Sdubois wrote:
Thanks She is a beauty, Hard to believe she's only 17 years old. But that lens is so sharp the images survive a slight softening and still look natural.
Nice shot, but if she's only 17, I would definitely relight that portrait with some fill.
CaptainC wrote:
Yeah - you cannot turn it off, you have to run the slider for that all the way to the left every time.
I so use it occasionally for the mass-call headshot sessions I do for real estate firms. The images are for business card and web use and a light application this without the sculpting feature works pretty well. I prefer Portraiture from Imagenomic - much easier to get a natural look, IMO. For the 16x20 portraits, I do it manually.
I guess it depends on the version of PortraitPro you're using. In my version, I can turn off any of the many modules they offer (face sculpt being one of them) Additionally, I can manipulate any of the many sliders they offer in each module. You can do as much or as little (or none) as you want.
Topaz has some good portrait retouching modules, as does On1.
The best way to go about it though is using high and low frequency separation.
Can anyone recommend a good loupe for inspecting proof sheets?
Thanks.
I've been thinking about getting a Surface Pro as a bridge for my Macbook Pro and iPad. But now I've been checking out the Cintiq Companion. Looks like it will work as a tablet and a laptop, but is it overkill? I'm a semi-pro photographer, working in PS, LR, Topaz, On1, Painter, Photomatix, and portrait professional, mostly.
Does anyone have any experience with this device? It seems like it's really geared to professional graphic designers, but what about for photographers?
Thanks
Apaflo wrote:
Any photograph necessarily is the photographer's interpretation, starting with the decision to take a photograph, continuing with decisions about angles, timing and other scene manipulations that change the interpretation (and maybe even the reality), and right on through deciding which paper is best to print it on.
By arbitrarily dividing the manipulations you like to do from those you don't, you are never defining "true photography", just defining yourself. Use terminology that has meaning to others, such as perhaps saying you are a photographer in the Straight Photography style. Don't claim something exclusive about not being able to accomplish some of the useful skills of photography, just admit to being at best a journeyman photographer as opposed to a master photographer.
Any photograph b necessarily /b is the photograp... (
show quote)
Apaflo for Vice President!
JohnSwanda wrote:
I think photography should be a large enough tent to accommodate all kinds of imagery created with light sensitive material, analog and digital, and all kinds of techniques to manipulate that imagery. I feel like people who declare that photographers who use techniques they don't like are not really photographers, and their works are no longer photographs, and digital cameras are not cameras, are pretty closed minded. I do a lot of digital manipulation, and I am a photographer, my works are photographs, and my digital camera is a camera.
I think photography should be a large enough tent ... (
show quote)
JohnSwanda for President!
JohnSwanda wrote:
Then you must feel Ansel Adams is a visual artist and not a photographer. Black and White is an abstraction to begin with, and then using filters to get a much darker sky than real life, and all darkroom techniques to manipulate what the tones looked like. He very much interpreted the scene. Not a "true" photographer?
Adams would have been considered a Photoshop maestro today. You are most definitely right. Cracks me up the unknowing hypocrisy of so many.
oldtigger wrote:
Don't get me wrong, i've pushed a slider or two in my day, i just don't claim they are photographs.
No matter how startling or impressive to the viewer they might become they are now only artwork.
With all due respect: I find it curious that you can determine what makes a photograph, but if someone uses a slider that's not on your approved list, it then becomes something other than a photograph. Curious.
oldtigger wrote:
In my opinion if you do more than the basic gamma, dodge, burn, color correction and crop then your photograph become artwork.
If it's not taken with a Polaroid, it's not a photo. ;-) <sarcasm>
Mickey88 wrote:
the thinning part might be new, but teeth whitening ,blemish removal, removing glare from glasses etc were offered at least as far back as the 70's by pro labs, and were a service that was charged for
Exactly! Been going on for as long as I can remember. And back in the film days it was much more difficult and complicated to get simple things done. Back in the early 80's I had a client that wanted the braces removed from her child's portrait. I could do it, but it was going to cost $$$. Now days, that can be achieved in 20 seconds, but one still needs the program and the expertise to do it. So what is 20 seconds worth? BTW, back when it too me over a week to get it done. lol.
HowardPepper wrote:
I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but my personal feelings are that if the finished image doesn't look like the real life image, it isn't photography, it's digital artistry. Just my opinion. Everybody has their own.
Exactly; it's just your opinion and you're entitled to your beliefs. Some people don't consider it photography if it's digitally altered at all. So I guess that includes changing the WB, white and black points, etc? But when you're changing something, it's always going to be open to interpretation as to what is acceptable. To each his own.
Hi,
Does anyone know of a place that I can get a huge print made and mounted? I have a client that wants an image that is 94"x44", and mounted on something fairly light weight. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks.
graficsfx wrote:
Looks like spam to me. Is this allowed here?
Why in the world would this be considered spam, and why would it NOT be allowed here?
rocketride wrote:
I don't think that that is quite what anyone here is saying. It more like unless you are a particularly skilled photographer, or you're stuck with a particularly crappy camera, it is more likely that you are the limiting factor than that the camera is.
And any differences between ordinary grade equipment and the high-end stuff are only likely to matter in the more challenging situations.
Well, duh? But that's a given. Why do so many people have to repeat it?! Yes, we all know that spending 500k on a Stradavarius isn't going to make me a concert violinist.
But Mario Andretti couldn't win Indy in a Yugo. Sure, he could make it around the track, but.....
So can we just STOP already?! Every time I open Uglyhedgehog or whatever other photography site, there is the same lame topic. ENOUGH!!
Ok, so here it is: If you're not a good photographer, buying a great camera isn't going to make you much better. If you're a good photographer, your equipment can help or hinder.
This is such BS! I can't believe people actually believe this stuff, let alone repeat it. Do all you people who concur really believe this, or is it a mantra you've forced yourself to believe after hearing it a so many seminars? It's just ridiculous. OF COURSE THE CAMERA MATTERS!
So Adams would take those world beaters with a Polaroid, huh? Michelangelo could have painted the Sistine Chapel with charcoal?