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, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Point Hope Alaska
4,322 posts, read 2,555,846 times
Reputation: 1146

Advertisements

My whole point is simply this; It is a very simple process to import a photograph out of the camera; and without any post processing let the photograph stand for itself. That is my whole point.

I provided an example to simply display that even a 4 mega pixel camera that is a cheap-o point & shoot can create a stunning image. No post processing. Other than resize.

Yes It can be done easily... that's my whole point in a nutshell. If that photo can't stand on its own merits. NO amount of post processing will make it happen. Now I know some can take this statement to the extreme and provide all types of examples why I am wrong!

People new to photography think... Oh gee.. I have to process in RAW mode only to be able to create a photograph that is great! And I will take the time to apologize to others; and freely admit; Yes your 100% correct Floyd - You are a much better photographer than I will ever be. That is plain pure and simple -But photography is not about who is better.. It is all about producing a photograph.

I have a lot to learn Floyd I admit that. I read what you are saying .. and I have never ever read anyone post so articulately and eloguently - but the plain simple truth is.. I can't understand you one bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2011, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Point Hope Alaska
4,322 posts, read 2,555,846 times
Reputation: 1146
Here is an example where editing is essential and.. .. there are no subtle differences -

A customer approached me one day and said ... Can yu make this look like new? Sure I replied; that is simple - to prove my point, I handed this photograph over to a 50 year old woman who had never used a computer or done graphix in her life. I spoke 4 sentences to her. She followed the simple steps. It took her 8 hours to accomplish this 'miracle'. She had a lot of fun. Especially when her friends were surprised that she did it they were so pleased with the results.

Four simple sentences -

Zoom in as far as you can with the magnifying tool

sample a 'shade' of grey with the eyedropper tool

Paint that area in to match the surrounding area

Zoom out to check your work.

Yes editing is essential to learn & master and there is nothing hard or difficult to understand.





I like simple.. "Simple" is easy to understand and comprehend!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 11:53 AM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
6,878 posts, read 13,541,246 times
Reputation: 8393
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData View Post

Created by a 14 year old boy of his 5 year old sister using a 4 megapixel point & shoot!

Straight out of the camera as a *.jpg no post processing other than resize!!
Really? So how did the frame with the drop shadow and rounded corners get on there? Anything else you're forgetting?

Of course it's impossible to tell exactly what we're looking at because you've stripped the EXIF information off your image. Note that Floyd's images contain full EXIF information so one can verify and learn from his settings. All the images I post contain EXIF as do many of the better photographers on this site.


If your goal of posting images here is to teach, then LEAVE THE EXIF INFO ON YOUR IMAGES. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,706 posts, read 10,512,218 times
Reputation: 14437
Here's one I altered a little more than I normally prefer. In fact I hate to even say that I approve of doing this to my own image, though I do think the final outcome looks better:





In case you didn't notice, I replaced the moon with a different, scaled down image of the moon I took on a separate occasion, but one which was properly exposed. I also have the same picture with the same enhanced colors, but with the original moon.

Edit: I'm wondering if I could have gotten the same effect with a graduated neutral density filter. I have one, but it doesn't fit the lens I was using at the time. Also, the moon was super bright when I took that, so I'm no sure my filter would have been enough as it's not terribly dark.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
13,673 posts, read 13,248,489 times
Reputation: 19970
what is the deal, really? Are you two ancient immortal adversaries destined to battle throughout time like in Highlander, and you've now decided that here is the place for your final fight to the death? cool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 12:22 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
6,878 posts, read 13,541,246 times
Reputation: 8393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplight View Post
Here's one I altered a little more than I normally prefer. In fact I hate to even say that I approve of doing this to my own image, though I do think the final outcome looks better:

In case you didn't notice, I replaced the moon with a different, scaled down image of the moon I took on a separate occasion, but one which was properly exposed. I also have the same picture with the same enhanced colors, but with the original moon.

Edit: I'm wondering if I could have gotten the same effect with a graduated neutral density filter. I have one, but it doesn't fit the lens I was using at the time. Also, the moon was super bright when I took that, so I'm no sure my filter would have been enough as it's not terribly dark.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,706 posts, read 10,512,218 times
Reputation: 14437
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, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 5,491,177 times
Reputation: 1808
For those wondering exactly what this horrible pixelated, mutilated, aberration I have that David Eves is so envious of... This image has been on the home page of my website for eight years now:



It does get a lot of very favorable comments, because it certainly is unusual looking! That was taken on June 21st, looking almost directly north over the Arctic Ocean at about 1:30 AM, when the sun is at its lowest point during the day.

The look of that image is a function almost entirely of the specific camera that took it. And every year since then I've thought about taking basically the same picture again with every camera I can round up. Unfortunately, I've either been asleep or otherwise occupied at the right time, just plain forgotten about it... or, in every case where I've remembered and been ready there has been no picture because of cloud cover. Some day I'll be ready and do it again.

Note that there is no EXIF data attached to that image. It wasn't stripped though, it just never existed! It was taken with a Sony FD91 point and shoot, and recorded on a floppy disk. The original size was 1024x768, or less than 1 megapixel. Whatever, claiming it is "pixelated" is just crass fabrication... it isn't. But it is pretty noisy, and that isn't exactly surprising considering the P&S camera used was released by Sony in 1999.

The bottom line is that it is perhaps the most interesting shot of the sun at it's lowest on June 21st over the Arctic Ocean that I've ever seen. It will stay on the homepage of my web site until I get lucky enough to produce a more interesting one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
6,475 posts, read 9,242,389 times
Reputation: 7952
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData View Post
I am done here; there is no use in arguing - back & forth. My whole question was this; why would such an expert use this as his home page photo ??
Why are you so concerned with what he puts on his home page? Your comments to and about Floyd say more about you than they do about Floyd.

When did this topic turn into a website competition? I can't believe you actually went to such lengths to put this compilation together. I'll say it again - your unrelenting vilification of Floyd is unprofessional and petty. I hope that when you say you are done with it, you are genuinely done - for your own sake, if no one else's!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 5,491,177 times
Reputation: 1808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplight View Post
Ah, it may just be a difference in monitors. I can only barely see them on my monitor in the original picture, and not at all in the edited one. Also, at the moment my monitor is placed pretty low in relation to my eye level. If I stoop down so that the monitor is directly at eye level, I can't see the trees either. Now I'm starting to wonder if I need to raise up my monitor and go through a bunch of pictures I've already edited!
If you can see the outline of the trees, your monitor is not adjusted well.

Given that you say you are looking "down" at it, I'm unsure of that too. Looking down is okay, as long as the screen is perpendicular to your view. If is perfectly vertical then your eyes should be perfectly even with the center of the screen. If you eyes are higher than that the screen should have the top tilted back to make it all square with your gaze.

One of the most common adjustment problems with monitors is setting the brightness too high, and that would also allow you to see the shadows of those trees in that image. I downloaded the file, and the sky above the tree line has a value of 2 (on a scale of 0 to 255). The trees have a value of 9.

Below is the contrast/brightness calibration chart that I have on my web page. Note that the steps are not equally spaced.



The darkest 3 steps, but not more than 5, should probably all be indistinguishable. The same is true of the brightest steps. Use the "Brightness" control to adjust how many of the dark steps are distinct, and the "Contrast" control to change the bright steps. The two controls will interact, so going back and forth is probably necessary. With a good monitor that has been calibrated to sRGB specs, it will be possible to just see the difference between the third and forth black steps, while between the 3rd and 4th brigthest steps it is pretty distinct. A miss adjusted monitor will be uneven. A poor monitor might not be able to distinguish between any of the first 6 steps on either end when adjusted for best balance.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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