Absolutely beautiful work!
Wallen wrote:
Though many advocate SOOC (Straight out of camera) photography, we must not set aside the improvements that editing can achieve.
But such thinking should not make us sloppy, rather to treat that as another tool to enable us present, what we visualize within the clutter of of the moment.
Because that is the reality of life. There are times that we are limited by our equipment, time and other things that we can not control. So within our capacity, let us try our best to have it as close as (SOOC) as possible and take or add to that as little as we can to make things better.
First photo is a copy the actual capture and the second one is the cropped and edited version.
Though many advocate SOOC (Straight out of camera)... (
show quote)
Very, very nice. But, do not apologize for a picture not being SOOC. The picture you see on the back of your camera or the jpeg pic you download has been heavily modified within the camera. It is not what the camera's sensor "saw".
It has been compressed, luminence adjusted, contrast adjusted, sharpened, de-noised to a degree, color modified etc etc. So I always wonder, "do you want the picture you have personally edited or something that has been modified by a team of algorithmic engineers in Kyoto, Osaka or Gamaguchi, Japan that have never seen your original image?"
Again, very nice edit you have done. Congratulations.
Dannj wrote:
I was afraid that would be confusingš
Let me try this:
(a) Photog sees a scene, the original photo, and says thatās a great shot. Takes the pic and says thatās not as good as I thought it would be and gets to work on the pp, the result being the edited photo
(b) Photog sees the same scene, the original photo, and says if I zoom in on this and eliminate all the visual ānoiseā, set my camera to highlight the fireworks, etc, it will be even better. The result is the edited version of the original photo right out of the camera.
I guess thatās what I meant by ābetterā.
I was afraid that would be confusingš br Let me t... (
show quote)
"I was afraid that would be confusingš"
Really?? Not confusing. It doesn't mean anything.
traderjohn wrote:
"I was afraid that would be confusingš"
Really?? Not confusing. It doesn't mean anything.
Ok.š
I thought it might mean something to the post I was replying to (not the original post).
traderjohn wrote:
Sorry. I don't buy it. It's apples and oranges. "Hence" a picture is a picture just a picture.
What do you consider art? Which are apples and which are oranges?
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Dannj wrote:
I was afraid that would be confusingš
Let me try this:
(a) Photog sees a scene, the original photo, and says thatās a great shot. Takes the pic and says thatās not as good as I thought it would be and gets to work on the pp, the result being the edited photo
(b) Photog sees the same scene, the original photo, and says if I zoom in on this and eliminate all the visual ānoiseā, set my camera to highlight the fireworks, etc, it will be even better. The result is the edited version of the original photo right out of the camera.
I guess thatās what I meant by ābetterā.
I was afraid that would be confusingš br Let me t... (
show quote)
That idea is good but it does not always apply to the situation.
For the presented photo, there were 2 main problems;
1. At that time, I have no lens capable of zooming in to the desired framing
2. I have no idea where the fireworks would appear so i just allowed some space intentionally for POST.
The process/shoot was documented in this post:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-580096-1.html
I also remember framing this scene lower (getting more of the street & cars) because the streetlight on the top right corner was flaring the lens. Sadly this caused the top of the fireworks to be out of frame. I gave it as much space as possible but was still not enough. The crop, saved the composition.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.