Non-edited, SOC image examples that are PERFECT.
Mar 19, 2014 15:17:04 #
Anne-Marie wrote:
cracking up. Sorry for the brain burp.
(-: We all have them.
Mar 19, 2014 15:17:47 #
These are beautiful and I like each of them and I agree with you.
Mar 19, 2014 15:20:21 #
Anne-Marie wrote:
These are beautiful and I like each of them and I agree with you.
Ann-Marie, could you please quote the reply you're responding to? It helps us all know which post or posts you're referring to. Thanks!
Mar 19, 2014 15:33:50 #
apologies .. will do so next time. Just learning my way around.
donnahde wrote:
Ann-Marie, could you please quote the reply you're responding to? It helps us all know which post or posts you're referring to. Thanks!
Mar 19, 2014 15:34:50 #
These are all beautiful and I agree with what you say.
minniev wrote:
I always shoot RAW, since I first realized the add... (show quote)
Mar 19, 2014 15:40:20 #
Mar 19, 2014 16:03:03 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
Currently, there is another discussion on this sit... (show quote)
Well shucks, all my are perfect. But I resist posting them because all will point out that I need to visit the optometrist. :lol:
Dogman
Mar 19, 2014 16:14:19 #
Neubee wrote:
The best (perfect) SOOC shot is the one taken with the lens cap left on...LOL..
Unless you have hot spots on your sensor, then they too will need to be pp'ed :-)
Mar 19, 2014 16:14:30 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
Wow, and I thought by now this post would have been filled with those perfect non edited pictures...especially with the way some were saying how good they were.
WR has not seen this post yet!
Mar 19, 2014 16:15:31 #
Mar 19, 2014 16:16:29 #
It's an open invite...send him/her this way...from what I've seen so far, I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do.
Mar 19, 2014 16:20:10 #
Mar 19, 2014 17:35:39 #
donnahde wrote:
Nice improvement, Big Daddy, but it was primarily dark. I probably should have clarified that I meant out of focus shots really can't be improved enough to be anything but "artsy". Here's one I made "artsy".
Your artsy photo is FABULOUS. The only thing I'd do to it, were that lovely thing mine, is crop the bottom just above the far treeline near the barn/house and remove the cell tower (or whatever vertical that is) on the right. I know that removes the best purple, but it would place the trees and birds in a space of their own, ungrounded by the ordinary world. Then I'd enlarge it to, say, 30" wide, mat it in dark purple black core, frame it in silver, and put it on my wall.
Mar 19, 2014 17:46:06 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
BigDaddy wrote:
........ I have heard that raw ignores settings of things like sharpness, contrast, saturation and such, but not certain it's true or not. If true, then raw is throwing away data that I specifically set. Not a good thing is it?
Not really what happens. Your interpretation here twists things a bit.
Raw is raw is raw.
In camera you can set edit presets on your raw files that your native raw converter will recognise.
No image data in the raw file is changed in any way at all.
If you take it into a different raw converter then those native edits may be ignored and only the raw data looked at.
For example, I take a raw CR2 image into Canon's DPP.
The editing sliders in DPP, instead of being in their neutral position, will be in the positions that I preset in the camera.
(So, technically you could even make the case that these in camera settings, were actually post work, because they are raw converter image editing settings.)
If I take that very same CR2 raw file into Adobe ACR, then those in camera editing presets will be ignored, and I will see the base raw image, with all the editing sliders set in the neutral position.
Mar 19, 2014 18:08:45 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
A couple of strawmen creeping into the discussion here.
The original statement was - that virtually all SOC images can be improved with PP.
The original statement is correct.
What wasn't claimed,
it wasn't claimed that their aren't good SOC images,
it wasn't claimed that all PP work was good (and that is very evident in this thread, there is some horrible PP in this thread).
There are some very good photogs doing very good SOC work in the world. (Not very many of them are on UHH.)
But they could not do that in all conditions. They are good photogs because they know when they can do it and they know when they can't. They know which compromises to make and how to make them.
But, the following listed items are PP work - dust spot removal, cropping, sharpening, white balance adjustment and any other changes you make in your editing program.etc etc
The original statement was - that virtually all SOC images can be improved with PP.
The original statement is correct.
What wasn't claimed,
it wasn't claimed that their aren't good SOC images,
it wasn't claimed that all PP work was good (and that is very evident in this thread, there is some horrible PP in this thread).
There are some very good photogs doing very good SOC work in the world. (Not very many of them are on UHH.)
But they could not do that in all conditions. They are good photogs because they know when they can do it and they know when they can't. They know which compromises to make and how to make them.
But, the following listed items are PP work - dust spot removal, cropping, sharpening, white balance adjustment and any other changes you make in your editing program.etc etc
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.