FP, thanks for taking the time to comment and I'm looking forward to seeing your work. There's nothing like exposing your photos to the world to assist you in getting better at photography.
--Bob
foggypreacher wrote:
I am in agreement with Bob, I like SOOC with perhaps some straightening and/or a bit of exposure tweaking. Nothing major, just to correct some mess up on my part. I have not posted any photos here yet, but plan on starting too in the near future.
On the other hand, as I read the various sections of this forum, I do like some of what is accomplished in Lr and Ps. I am learning and wil try some of what I find interesting. Thank you for your post.
AzNikon, I think you may have hit on something here. I don't know that they are super but I do plan a photograph. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
--Bob
AZNikon wrote:
Your super powers include knowing what to do and why you're doing it. Well done Sensei.
Paul, you're welcome. I previsualize a lot. Each of those SOOC images was exactly what I planned on seeing when I started processing them. None were a case of "oh crap how do I fix that" moments.
---Bob
Paul Diamond wrote:
Thanks for posting before/after shots. I enjoyed your work.
Everyone has their 'bridge too far'. Or maybe most people. I believe in using mostly what exists and selectively editing/altering to help keep the image/the vision of what I wanted to achieve in the end result. Sometimes, you might 'discover' a different image or viewpoint when working with a picture. But, I try to (from film days) pre-visualize what I want before pressing the shutter release.
For me, sorry guys in the macro/micro section, I draw the line at not doing like the fellow who posted a youtube of his creation of the image he wanted. He glued 3 freeze dried dragonflys to a stick and then put the stick as a prop in the foreground of a picture of a pond. (I've never seen 3 social dragonflys in close proximity. It may happen, but I haven't seen it.) -
But, I do understand and greatly appreciate the dedication that it takes to stack dozens to over 100 images of a macro subject like the eye of a fly. That kind of image opens new vistas of images that I don't think was possible before the 'digital age' of photography.
Thanks for posting before/after shots. I enjoyed ... (
show quote)
AzPicLady, I appreciate your very kind words. Rest assured each of those SOOC images was exactly what I expected to see when I started processing them.
--Bob
AzPicLady wrote:
Bob, your ability to draw an amazing image out of what appears to be a mistake is awesome. Oh that I could even aspire to that!
Your work is always interesting Bob, whatever subject you choose it’s a wonderful example of what the Masters of the zone system preached, and you’ve certainly helped me understand it better. I am however, as the longer-standing members here know, usually up to no good with multi-layer composites - and it’s the fact that we can all post our processed work here that, for me, makes this the best section of UHH. And I must add, Linda does a fine job of keeping the whole thing acceptably pleasant for us all. Getting back to your images, the depth you achieve is quite remarkable.
Thank you very much for the visit and kind comments, magnetoman.
--Bob
magnetoman wrote:
Your work is always interesting Bob, whatever subject you choose it’s a wonderful example of what the Masters of the zone system preached, and you’ve certainly helped me understand it better. I am however, as the longer-standing members here know, usually up to no good with multi-layer composites - and it’s the fact that we can all post our processed work here that, for me, makes this the best section of UHH. And I must add, Linda does a fine job of keeping the whole thing acceptably pleasant for us all. Getting back to your images, the depth you achieve is quite remarkable.
Your work is always interesting Bob, whatever subj... (
show quote)
Here's another example shot just two days ago. It was actually a planned test. I've included the ACR portion this time to show the initial histogram and then the final image.
In all reality, I don't pay too much attention to histograms, as they can be very misleading, especially in the manner I set exposure. I do, however, use them to a limited degree in the initial steps of processing.
--Bob
rmalarz wrote:
In a thread in another section, the discussion started out focused on manipulating photographs. That is putting things in that weren't there in the first place. This also involved the idea that the software makers will be able to sort of make you the photographer you aren't.
It's here if you wish to read it.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-648772-1.htmlWithin that thread, I mentioned posting some of my photos as a SOOC/Processed comparison. I'm somewhat of a purist in that I'm going to work with what's there. However, I'm going to use my photograph processing skills to produce a final photograph that is the result of my vision of the scene as I viewed it and contemplated photographing it. So here are the SOOC / Processed images. I will reveal, as a lot of UHH members know, that I'm a big proponent of using The Zone System. I use that in my initial captures as well as in processing.
--Bob
In a thread in another section, the discussion sta... (
show quote)
Thank you for these examples Bob. Image 1 looks like a normal case of ETTR, and image 4 looks like flat, overcast lighting. I'm intrigued by images 2, 3, and 5. It appears that more is going on behind the scenes on these. Please explain.
John, Image 1 is a scan of a 4x5 negative. The darkest shadows were placed in Zone III. The hightlights processed for Zone VIII. The resulting final is mostly burning and dodging.
Image 4 was shot on a sunny morning but in full shade. This was exposed to push the hightlight values to Zone VII.
Image 2 was spot metered and the brightest values placed in Zone VIII
Image 3 was metered and exposed much the same as Image 2
Image 5 was metered for the curtains in the window and exposed to place them in Zone VII
The initial exposures in Images 2 and 5 also make use of UniWB for the WB setting. Images 3 and 4 do not, as I've not figured out, yet, a way to set that for that sensor.
I hope that addresses your behind "the scenes interest". If not let's discuss this further, as I'm sure it will be of interest to some.
--Bob
JohnCl wrote:
Thank you for these examples Bob. Image 1 looks like a normal case of ETTR, and image 4 looks like flat, overcast lighting. I'm intrigued by images 2, 3, and 5. It appears that more is going on behind the scenes on these. Please explain.
abc1234 wrote:
I am glad that some of us respect and promote this very clean approach to photography. We should see more of this in this forum. These photos show someone who has a firm grasp of his notion of what a good picture looks like and how to achieve it. Thanks for posting and thanks to those who appreciate these skills and photographic vision.
I think most of us respect, even envy, your "clean approach" to photography although I sometimes think the respect for our PP skills doesn't flow in the other direction.
I work as hard
creating my picture as you do
taking your photograph. You spend hours or even days waiting for the right conditions to express your vision. I spend hours taking sharp and sometimes not so sharp pictures of things to use in my vision of the composite or heavily processed image I will produce.
Some people don't like post processed images and that's all right. They shouldn't, however, denigrate the time, effort and skill necessary to produce them. No, they are not traditional, nor are they meant to be.
I don't know how to fix this conflict but a good first start would be a little more tolerance from both sides.
Jack
abc1234
Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois
Curmudgeon wrote:
I think most of us respect, even envy, your "clean approach" to photography although I sometimes think the respect for our PP skills doesn't flow in the other direction.
I work as hard creating my picture as you do taking your photograph. You spend hours or even days waiting for the right conditions to express your vision. I spend hours taking sharp and sometimes not so sharp pictures of things to use in my vision of the composite or heavily processed image I will produce.
Some people don't like post processed images and that's all right. They shouldn't, however, denigrate the time, effort and skill necessary to produce them. No, they are not traditional, nor are they meant to be.
I don't know how to fix this conflict but a good first start would be a little more tolerance from both sides.
Jack
I think most of us respect, even envy, your "... (
show quote)
Jack, I admit that I have run of patience with some of the stuff posted here and my tone has reflected that. I am glad that people take pride in their work. However, the results do not always measure up to Bob's exemplary posts. This applies to natural looking pictures as well as the flights of fantasy. Many of the practitioners of the latter strike me as not having much artistic vision or command of the tools. People just cannot keep putting up their work and expect only compliments which rarely have any meaningful comments while ignoring negative comments or suggestions on how to improve a post.
Everything here is post processed, whether natural looking or flight of fantasy. What I denigrate is not taking the time to study photography, to learn the tools and to create one's own idea of what his or her pictures should look like.
bonjac
Loc: Santa Ynez, CA 93460
rmalarz wrote:
In a thread in another section, the discussion started out focused on manipulating photographs. That is putting things in that weren't there in the first place. This also involved the idea that the software makers will be able to sort of make you the photographer you aren't.
It's here if you wish to read it.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-648772-1.htmlWithin that thread, I mentioned posting some of my photos as a SOOC/Processed comparison. I'm somewhat of a purist in that I'm going to work with what's there. However, I'm going to use my photograph processing skills to produce a final photograph that is the result of my vision of the scene as I viewed it and contemplated photographing it. So here are the SOOC / Processed images. I will reveal, as a lot of UHH members know, that I'm a big proponent of using The Zone System. I use that in my initial captures as well as in processing.
--Bob
In a thread in another section, the discussion sta... (
show quote)
I am a newby to PP and have heard of The Zone System but don't really understand what it means. Can you explain or perhaps direct me to a good source. Your images have motivated me to inquire; they are great.
Thank you Bob. I have followed your postings such as this one. I cannot say I have gone much further than experimenting with ETTR. I guess I am not inclined to become immersed in this much technicality, but I thoroughly enjoy these kinds of posts.
abc1234, I think you've expressed some very good concepts here. I agree with you that there seem to be a lot of people who don't wish to study the finer concepts of photography. On the other end of the spectrum are camera manufacturers and software companies that are driven to provide the user the most bang for their buck. It harkens back to the motto of the early days of Kodak, "You Press the Button, We Do the Rest".
Thanks for taking time to contribute.
--Bob
abc1234 wrote:
Jack, I admit that I have run of patience with some of the stuff posted here and my tone has reflected that. I am glad that people take pride in their work. However, the results do not always measure up to Bob's exemplary posts. This applies to natural looking pictures as well as the flights of fantasy. Many of the practitioners of the latter strike me as not having much artistic vision or command of the tools. People just cannot keep putting up their work and expect only compliments which rarely have any meaningful comments while ignoring negative comments or suggestions on how to improve a post.
Everything here is post processed, whether natural looking or flight of fantasy. What I denigrate is not taking the time to study photography, to learn the tools and to create one's own idea of what his or her pictures should look like.
Jack, I admit that I have run of patience with som... (
show quote)
abc1234
Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois
fergmark wrote:
Thank you Bob. I have followed your postings such as this one. I cannot say I have gone much further than experimenting with ETTR. I guess I am not inclined to become immersed in this much technicality, but I thoroughly enjoy these kinds of posts.
The experts may disagree with me but I think this is easier than they make out. This is a battle between what looks good on the back of the camera versus the histogram. Often times, one looks good while the other does not. But if you shoot raw, expose to the right (ETTR), and get something that looks off, you can readily fix it post-process. No need to over-think ETTR. If you shoot raw, you can make it look the way you want later.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.