taking pictures without photoshop,ect
Jul 15, 2012 18:48:30 #
Jul 15, 2012 18:54:02 #
russelray wrote:
What she probably means is that they won't accept jpg photos withi post-processing done to them. However, if you do all your post-processing using the RAW file and then create that first JPG from that post-processed RAW file, no one will know unless you tell them.
jrconcours wrote:
Just watched a webinar with an editor from Nat Geo and she said they accept no photos with post processing done to them. So raw becomes a problem. So even though she didn't say it they must shoot in jpeg.
What she probably means is that they won't accept jpg photos withi post-processing done to them. However, if you do all your post-processing using the RAW file and then create that first JPG from that post-processed RAW file, no one will know unless you tell them.
Post processing changes in the RAW file are saved in the EXIF data.
Jul 15, 2012 18:54:06 #
bvm
Loc: Glendale, Arizona
Those were the days my friend...
You really had to know what you were doing. Knowledge of lighting, composition, film , filters, speed, F/stop. Every shot was a learning experience, which made you better.
Today you sees much PP that a lot of them look phony. Tweeking is one thing, re-do is another. But the world moves on!
You really had to know what you were doing. Knowledge of lighting, composition, film , filters, speed, F/stop. Every shot was a learning experience, which made you better.
Today you sees much PP that a lot of them look phony. Tweeking is one thing, re-do is another. But the world moves on!
Check out True Macro-Photography Forum section of our forum.
Jul 15, 2012 19:28:52 #
10 min in CS4 - too bad this is a thumb nail - can you post the larger version?
Lg group with FEET LOL
Jul 15, 2012 20:00:00 #
I am a total beginner and I have seen pictures that look more like paintings or have textures on them that are beautiful but still look unrealistic.
Right now I'm concentrating on getting the settings correct and getting the shot that I want then maybe just bump up the color, crop or do b&w etc.
I mostly shoot old buildings or inanimate objects right now. I did learn that with portrait photography a lot of tweaking is needed. So maybe then I will rely more on a editing program.
I guess it comes down to what you are shooting.
Right now I'm concentrating on getting the settings correct and getting the shot that I want then maybe just bump up the color, crop or do b&w etc.
I mostly shoot old buildings or inanimate objects right now. I did learn that with portrait photography a lot of tweaking is needed. So maybe then I will rely more on a editing program.
I guess it comes down to what you are shooting.
Jul 15, 2012 20:20:30 #
So true - I shot these in San Francisco after the St. Patrick's Day parade - just shot them because the looked different. Some took a little work to bring out the contrast and sharpen them some.-
KatrinaB188 wrote:
I am a total beginner and I have seen pictures tha... (show quote)
Random Shot In San Francisco
Jul 15, 2012 20:22:26 #
Check out Video for DSLR and Point and Shoot Cameras section of our forum.
Jul 15, 2012 20:24:19 #
bobmcculloch wrote:
Of course, less is more with editing, Bob.
omnila wrote:
Does any still take photos without later using photoshop or other apps? or is this a dead art to try to get it right with just the camera. I do not manipulate any more what i shoot is what i get. just curious thanks
Of course, less is more with editing, Bob.
I'm really amazed...If you shoot RAW and truly set the camera to your specs to capture the image, the light, the mood as you want it, then you must process it to something...
If you choose to allow a tiny electronic chip to make all those decisions for you than the camera must process it to something...
How do you "what I shoot is what I get...???"
Jul 15, 2012 21:03:32 #
bvm wrote:
Those were the days my friend...
You really had to know what you were doing. Knowledge of lighting, composition, film , filters, speed, F/stop. Every shot was a learning experience, which made you better.
Today you sees much PP that a lot of them look phony. Tweeking is one thing, re-do is another. But the world moves on!
You really had to know what you were doing. Knowledge of lighting, composition, film , filters, speed, F/stop. Every shot was a learning experience, which made you better.
Today you sees much PP that a lot of them look phony. Tweeking is one thing, re-do is another. But the world moves on!
And we're not returning to those days (I'm close to 70 so I know what you are talking about), but those days also included processing film in darkrooms with hazardous chemicals, not knowing what you shot until later, so you missed the opportunity to make adjustments and learn real-time in the field. You were also limited by the film loaded in your camera when conditions changed (ISO etc)...I'm thinking we're over romantic about the "good old days". I say let's move on. Photography today and into the future is and will be defined as a process that includes electronic tools. Take advantage of them, your competition is.
Jul 15, 2012 21:21:44 #
beverett wrote:
quote=russelray quote=jrconcours Just watched a ... (show quote)
But you're not giving the RAW file to National Geographic. Go look at their requirements. When I looked a couple of months ago, they required JPG.
Jul 15, 2012 21:33:09 #
What amazes me in this SOOC thing is this ... I can take a shot then review it very carefully on my camera monitor and go "yep - perfect - exposure, colour, contrast, brightness, saturation, sharpness etc are exactly the same as what I'm seeing with my naked eye - I really nailed it".
Yet when I download it to a computer and blow it up to a (colour calibrated) computer monitor size - much bigger than the three inch camera monitor size - this is most certainly NOT what I am seeing. One or more of exposure, contrast, brightness, saturation, (etc) may differ slightly.
To reproduce on the computer monitor exactly what I see on my camera monitor (and in real life) usually requires a little time doing some post production work to reduce these differences.
Yet when I download it to a computer and blow it up to a (colour calibrated) computer monitor size - much bigger than the three inch camera monitor size - this is most certainly NOT what I am seeing. One or more of exposure, contrast, brightness, saturation, (etc) may differ slightly.
To reproduce on the computer monitor exactly what I see on my camera monitor (and in real life) usually requires a little time doing some post production work to reduce these differences.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Jul 15, 2012 21:47:25 #
FLandWVMIKE wrote:
To us, who shot with film, for fifty years and did our composing with the camera, we really had pride in that rare shot, when everything just came out perfect. These photos remain in our mind forever.
I just do not think that you can feel that same satisfaction in a photo that you manipulated with the computer.
I just do not think that you can feel that same satisfaction in a photo that you manipulated with the computer.
:thumbup:
Jul 15, 2012 21:53:15 #
Mudshark wrote:
Do you understand women? When you get them figured out...perhaps you can start on computer technology...
2x25mpg wrote:
Why can't they make it easy and simple so the rest of us can understand it? ??
Do you understand women? When you get them figured out...perhaps you can start on computer technology...
Did I miss something here! :lol:
Jul 15, 2012 22:01:06 #
One can record photons with a great degree of accuracy or one can engage in the production of Art. Which you do is up to you. The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others".
Your choice.
Your choice.
Jul 15, 2012 22:13:09 #
wteffey wrote:
I hate to see a good horse portrait spoiled by a fly on the face (I do a lot of horse photos), snotty nose, runny eye or a light pole growing between the ears, so yes, I edit every photo at least a little. A photo not worth 5 minutes editing is not worth showing anyone. Having said that, however, I am not into HDR, grunge, high contrast or the like. If somone looks at my photos and says "did you photoshop that", I've gone too far and I go back and make it look more natural.
:thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.