2nd January 2005, 03:31 AM
Originally Posted by rogersk8ter
Well in my view..my two cents. heh
It is only time before that becomes a reality for the everyday joe photographer. Alot of the technology is already here if not within the next decade. As someone who use Photoshop and other DTP software to do our design work, illustration..etc.. we have been doing alot of those stuff for sometime now.
Almost every picture of celebrity you see on posters, ads..etc. they have in one way or another been touchedup. Look at all the beauty ads in the market here, touchup is used so blatantly that you would be hard press to tell if it is not. Some are done by amateur so you can tell but some are done so well..it will surprise you to know that there was alot of touch up done. I should know..I am in the beauty trade..that is why my boss is not happy with me as I alway dont like to play up our product ad with all this before and after shot. And personally our consumers are not all that stupid and we will be insulting their intelligent. heheh Think that is why my boss is trying to replace me heheh...
Getting back to the topic. Well If you have the artistic skill of a artist with PS..almost no picture you take can not be enhance or improved upon. BUT...creativity is something else lah That is one area no PS or expensive camera can help heheh.
I recall the days of filters too. It was all the RAGE man! hehe..from those star-burst one to make the disco light effect to multi-images and soft diffuser for that romantic look to diffuser you use to soften the skin of a girl that is too rough hahahah... Those were the days. These day...I use PS to do them all. That way I save the original picture untouch...but use the copy to do all kind of stuff to it.
2nd January 2005, 07:59 AM
What can I say? I appreciate you taking the trouble to explain things. Thanks You are sure one hell of an innovative guy! What with all the constraints you had in those days! Compared to you, I am but a NEW NEW Newbie!
As for me, I do not do digital at all. So if I mess up my negatives, it is almost non salvagable!
My comments regarding sandwich comes from Michael Reichmann who is somewhat of a digital landscape "guru".
2nd January 2005, 05:04 PM
Student, with your variable ND filter you could still shoot some new worth looking shots la.
Originally Posted by student
Do share with us your many years of experience with some of your shots.
As for the posting, I can always share with you and it is easy once you have the photos available. The moderators here can help you too.
I would be very glad to have an experience photographer to share with me some of their photos and the techniques of achieving it.
2nd January 2005, 05:23 PM
Bro, reading your replies is like reading good articles from photography magazine such as the Photography Monthly.
Originally Posted by sammy888
Now I only hope you could share some of your practical experience and your shots.
I would like to have a try on GND with some practical guides and hopefully can try on some of the available GND and ND filter before getting one.
GND is always views as one of the Essential for landscape photography and I am still wondering whether the impact of the GND is that great.
Wow, if you have the urge to do the old nonsense... The juice ( Orange or Apple?) of your first love for photography is pounding like Tsunami onto you now. .
2nd January 2005, 05:30 PM
I can't remember the price...maybe someone can share.
Originally Posted by gneseew
You could also drop by CP to ask the price.
3rd January 2005, 02:02 AM
Hey student...tell me about it man....heh. I usually waste like 80% of what I shot when experimenting. It is not like I am trying to be the best photographer or trying to archieve some higher creative shots lah. I bought a bunch of books and whe I start something..I have to admit I tend to go overboard.
Originally Posted by student
Just like the time I use a simple Nikon Speedlight which I hand held and manually trigger it to create strobo effect for multi exposure...etc. When you have lack of fund you try to be more creative in that sense.
Micheal Reichmann is right but it is a solution you can only use under certain circumstances but when the situation does not allow it, you have to switch "tactic". I guess you could say there is more then one way to skin a cat. It is just like in PS. There are so many tools built-in to it. So much so that you can create the same touchup or create the same effects using various tools. So at the end of the day it is how much time you spend playing with PS and getting not just visually creative with your work but creative in using PS's tools. That's why I am sometime surprise that some one did a certain effect with PS but totally difference from how I did it. Sometime their way is alot quicker or it could be slower. That is what's interesting when interacting with others here...you tend to grow and learn more and sometime re-learn old things to apply to new things. That kinda thingy lah. heh.
3rd January 2005, 03:59 AM
I am just long winded lah. heh. It is an old habit of mine.
Originally Posted by Hosea
GND relevant to landscape photography? Yeah I guess so..alot of Pros testify to that. But you still have to use it sparingly and it can't be used in all situation. Here's some examples:
Here's what I call a textbook example of where applying the GND is possible. Using those screw on filter adapter( like Corkin or Tiffen) for you to fit a vertically movable GND filter, allows you to adjust the height to where you want the gradual effect to take place. In this case, the gradual effect takes place very high on the top of the lens. Coming down any further will also caste a darkening effect on the sign post top.
Here is what I mean by a situation the GND is not practical. When you have objects ( like in this pic where the buildings tower as high as your sky in the frame) How can the GND filter just effect the sky alone? no possible. *Please note the GND filter effect is not suppose to be blue tint as you see in my picture. I just made it that colour to make a indicative point on how the filter's gradual effect blankets horizontally. So in this situation, the filter is useless. PS's is more the solution in this case.
Here is another example lah similar to figB. The trees get blanket by the filter too.
The ONLY solution open to you in this kind of situation (fig b & c) if PS is not your way of doing thing....would be to use the POLARISER!!!. It will at least help to saturate the entire scene to some extend by cutting bad sun glares and also quite possibly enhance the blue of the sky..if there is any blue sky to begin with.
In this situation also you can't use a neutral density filter to help the scene since the ND filter only offers you more option to shutter speeds but it does not in any way enhance colour.
See ..we did not even need a field trip to explain it. further more..since you like myself shoot digital picture, it is alot easier and quicker to correct our shots or get more good shots then ruined shoots. When I was playing all this stuff in the early 80s with film...you very quickly burn a hole in your wallet from wasting film and processing. So in order to not waste film that much, you have to be very clear minded with what you want to do, how it is done or shown in the photo books and to clearly understand the idea behind it. After that you just keep doing it and in the process come to understand if it fits your style of shooting or will this be a one off 'adventure" in hobby photography experimentation. You would be surprise how many photographers, Pros and Hobbist who has used but kept as a secret how they shot this or that effect. Some might even mislead you with a similar way of doing it but then when you try it..time and time again you fail to get it heh.. You can't blame them..that includes me sometime when it comes to revealing how we did it.We spend alot of our money and spare hours just dabbling in it. And some we discover by accident. For me, I can tell you..I did alot of special effect and crazy stuff because at that moment I thought it was fun. But once you have done it, it just fizzle away. Maybe it was because I after doing it for sometime but not being able to produce creatively appealing pictures with it that I lost interest in it. Human nature i guess. Or maybe I dont have enough interest or motivation to fully use the technique after trying for sometime but at the very least, I have done it. Better that then to forever asking yourself " what if". we all have alot of "what if" in our lives heh.
Well hope that clears up abit more about why,for me anyway, I really don't see a need to play with those filters all this years (except my polariser). PS seem to be able to solve most of my problems. And also because I am good with it after spending years using it at work. So that is an advantage option to me. If you are just starting out then it does seem almost impossible that PS can do so much. In another thread in CS..there was this guy who "wow' alot of the folks here with his re-illustration of a picture of a guy. He render the guys face to resemble the DEVIL. It was very life like. Some might have thought this guy wore a mask or has makeup done when they first saw it. It would take along while to do it (though he claim it was easy and did not take long. For us artists, sometime spending 12 hours to render a small artwork can still be considered "fast" and "did not take me long to do it") But yes..this guy did it using all the powerful tool in PS.
See the devil picture here:
Presently it is the new year...work is waiting so Bro, I am not sure when I will have the time to take you out for a lesson in GDN as you have PMed. It would be good as it would be a re-learning experience for me too given I have not done this for quite awhile. But my time is abit restricted. Maybe one day when I have more time to spare. Imagine, I only shot the Orchard Christmas scene on New Year Day itself as I was so swamp with work for months.I only shot up to Centrepoint before I have to call it a night since it was already 12am and most lighting are switched off heheh..I missed out on Raffles City, Suntec for this year..etc.
I write alot here in CS so it seem like I have alot of time but it is because I am stuck in my office working or on standby. I wish I had more time to get out of the office to do more personal shooting instead of shooting more for my work. Well wish me luck, if I can get my dream job in 2005 maybe I can have more time for it...then I would invite you for come along if you like, on my walkabout.
Last edited by sammy888; 3rd January 2005 at 11:56 AM.
3rd January 2005, 11:22 AM
4th January 2005, 10:29 PM
After seeing sammy with his wonderful knowledge sharing segments, I would like to demonstrate a bit of PS-GND done some time back...
This photo was taken in France back in Nov 03, and it was taken with a CIR-POL, as I wanted to make the rainbow looked as intense as possible.
Back home I realised the photo was lit by strong setting sun, and out of fun I added a bit of brown-tinted gradual effect in PS.
5th January 2005, 10:06 AM
Hmm.... Kinda curious about CPs.
Assuming if I'm on da move in a train and I catch sight (or expects) a beautiful scenery ahead, of cos, the train doesn't come with windows that can be opened frm the inside or outside, would a CP be usable in this case? Or do we have to use da traditional "Make-sure-ur-surrounding-don't-have-reflection" thing to shoot thru reflective surfaces?
5th January 2005, 12:10 PM
Shooting picture through glass windows on the train, car or airplane is usually a hit or miss situation. Reflection is a big problem especially when you are seated next to one and you shooting through it. If the interior space you are on is too bright, it is reflected on the glass orthe glass is dirty and you will end up picking up dirt that can be seen against plain background scene. And some glass are not perfectly made resulting in minor distortion and if you are shooting close to the glass window, this distortion is even more apparent.
Originally Posted by jsbn
The Polariser can sometime help to eliminated some of the reflection...only if the angle of the reflected scene fall within the effective range of the polarising effect. ANd there is also another problem with window glass especially tampered glass and thick glass that has gone through heat treatment to harden it. Instead of eliminating glares and reflection from the glass panel, your polariser will pickup what I call "stress pattern of the glass" They look like those rainbow hue stain. Thus instead of helping you get a clearer view through the glass, this hue will block your view instead.
So it is a hit and miss thingy lah. Sometime, it is better to shoot without the CP. Best to be like spiderman and get on top of the train and do your shooting instead LOL