nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

you need to scroll down to number 7



"jumbo said....." My course, (64 pages) follows from this.
'

nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

No cop out at all, i have stated all through this thread, that images straight out of the camera, are never complete, they all need a tweak or two, just as film did. I get it as right in camera as is physically possible,then, as previously stated, i usually only need to tweak the gamma,(mid-tones) for gamma 0.7density (1.27) on middle levels slider.

dsturr

By overdone I assume you mean more than what you do. And who's the "we" you're referring to?

The best defence against misguided arrogance is a keen sense of humour.
Kathryn L. Nelson

nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

By "overdone", I mean more than the eye sees, and the "we" I refer to is the general run of photographers,both amateur and professional, who view such surrealistic images.

dsturr

Well all I can is that your unshakeable confidence leaves me somewhat in awe. Yikes.

“Living is Easy with Eyes Closed.”
― John Lennon

nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

“Living is Easy with Eyes Closed.”
― John Lennon

"......but with eyes open, one can see the light,(which is what photography is all about) Unless blinded by the need to argue factual information,that doesn't agree with what you believe"
-nekon

randomeyes Loc: wilds of b.c. canada

Perhaps you should man up also !!!

TheDman Loc: USA

Tell us how you capture 20 stops of light in camera. It wasn't in your "course".

dsturr

No, but what to do if a client is unhappy about something, say excessive noise in the picture. I know you claim you get it right in the camera so I assume noise is also considered. Or at least should be. As an example let's consider one of your JPEGs, "Faded rose", which is also posted as 2048.jpg and has excessive noise, both color and luminance. You shot this at ISO 400 at 1/1000. Kind of an unlikely combo for a reasonably bright day, considering the approximately 3 stops of stabilization provided by your equipment (Panasonic DMC-G1). This camera "has opted for a more hands-off strategy" with regard to noise reduction. A lower ISO would have meant less noise; ISO 200 would haven given a shutter speed of 1/500 sec., plenty fast enough to allow for the 200mm F.L. used (E.F.L.400). Camera Raw can still reduce the noise, especially the color noise, but you'd need some sort of plug-in, say Topaz JPEG to get reduce the artifacts. This example is a poster child of why to use raw rather than JPEG on this image.

The highlights are good but it's to be expected with this camera ;"impressed with how well the metering held together outdoors in particular, requiring little coaxing to hold most of the highlights under all but the most difficult conditions". So your highlights should be bang on.

According to DxO labs the dynamic range of this camera is 10 f-stops at ISO 100 and drops to just over 9 f-stops at ISO 400. If this was a landscape then you'd have to take extra exposures just like everyone else. You recommend the lowest ISO and AV Mode but here you've elected to use Program Mode and ISO 400. You probably should have chosen iA - "Panasonic's exclusive improvement on conventional auto modes claims to make, as the name suggests, more intelligent exposure choices based on more involved analysis. In practice, the mode tends to work well, serving up generally good images with a highly limited selection of user adjustments." Then the proper ISO and N.R. combo would have been selected for you.

You're the one making the outrageous claims; therefore it's only fitting one of your examples should be subject to some fact checking.

By the way there's another Web site out there that looks like it should be named "Ken Caleno Meets Topaz." But if it's not you or it's right out of the camera then my apologies. I'm not making any claims here about anything. Just trying to de-bunk a few.

frangeo Loc: Texas

It took Da Vinci 4 years to paint the Mona Lisa. That is a lot of post processing. Ansel Adams push pull processing created negatives better than what could have been have been possible with just camera settings ( post processing ). Moon rise Hernandez New Mexico was the most reproduced image of Adams career. It was a poorly exposed negative because he saw a great image but the conditions were not perfect. Adams mastery of processing and his elaborate printing methods brought the image to life creating a memorable picture known around the world. Post processing was Adams genius along with his ability to see great opportunities and composition. His post processing and printing abilities are legendary. Today we do it with a mouse. I have always believed that you must get the very best image in the camera that you can. However, sometimes you find that the environment is not always perfect. There is something that no camera adjustment can correct. What do you do? Toss the image or do what Da Vinci did and re-work your art until it is right. You can become a camera mechanic or you can become a camera artist. You decide what you want to be but don’t criticize a camera artist for making art by what ever means possible. It makes you sound like an amateur and besides camera artists make more money.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I believe out hit upon the heart of the value of PP, be it with a mouse or in th darkroom. Great post.

dsturr

He's hiding out in Photo Gallery. Looks like a bit of advertising too.

stevenkl Loc: Swainsboro,GA

Being old school, when I was 16 in 1970, I took photo and I was told get it right in the camera unless you want to be a lab tech! Well, I did both for many years. But, yes in camera the first time is neater and sweeter.

stevenkl Loc: Swainsboro,GA

[quote=randomeyes]

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: