EXIF intact on your image.
Yes, I actually didn't even notice the moon when I was taking the picture. Nor did I intentionally leave in the EXIF data (I'm not sure how to even see that). But it was just an experiment really, and to be honest I think I'd prefer the picture with no moon at all than highly edited or overexposed. When I was putting the other moon in, I did notice it wasn't in the same phase, and I even have another moon shot that is in the correct phase, but I couldn't find it at the time. Oh well. Also, looking at the two pictures now, I think I kind of prefer the way the original preserves the silhouette of the trees in the background. Somehow I didn't see that when I was editing the colors originally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2011, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Bliss Township, Michigan
6,429 posts, read 9,471,483 times
Reputation: 6699
I've been following these threads on "photo improvements", and have to say that I agree and dis agree with just about everything that has been said.

The one thing that Floyd just said about us being our own costumer couldn't be truer, and that's just the way I feel about my photos. I'm the customer.

I take and appreciate constructive criticism, Floyd has given me some in the past about sharpening. I have learned from that. My biggest problem is with color, I'm color blind, so what I see and like, some or most wont, so if I have another person around I ask for their input.

I shoot RAW (no, not in the raw ya perves), so I always process my images, some very very little, some more. One other thing, I am almost always playing with different settings on my camera to attempt to reproduce what I see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Bliss Township, Michigan
6,429 posts, read 9,471,483 times
Reputation: 6699
Keeping with the theme of this thread.
Here are 3 I took today.
First one was only resized
Second was edited to my taste
and the third, just you could say I antiqued it.





Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Point Hope Alaska
4,322 posts, read 2,585,512 times
Reputation: 1146
I had a scanner that had digital ice - Epson - and it was great - I gave it away when I left Barrow. But the model I had could not handle that in the manner in which you suggested.

When I purchased that Epson I was inclined to scan all of my thousands of slides and negatives over again and I was totally blown away with the results. Myron Rosenberg a famous photographer ;here in Alaska, has a scanner that costs $40,000 Where does it all end ??

This customer was in a small tiny eskimo whaling village 200 miles above the arctic circle.

We looked everywhere in the village - nothing to be found (j/k).



Total Population = 700+ Inupiaq Eskimos This is the oldest continually inhabited settlement or village in all of North America ! Life can accurately be traced back many thousands of years to this one spot of land.

http://majikimaje.com/Drop/Pt.Hope (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 07:30 PM
 
Location: Point Hope Alaska
4,322 posts, read 2,585,512 times
Reputation: 1146
Quote:
Thanks Sity. I normally don't care for grainy images, but playing around I sort of liked this, not sure why though.
It is very rustic looking, the way to get the noise out of the sky (the method I am aware of) (smudge it all up & off the top). is too time consuming sort of. But I am sure you can get it all out. Indeed it is striking & rustic looking and saleable in my opinion. That is the one standard (for me) I apply to all photographs. This is my job to make and sell images. And you.... Whoa.. you are sitting on a 'gold mine' !! I know what sells Nephler. I can tell in a second just by looking !! That's been my discipline for a very long time. Its a habit i will never be able to break.

Living in a small village with computers and printers it was a virtual non-stop money maker for me.. these people kept me very busy. Kotzebue, Point Hope & in Barrow!!

You should really.really,really get a copy of Photographers Market Book and begin to read and learn "How to market your images" Work from home and watch what happens when you follow all the simple time consuming steps! Adobe Corel, Hallmark and 10,000 other big names with addresses and what they want and what they are willing to pay for it. You got nothing to loose !!

Edit: All of you on this forum create incredible outstanding images - go buy that book and LEARN the other side of photography !!

Last edited by SityData; 09-17-2011 at 07:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 08:21 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
6,895 posts, read 13,635,839 times
Reputation: 8408
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData View Post
This customer was in a small tiny eskimo whaling village 200 miles above the arctic circle.

We looked everywhere in the village - nothing to be found (j/k).

Total Population = 700+ Inupiaq Eskimos This is the oldest continually inhabited settlement or village in all of North America ! Life can accurately be traced back many thousands of years to this one spot of land.
Amazing. Post some pictures inside the town on another thread if you gottem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Desert Southwest
715 posts, read 1,567,813 times
Reputation: 1924
Here's one I tried to save, sun was really blowing out the hotels.

The original shot in RAW, converted to JPEG only.


Processed with PS and OnOne.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,837 posts, read 18,750,699 times
Reputation: 11929
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85 View Post
I can see very obvious difference in detail between my RAW and my .jpeg shots. The in camera .jpeg editor simply isn't on par with what's possible in the PS .RAW editor, the .RAW based pictures end up with far more detail and looking far better than the inferior in camera .jpeg pictures, with or without editing to them.

I was thinking of putting some before and after photos in this thread, but then I realized that I didn't have any, I only have photo vs. digital art work... allegedly.
There is nothing wrong with using RAW. As I've mentioned, I use it when I know the camera may find it challenging or deliver unnatural results. A good example was having to shoot under a ceiling full of fluorescent lamps, with ugly yellowish brown walls (and matching table cloth and chairs to boot) and running the risk of disappointing about 80 of the family members who had left the job to me. The white balance issue was important. Other details, not so much.

The skin tones had to be natural, as the cake, the flowers/decor and even the walls. What I did find later was that the camera was barely off the natural settings. On occasions, I skipped RAW because there was a need to use the 10 fps bursts (and I wanted to minimize the camera's turnaround time).

Ultimately, the key to post processing to me is to get to natural tones. This may or may not require heavy processing depending on the camera and the conditions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,837 posts, read 18,750,699 times
Reputation: 11929
Here's a different kind of duo... the original is just cropped and shot in Infra Red and the edited version is the IR image converted to B/W:


Sony F828 with Tiffen 87 IR Cutoff, ND2, ND8 (Didn't really need the last two because the light was low, but was too lazy to take them off)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Valparaiso, IN
36,469 posts, read 10,427,940 times
Reputation: 86802
I'm still pretty new at editing. I was amazed at how the trees were defined in this photo, with just a few clicks!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2016, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top