Quite a bit of discussion about PP in photography this morning.
jwt
Loc: Texas Hill Country
Madman wrote:
I like the original the best. Number two is too dark, in my opinion, and in the last I find the border to be very distracting.
You got the shot right the first time, nothing really needed to improve it.
Thank you Madman; I really appreciate the visit and the comment. It seems the consensus is landing solidly on the original. :thumbup:
jwt
Loc: Texas Hill Country
Tresed47 wrote:
I have to say that I like the original best
Thanks so much Tresed; you are in the majority as most seem to like the original best. I appreciate your visit and comment. :-D
#1 is a photo, and really good...
#2 is a little dark...
#3 is a good portrait!
jwt
Loc: Texas Hill Country
joe west wrote:
number 1 and 3..
Thanks Joe, both for your visit and for your selections. :-D
jwt
Loc: Texas Hill Country
Toment wrote:
#1 is a photo, and really good...
#2 is a little dark...
#3 is a good portrait!
Thanks Toment for your visit and for your comments. :-D
jwt wrote:
To add to the discussion or create a new one, here is an image and two pp versions of same. What do you think; does PP aid to the beauty of the image? Posting three images. Please try the downloads.
I like your original by far the best. #2 is too dark and #3 does nothing for me. Good capture.
jwt
Loc: Texas Hill Country
countryman60951 wrote:
I like your original by far the best. #2 is too dark and #3 does nothing for me. Good capture.
Thanks for the visit and the comment Countryman; you seem to be in the majority of likes vs dislikes. :-D
Since you are testing out the theory of PP in photography..I think this photo without the pp is wonderful just as it is and is better then the pp ones (just my opinion). However, there are certain types of photography that I do feel needs some pp, such as sunrise, sunset where the camera cannot capture the entire dynamic range. So either grad nd filters are necessary or pp. I know that many people feel that using nd filters are the more "pure" way to capture the photo, but after experimenting with both, I have found that sometimes I get weird vinetting or color casts with my filters that I would need to fix anyway. Therefore, I have been going with mutliple exposures or just pp in lightroom. That is only my opinion on the subject, not right or wrong, just what I have been finding has worked for me. As for your adorable critter..very nice shot!
jwt
Loc: Texas Hill Country
Thanks Alissa; I really appreciate your opinion. I've been getting a plethora of comments and for the examples I put up, the consensus seems to be that the original is best. This thread that I started surprised me as its taken on a life of its own, but has created some really nice discussion. Thank you so much for your visit and for the very nice comment. Your visits are always appreciated. :-D
Personally, I like the very first image.....
jwt wrote:
To add to the discussion or create a new one, here is an image and two pp versions of same. What do you think; does PP aid to the beauty of the image? Posting three images. Please try the downloads.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Apaflo wrote:
Okay, below are first the "original", then my edit, and then your first edit. To really see the differences each should be viewed as the full sized version, but even the thumbnails show the obvious.
First, lets note that this is not an objective difference. Nobody necessarily need find any one of them to be the best, and somebody will like each best. This is just an example of what can be done, and of what I personally like best. Everyone's favorite is just a correct as the next!
I edited with GIMP. The first change was a slight crop to make the subject larger, retaining the 5:4 aspect ratio. I put the center just below the squirrel's lower jaw, half way horizontally between the eye and nose.
Then I increased contrast by 13 points. On the histogram that showed the maximum white level increasing a full stop from 231 to 249. The bump in the histogram at 208 moved up to 223 (almost a 1 stop change of 15 points). It lowered the black level sufficient that the histogram shows blocking at 0. The bump that was at a value of 32 dropped to 16.
Hence the shadows actually are blacker than "perfect", and the highlights 4 points above what I might think of as ideal.
I added "Sharpen" at 60% and UnSharp Mask with a radius of 3.0 and the amount set to 0.2. Values for sharpening do not translate well between editors, but the method to chose them was to view at 100% and allow just enough sharpening to see a change in the fur and whiskers around the mouth.
Okay, below are first the "original", th... (
show quote)
... and to my taste, that nailed it!
jwt
Loc: Texas Hill Country
smushin wrote:
Personally, I like the very first image.....
Thank you Smushin for taking the time to view and comment. Your choice seems to be in the majority. :-D
jwt
Loc: Texas Hill Country
fosgood11 wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Thanks Fosgood :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.