Awesome shots guys - great page of pics
Got a Minolta Dynax 3(Film SLR) at the moment. Just got into photography recently. Still haven't figured out what the advanced options do in the cam tbh.
By the way i told you a few months ago that i was experimenting the "paint with light" by messing around with flash light and long exposure..!!! The result are interesting..will post the pics in a week.
Wasim Akram: The most sKiLlFuL bowler in history!
Mcgrath said he is fond of the genius "Akram would power through the crease and do whatever he wanted with the old and new ball"
Allan Border "If I ever get a chance to be reborn as a cricketer, I would want to be Wasim"
Richards, Tendulkar and Waugh described Akram as the most dangerous bowler they had ever faced.
> > > Wasims Magic Delivery. Late Swing. Hatrick. < < <
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
What are people's views on post-processing of photos?
You've seen my photos and I obviously think it's ok! haha
I thought the same way you do (or at least I think you do, from what you said about it when we met up to take photos), i.e: it's kind of cheating. But for the most part a digital photo doesn't come out exactly the way you see things when you're taking the shot. So I don't see a problem with it now. When I use Photoshop I just do a few adjustments to make the colours more natural (usually) and the picture a bit sharper. I'm not a big fan of taking things out of the shot or putting things in though. I can see the case for the former if something is distracting, but I couldn't see me putting something in a shot that obviously wasn't there.
The shots above your post with both the foreground and background in brilliant colour are done taking shots at different exposures and then blending them (I think!?). You can set your camera to take photos at 3 different exposures. This is HDR. I haven't tried it yet myself, but photos done this way can look really nice. I've seen some online where they've blended 20-odd different shots of the same location...it's pretty impressive
I find with a decent lens the photo normally needs less post-processing. I've taken shots with the 70-200mm F4L lens I have and they're very sharp and nicely coloured when I open them in Photoshop.
A lot of photos taken here in Korea can have a slightly hazy look to them (not sure if it's pollution or something else) and colour correction and contrast adjustments in Photoshop can get rid of this. If you leave it the way it is in camera you end up with a photo that isn't that sharp and looks a bit washed out.
So in short, I think using Photoshop to make adjustments to your photos is fine.
It's not really any different to photographers in the old days mucking about in the darkroom processing their film. It's certainly an artform, and I'm not that great at it at the moment. The most important thing is still that you get the best shot you can when you're taking the photo. If you don't do this then no amount of Photoshopping later will help you. For example, when I have to crop a photo to zoom in as much as possible (like on those surfing photos) if they're not sharp then there's nothing I can do in Photoshop that will fix them. I can try to sharpen them up to the maximum limit (500% I think) but it causes parts of the photo to look bad and the surfers still won't be great. You'll end up with a little 'halo' around the surfer's body, board and other parts of the shot if you sharpen too much.
If I don't crop though then I have to spend about $2000 on a lens that will allow me to zoom in close enough to get shots like that (and also be clear). With a decent lens you can crop quite a bit in PS and it will still be sharp...so you don't have to spend the money on another one just yet.
I think you'll find most photographers who make money out of selling their photos use it at some stage, if not on a regular basis.
I did say 'in short' but I couldn't help myself haha I actually had something else to say about it too, but I've forgotten what it was now.
EDIT: Now I remember, things like filters change the look of a photo too and I think they're fine. I don't really like the idea of applying filter effects in photoshop if you have the filter yourself, as part of the art of getting a good shot is working with the filter (selecting the right one and so on). I bought a good circular polariser before going to Melbourne and found out they're not that easy to use. Some of my skies came out really dark, some came out half-dark half-light. Turns out an expensive polariser that actually works is more difficult to use than one that is a moderate price but doesn't really do anything.
One filter that is interesting I think is the ND (I think that's what they're called anyway) filters. They're used in landscapes and half of the filter is dark and half is light. If you've seen landscape shots that were taken during the day with the blurred water etc from a slow shutter speed chances are they used one of these filters. You whack it on to block light coming in so you have to decrease the shutter speed. This is something (as far as I know) that is impossible to do in Photoshop.
Sorry about the long message, but as I'm unemployed until Jan 4th I have a lot of time to take photos and think about this sort of stuff. I think photography is becoming a bit more than a hobby haha Expensive lenses are catching my eye.
The only problem is now I want to replace the 17-85mm with a 17-40mm f4L and a 24-70mm f2.8L., which will be an expensive exercise. I like the idea of having at least one lens in that range that is f2.8 though.
Bought a polarized filter today for my lense kit.
I bought a B+W polarised filter for my 70-200mm lens, it was expensive but seeing as it fit my 17-85mm too I thought I'd go for it. Makes a hell of a difference, is actually slightly difficult to use on the wide-angled zoom. When it's wide open at 17mm you can get some strange effects (like 2/3 of the sky one colour blue and 1/3 a different colour) and depending on which position it's in the sky can be really dark. Found this out on my trip to Melbourne, couldn't work out how to use it for the first few days.
Much different to the cheaper one I bought that makes little noticable difference and so is much easier to use.
Thought I'd add a few more pics. Some have been photoshopped and some haven't, I thought it'd add an element of interest if anyone wants to try and pick which are which. First correct answer wins an all expenses paid trip to their living room to watch this week's Aus vs WI test:
Some sort of bird near Lorne, Victoria
A beach on The Great Ocean Rd
A mouse trying to choke a kookaburra
Apartment on the Taehwa River, South Korea
The Observatory: Taehwa River, South Korea
Last edited by Son Of Coco; 13-12-2009 at 04:45 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)