nikonshooter wrote:
forbescat wrote:
1eyedjack wrote:
I consider myself a photographer not an artistic computer
geek. I capture what I see and don't rearrange it later, what
you see is what I "took", maybe some cropping but no
artistic add on's.
That's just fine as long as you don't exclude the more artistically inclined from the category of photographer.
Here is the problem! The camera's manufacture has built the camera to render an image with a contrast curve, level of sharpening, white balance (selected by photographer), before the image is taken. So post processing happens immediately after the shot is taken....so what the camera took is not what you saw....it never is. In most cases it is not even close. In order to match the colors, balance the light, bring detail into the shadows and hightlights, add or take away the incamera sharpening....you have to add post processing.
Buy an 8,000 Nikon D3X, take a picture, view as is and you will be disappointed.
quote=forbescat quote=1eyedjack I consider mysel... (
show quote)
I have a $5000.00 D2X and I would no more post a picture straight from the camera than walk outside naked (both an ugly thing).
Nikonshooter-- Try a new Sony SLT camera and see what you get
for results. But I understand what you are referring to.
Two different cameras may take slightly different images, but
then you still don't have to rearrange there output to produce
2 totally different types of photos.
RMM
Loc: Suburban New York
nikonshooter wrote:
Well......hum! This is journalism, it is a picture I took this year but you can bet your sweet bippy the original would not have been acceptable for a cover. The crop is 100 percent....and a few other Photoshop/lightroom adjustments. You will have to download the file to view....it's PDF.
Great shot. And I don't have any problem with the cropping, or whatever else you did to it, unless you did something like dropping No. 5 into this otherwise maybe-not-very-interesting picture of No. 52.
1eyedjack wrote:
Nikonshooter-- Try a new Sony SLT camera and see what you get
for results. But I understand what you are referring to.
Two different cameras may take slightly different images, but
then you still don't have to rearrange there output to produce
2 totally different types of photos.
For our sports side, we bought 3 D3S and 2 D700 cameras. When getting a camera, we color profile them with Passport Checker. We profile our monitors and printers with color munki for a more consistent print. To be sure, the 3 D3S camera's profile are not the same. Ditto for the D700 but they are closer. Our older D2X, D2Xs, all create different profiles yet they have the same sensor.
Recently, I bought an Olympus E P3 4/3rds camera and that relatively inexpensive camera does a good of job taking an acceptable pic, out of the camera.
RMM wrote:
nikonshooter wrote:
Well......hum! This is journalism, it is a picture I took this year but you can bet your sweet bippy the original would not have been acceptable for a cover. The crop is 100 percent....and a few other Photoshop/lightroom adjustments. You will have to download the file to view....it's PDF.
Great shot. And I don't have any problem with the cropping, or whatever else you did to it, unless you did something like dropping No. 5 into this otherwise maybe-not-very-interesting picture of No. 52.
quote=nikonshooter br Well......hum! This is j... (
show quote)
No one had to be moved but I am not above doing that.......
Mark Bski
Loc: A sleepy little island not far from Seattle
forbescat wrote:
nikonshooter wrote:
forbescat wrote:
1eyedjack wrote:
I consider myself a photographer not an artistic computer
geek. I capture what I see and don't rearrange it later, what
you see is what I "took", maybe some cropping but no
artistic add on's.
That's just fine as long as you don't exclude the more artistically inclined from the category of photographer.
Here is the problem! The camera's manufacture has built the camera to render an image with a contrast curve, level of sharpening, white balance (selected by photographer), before the image is taken. So post processing happens immediately after the shot is taken....so what the camera took is not what you saw....it never is. In most cases it is not even close. In order to match the colors, balance the light, bring detail into the shadows and hightlights, add or take away the incamera sharpening....you have to add post processing.
Buy an 8,000 Nikon D3X, take a picture, view as is and you will be disappointed.
quote=forbescat quote=1eyedjack I consider mysel... (
show quote)
I have a $5000.00 D2X and I would no more post a picture straight from the camera than walk outside naked (both an ugly thing).
quote=nikonshooter quote=forbescat quote=1eyedj... (
show quote)
I have an $1100 kit Nikon D-90 from Costco. As I get better and more knowledgeable about properly setting the camera before I take a picture, the less post processing I need afterwards.
But I'm just an amateur at this.
nikonshooter wrote:
1eyedjack wrote:
Nikonshooter-- Try a new Sony SLT camera and see what you get
for results. But I understand what you are referring to.
Two different cameras may take slightly different images, but
then you still don't have to rearrange there output to produce
2 totally different types of photos.
For our sports side, we bought 3 D3S and 2 D700 cameras. When getting a camera, we color profile them with Passport Checker. We profile our monitors and printers with color munki for a more consistent print. To be sure, the 3 D3S camera's profile are not the same. Ditto for the D700 but they are closer. Our older D2X, D2Xs, all create different profiles yet they have the same sensor.
Recently, I bought an Olympus E P3 4/3rds camera and that relatively inexpensive camera does a good of job taking an acceptable pic, out of the camera.
quote=1eyedjack Nikonshooter-- Try a new Sony SLT... (
show quote)
But it does depend on what "acceptable" means. I take acceptable pictures with my D2X and with my D700. My goal is to have contest quality pictures thus they all get tweaked.
Mark Bski wrote:
forbescat wrote:
nikonshooter wrote:
forbescat wrote:
1eyedjack wrote:
I consider myself a photographer not an artistic computer
geek. I capture what I see and don't rearrange it later, what
you see is what I "took", maybe some cropping but no
artistic add on's.
That's just fine as long as you don't exclude the more artistically inclined from the category of photographer.
Here is the problem! The camera's manufacture has built the camera to render an image with a contrast curve, level of sharpening, white balance (selected by photographer), before the image is taken. So post processing happens immediately after the shot is taken....so what the camera took is not what you saw....it never is. In most cases it is not even close. In order to match the colors, balance the light, bring detail into the shadows and hightlights, add or take away the incamera sharpening....you have to add post processing.
Buy an 8,000 Nikon D3X, take a picture, view as is and you will be disappointed.
quote=forbescat quote=1eyedjack I consider mysel... (
show quote)
I have a $5000.00 D2X and I would no more post a picture straight from the camera than walk outside naked (both an ugly thing).
quote=nikonshooter quote=forbescat quote=1eyedj... (
show quote)
I have an $1100 kit Nikon D-90 from Costco. As I get better and more knowledgeable about properly setting the camera before I take a picture, the less post processing I need afterwards.
But I'm just an amateur at this.
quote=forbescat quote=nikonshooter quote=forbes... (
show quote)
You are absolutely right. Getting the camera's exposure, white balance, and focus right will save a lot of work. I think of post processing as taking a good picture and making it even better. I delete the rest.
forbescat wrote:
nikonshooter wrote:
1eyedjack wrote:
Nikonshooter-- Try a new Sony SLT camera and see what you get
for results. But I understand what you are referring to.
Two different cameras may take slightly different images, but
then you still don't have to rearrange there output to produce
2 totally different types of photos.
For our sports side, we bought 3 D3S and 2 D700 cameras. When getting a camera, we color profile them with Passport Checker. We profile our monitors and printers with color munki for a more consistent print. To be sure, the 3 D3S camera's profile are not the same. Ditto for the D700 but they are closer. Our older D2X, D2Xs, all create different profiles yet they have the same sensor.
Recently, I bought an Olympus E P3 4/3rds camera and that relatively inexpensive camera does a good of job taking an acceptable pic, out of the camera.
quote=1eyedjack Nikonshooter-- Try a new Sony SLT... (
show quote)
But it does depend on what "acceptable" means. I take acceptable pictures with my D2X and with my D700. My goal is to have contest quality pictures thus they all get tweaked.
quote=nikonshooter quote=1eyedjack Nikonshooter-... (
show quote)
You are "spot on" about what is acceptable. I often go back to pics I took years ago that I thought, at the time, were priceless......and by my standards today, they often miss the mark, bigtime. Some are laughable.
nikonshooter wrote:
forbescat wrote:
nikonshooter wrote:
1eyedjack wrote:
Nikonshooter-- Try a new Sony SLT camera and see what you get
for results. But I understand what you are referring to.
Two different cameras may take slightly different images, but
then you still don't have to rearrange there output to produce
2 totally different types of photos.
For our sports side, we bought 3 D3S and 2 D700 cameras. When getting a camera, we color profile them with Passport Checker. We profile our monitors and printers with color munki for a more consistent print. To be sure, the 3 D3S camera's profile are not the same. Ditto for the D700 but they are closer. Our older D2X, D2Xs, all create different profiles yet they have the same sensor.
Recently, I bought an Olympus E P3 4/3rds camera and that relatively inexpensive camera does a good of job taking an acceptable pic, out of the camera.
quote=1eyedjack Nikonshooter-- Try a new Sony SLT... (
show quote)
But it does depend on what "acceptable" means. I take acceptable pictures with my D2X and with my D700. My goal is to have contest quality pictures thus they all get tweaked.
quote=nikonshooter quote=1eyedjack Nikonshooter-... (
show quote)
You are "spot on" about what is acceptable. I often go back to pics I took years ago that I thought, at the time, were priceless......and by my standards today, they often miss the mark, bigtime. Some are laughable.
quote=forbescat quote=nikonshooter quote=1eyedj... (
show quote)
Yes, me, too. But, you know, I am still fond of some of those not so great early pictures even though I would delete them if I took them today.
Mark Bski
Loc: A sleepy little island not far from Seattle
nikonshooter wrote:
Mark Bski wrote:
forbescat wrote:
nikonshooter wrote:
forbescat wrote:
1eyedjack wrote:
I consider myself a photographer not an artistic computer
geek. I capture what I see and don't rearrange it later, what
you see is what I "took", maybe some cropping but no
artistic add on's.
That's just fine as long as you don't exclude the more artistically inclined from the category of photographer.
Here is the problem! The camera's manufacture has built the camera to render an image with a contrast curve, level of sharpening, white balance (selected by photographer), before the image is taken. So post processing happens immediately after the shot is taken....so what the camera took is not what you saw....it never is. In most cases it is not even close. In order to match the colors, balance the light, bring detail into the shadows and hightlights, add or take away the incamera sharpening....you have to add post processing.
Buy an 8,000 Nikon D3X, take a picture, view as is and you will be disappointed.
quote=forbescat quote=1eyedjack I consider mysel... (
show quote)
I have a $5000.00 D2X and I would no more post a picture straight from the camera than walk outside naked (both an ugly thing).
quote=nikonshooter quote=forbescat quote=1eyedj... (
show quote)
I have an $1100 kit Nikon D-90 from Costco. As I get better and more knowledgeable about properly setting the camera before I take a picture, the less post processing I need afterwards.
But I'm just an amateur at this.
quote=forbescat quote=nikonshooter quote=forbes... (
show quote)
You are absolutely right. Getting the camera's exposure, white balance, and focus right will save a lot of work. I think of post processing as taking a good picture and making it even better. I delete the rest.
quote=Mark Bski quote=forbescat quote=nikonshoo... (
show quote)
Thanks Nikon. Ive gotten into this shutterbug thing a little over a year now. I got fairly proficient with Photoshop at first but as I got better with the camera, PS became less of a crutch and more for finishing touches.
And I still have a long long way to go.
RMM
Loc: Suburban New York
nikonshooter wrote:
No one had to be moved but I am not above doing that.......
Mary Decker was favored to win her event in the 1984 Olympics. She ran barefoot, and was injured by another runner. There was a photo of her on the ground, with one of the officials trying to help her. The photo was retouched to remove something that was sticking out behind her, I think it was a cigarette, but could have been something else. It was in the official's hand, and was distracting, but contributed nothing to the picture. There was a lot of controversy about that edit. I tried to Google it, but no luck finding it.
I am about to leave.... on my way to Columbia SC, shooting the South Carolina vs Clemson football game. If you happen to be watching, I will be in the end zone with a D3S and 200x400 F4 fixed mounted and a D3S with a 24x70 2.8. Will take a 16.5 fisheye as well. Also part of my gear for these things are hoodman loupe, monopod, rain gear for self and cameras 8 64 gig cards, 4 extra camera batteries.
I am pretty easy to spot, the white hair is a give away. I will not move for 4 hours will take 2000 pictures and maybe one....maybe two will make the paper.
Long before the fans arrive
artlover wrote:
I believe that all photos should be as taken with no afterthought
objects inserted. That's my opinion only. The PROS may know
differently. I've seen photos, elsewhere, that don't look natural.
Numerous sunset pix show inserted boats, camels,
horses, bike riders, dogs, children, etc.
Cameras made today and yesteryear can do marvelous things.
I am amazed at the talent of those that post here. It's great.
I worked for a Fine Arts Museum and saw the works of Ansel
Adams, Edward Weston, and Cunningham. GREATER than great, in B/W.
Doing all kinds of tricks is fine, but inserting something that was
not originally in the shot, in my untalented techie mind, NO.
99% of most of you will most likely disagree and I accept that.
I believe that all photos should be as taken with ... (
show quote)
Thank you all for your imput.
RMM wrote:
nikonshooter wrote:
No one had to be moved but I am not above doing that.......
Mary Decker was favored to win her event in the 1984 Olympics. She ran barefoot, and was injured by another runner. There was a photo of her on the ground, with one of the officials trying to help her. The photo was retouched to remove something that was sticking out behind her, I think it was a cigarette, but could have been something else. It was in the official's hand, and was distracting, but contributed nothing to the picture. There was a lot of controversy about that edit. I tried to Google it, but no luck finding it.
quote=nikonshooter No one had to be moved but I a... (
show quote)
I just Googled "The Fall Of Mary Decker" showing her clearly wearing shoes in the 1984 Olympics event. Are you perhaps thinking of someone else?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
