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.
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.
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.......
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.
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.
dlm84741 wrote:
If you look back, you'll see arguments made against photography when it first started. That it took no talent to take a photo. Real artists drew and painted.
Putting things in, taking things out, altering body parts, colors - it's all been a part of the photography long before digital came on the scene. As long as someone isn't claiming an altered image is unaltered I have no problem with any of it.
Reminds me of my sister. Many years ago, when she would break up with a boyfriend......she could cut the boy's head out of the pictures. Today she has a mess of photos that have the heads messing. Yep, she did marry and thankfully her husbands head remains intact, 45 years later.
forbescat wrote:
Boy, don't I wish that by cloning out some people, I could radically change the country. Give me some Obama pictures and I'll spend the day cloning.
Every time the president's name is mentioned, web crawlers are feeding the Homeland Security bureau with tags to trace....now Uglyhedgehog is on the watch list and the CLONING word is a gotcha.
It's a shame it has come to this. Free Speech can cost your more today than it ever has!
RMM wrote:
Is it art, or is it journalism?
If it's art, then you work with what you have to achieve what you want to convey.
If it's journalism, at least what we like to consider as responsible journalism, what you can do is much more restricted. Was the light too poor for a good exposure, and it's got to
If it's journalism, at least what we like to consider as responsible journalism, what you can do is much more restricted. Was the light too poor for a good exposure, and it's got to go in a magazine? Brighten it. That's not altering the picture in a substantial way.
Are you trying to fool people, as in fraudulently? Shame on you. Ago in a magazine? Brighten it. That's not altering the picture in a substantial way.
Are you trying to fool people, as in fraudulently? Shame on you. Are you trying to create an impression? And are you willing to say what you did and why? Altogether different situation.
From the standpoint of photography as art, why would you want to impose constraints on it that don't exist in any other art form?
Is it art, or is it journalism? br br If it's art... (
show quote)
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.
Joyfullee wrote:
First and foremost, be true to your own heart....concerning your own work.
Second, respect another's work/genre, accept it for what it is, and....
enjoy or take pleasure in it.
That's my personal philosophy, anyway.
:-)
Totally agree and well said!
jscotthinkle wrote:
Thank you! I will check these out further. I read one online post that said the SR variable ND filter was a waste and then saw photography book with incredible shots that indicate that the SR was used on ALL of them??? Thanx!
DO NOT JUDGE AN IMAGE THAT IS POSTED....a photo that is uploaded is often photoshoped. Your monitor has a resolution of 72 dpi....so images posted online loose much of their pixel power. In other words, these images that show before and after (use of a filter) are jaded from the start.
jscotthinkle wrote:
I am at the point where I want to experiment with graduated neutral density (ND) filters and even an 8-10 stop filter for daylight exposures. I have read about Lee filters (4X6 inches) as well as other brands. Addtionally, I have read about the Big Stopper and a Hoya filter that allow for sunlight exposures. There also is a variable ND by Singh Ray that I am reading mixed results on. So, if any of you have advise for a novice I would love to hear it!
I use Heliopan filters, polarizing and ND. They are a little pricey but when you take a $2,000 lens and add a poor quality element.....that just doesn't make sense.
...and yep, ND filters are a lot of fun to play with. Better said, LONG EXPOSURES are a lot of fun to play with....but in daylight, they're just not possible without a filter. Apart from dawn and twilight.
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)
I have a problem with the "PRO" tag which is someone who makes their living in photography. To be sure, I have seen some of the best work....work that I envy by people who shoot pictures for the fun of it.
I make my living as a photographer.....I like everyone else, have an opinion about what I like and don't like. But what I like, you may not and vise versa. Photography has rules......but most of us break them. Photography and Art are subjective and that, IMHO, is what makes it so bloody neat.
Over the years, images I have entered into competitions have be praised by some judges and others gave them little or no consideration...same image.
Now the question about adding (stuff) to images. I live by the adage, "the situation is always the boss" Ideally, the composition is complete but when it isn't and you have to meet a client's needs you begin your edits.
Air brushing is as old as time.....editing images is nothing new....just easier - in most cases - with digital.
BOB wrote:
I would like to know , what kind of filter your buying that cost $200??
Here is one on sale for 275.00. Hellopan and B+W make the better filters IMHO. You can also expect to pay 3 times that for their better ND filters. Their glass is thin when compared to hoya and other low end filters. They render more consistent color (vignetting) especially at the wide angles (24 mm) and less.
http://www.amazon.com/Heliopan-707746-Circular-Polarizer-SH-PMC/dp/B0000BZLPW/ref=sr_1_8?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1322237896&sr=1-8
marcomarks wrote:
nikonshooter wrote:
marcomarks wrote:
LOUIE PATRIZI wrote:
According to some professional photographers say that using filters are a complete waste of time. You spend so much money on lens that have better glass on it to but cheap glass filters is wrong.
So who is right or wrong! Who should I believe on this situation.
I have historically always kept a UV filter on all my lenses more for protection than anything else. I still do today on my digital camera lenses. As someone else said, optical quality probably is better on brand name filters than others. The price difference isn't much so why not buy the best you can for $10 to $12 instead of $3 to $5?
I've tried shooting with and without a UV filters and I can not perceive any loss of quality. But I can sometimes perceive slightly better clarity because of reduced UV. It becomes obvious in a photo of, let's say, a mountain range. The mountains become just a little bit clearer. And I do mean, just a little bit. A person standing in the shade becomes just a tiny bit less blueish. It's nothing seriously better but can be seen sometimes. In a studio it would be a complete waste of time to have a UV filter. I mostly use a UV filter for protection to avoid the front element of my camera getting dirty, wet, or hit.
A polarizing filter is the only other filter I've ever carried and it can be quite effective - even exciting - in what it does to skies, water, reflections on shiny surfaces, etc.
Oh yeah... when I use a polarizing filter I take off the UV filter so the stack doesn't get too tall.
quote=LOUIE PATRIZI According to some professiona... (
show quote)
Your sensor is only capable of capturing RGB. UV cannot and does not alter the wave length of R or G or B.
quote=marcomarks quote=LOUIE PATRIZI According t... (
show quote)
Well despite technical jargon the effect does occur, although as I said, it is very minor. I'm not a filter scientist but it would seem that if equal amounts of R, G, and B equal white, then reducing the amount of B hitting the sensor with a UV filter would cause the R and G to become a bit more dominant and the photo would become less blueish, less white, and seem to have richer R and G, even though the R and G didn't increase - the B decreased.
quote=nikonshooter quote=marcomarks quote=LOUIE... (
show quote)
I can't take issue with facts. If you are using a UV and getting better results, that's what is important. I am not sure why that would be happening but.....there is a whole lot of things I can't explain. Digital sensors have filters built in to block both Infra Red and Ultra Violet so adding more UV is generally redundant. I have three D3s cameras and all three have identical sensors, yet their profiles are different when calibrated with color checker passport.