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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-17-2011, 09:42 AM
 
Location: On the banks of the St Johns River
4,190 posts, read 4,765,005 times
Reputation: 3342

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlandLady View Post
Neither is the endless bashing that has been displayed here for the past number of years, no matter your nickname.

People come here to learn. Offer your opinion. Offer up what works for you. Then LET IT GO. Egotistical bashing and the endless 'pissing contests' are not what photography is about. I could give a fig what your history is with others on CD...it has no place in PHOTOGRAPHY.

You have some interesting shots, SD. But the condescending tone you've consistently displayed to others who are just beginning and to those who have been at this for years, takes away from anything you would offer. This is my opinion and mine alone...but for me, this drivel will not teach anyone anything. You've claimed you've had students and have taught so many...is the above litany of garbage what you have instilled in future photographers? If so, then I am better off changing my passion.
Great post!!! HighlandLady your definatly not alone in this opinion... Being new to photography I have to agree with some on here(Sity Data ^) that I have no clue what the main discussion is about now, unlike before when it was just compating before editing and after editing photo's, which held great intrest to me as were supposed to get into editing in my beginers class in a couple of weeks. But now it seems to have degenerated into a slugfest of moot points and inuendo. (While thats also entertaining to a degree it's not instructive) HighlandLady I now owe you a REP Point, as the powers that be say I can't give you one right now.

Last edited by madcapmagishion; 09-17-2011 at 09:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2011, 09:53 AM
 
Location: On the banks of the St Johns River
4,190 posts, read 4,765,005 times
Reputation: 3342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
Heh, just for grins and giggles I should set up something close to a UNIWB configuration for a camera, shoot a couple shots of some nice looking person, and post both the out of the camera JPEG image and a properly processed JPEG from the NEF raw data file.

For those who don't know what kdog meant by "to the right", it is also called "Expose To The Right", or ETTR, and refers to setting exposure to get an histogram on the camera as far to the right side of the graph as possible, which produces sensor data that has the highest possible dynamic range. The benefit is lower noise.

The problem is with the accuracy of the histogram, which can be improved greatly (enough to nail exposures within 1/10 of an fstop with a little care) by adjusting the camera's JPEG processing for the "correct" White Balance. The "correct" White Balance to get an accurate histogram has twice as much green as it does red or blue (because the sensor has twice as many green filters in the Bayer patttern).

An accurate histogram means the out of the camera JPEG is a sickly green looking image!
A very sickly green... :-)
This, ETTR (histograms) was very helpful, as it is exactly what we covered in class last week. But we havn't even touched on noise yet and I have seen you and a couple others talk about it from time to time. I am not real sure what you mean by "noise", unless it is like a vibration in the sensor data that's recorded by the camera. Thanks for any possible enlightenment on this!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Point Hope Alaska
4,323 posts, read 1,554,222 times
Reputation: 1146
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, 10:14 AM
 
Location: On the banks of the St Johns River
4,190 posts, read 4,765,005 times
Reputation: 3342
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData View Post
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.
I have to also agree with Sity on this, as I have never used any post production techniques ...yet! Mainly because I dont know how yet. (I'm not buying Photoshop till I learn how to use it in class) I have seen the examples put in here before/after editing and frankly most of the changes are so subtle unless you told me what they were, I wouldn't notice them if they(the PS photo's) were seen by themselves, without being able to see the before photo.

I am no pro photographer by any means so the only person I have to please with my photo's is myself. And I am somewhat happy with the pic's I have taken so far. I like what I see as it appears on my monitor without PS'ing them to death. As far as resizing I thought the site did that automatically to make the photo fit the format to post here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Point Hope Alaska
4,323 posts, read 1,554,222 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, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Sanford, NC
676 posts, read 651,713 times
Reputation: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by madcapmagishion View Post
the only person I have to please with my photo's is myself. And I am somewhat happy with the pic's I have taken so far.
That is exactly what photography is about as far as I'm concerned. When the day comes that I feel I need to go take pics to please the so called "experts" on here or any other place, that will be the day I hang up my camera for good....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 12:53 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
6,356 posts, read 10,656,407 times
Reputation: 7631
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, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
8,929 posts, read 7,262,783 times
Reputation: 12489
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, 01:02 PM
Status: "This Space For Rent" (set 5 hours ago)
 
Location: Bel Air, California
10,444 posts, read 8,450,452 times
Reputation: 13221
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, 01:22 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
6,356 posts, read 10,656,407 times
Reputation: 7631
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
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 $84,000 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.

2005-2014, 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 - Top