Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Photographing your wife

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Photographing your wife

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    some things require digital modification due to limitations of tools.

    for example, i want a whole set of singh ray filters, but that would set me back beyond my means. enter tianya filters, which come in ONE variety when it comes to GND. now tell me, without the aid of digital modifications, how is one to take a sunset photograph with huge dynamic range span?

    something more fair is, a good photographer knows how to make the best of his tools.

    and these tools include photographic software..
    You mean a sunset like this?



    The shot is exactly as recorded by the camera, no increase or decrease in dynamics or even an auto level adjustment. It's got the same contrast and dynamic range as the actual sunset. Careful exposure and knowing exactly how to shoot a sunset helps. No filters were used either.

    If it's got a huge dynamic range then use HDR techniques if you don't have filters.
    No filters used or needed. Singhray's I have a full set of ND Grads plus about a dozen custom filters made just for me. If you can't afford Singhrays then use Lee or if your on a budget Cokin. HDR techniques are nothing new, the techniques have been used in astrophotography since the 1970s using film.

    In the days before ND Grads (that's not that long ago to be frank) were commonly available photographers worked a sunset or sunrise to produce a quality image in camera.

    The whole point is this, you can ***** about in PhotoShop attempting to turn a sows ear in to a purse, and you may wind up with an acceptable image, but a really good in camera shot that's properly taken requires far more skill and results in minimal image processing. Work in professional photography for a while and you'll find that the least amount of processing is the most cost effective solution, ie: shoot well to start with.


    Quote Originally Posted by lypklypk View Post
    I respectfully disagree here... good photographers have to know how to touch-up photos (sometimes quite a bit!) in an image editing software... especially if you're in fashion photography line, photos straight from the camera is never enough, there's a whole workflow to the editing that needs to be done
    Did I say you don't have to know about DPM? No I did not. I've been using PhotoShop for about 15 years now (since R3) and it's a an essential tool, but it is not the panacea you and most amateur photographers think it is.

    Guess you've not shot fashion professionally? Touch up etc is the art editors job, not the photographers, though for small jobs like local fashion shots you need a different workflow as the images have to be finsihed. In the larger shoots the images are supplied raw to the client and then they do with them what they will, which usually involves very heavy PS'ing.
    Last edited by Ian; 20th November 2009 at 07:24 PM.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  2. #82

    Default Re: Photographing your wife

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    You mean a sunset like this?



    The shot is exactly as recorded by the camera, no increase or decrease in dynamics or even an auto level adjustment. It's got the same contrast and dynamic range as the actual sunset. Careful exposure and knowing exactly how to shoot a sunset helps. No filters were used either.

    If it's got a huge dynamic range then use HDR techniques if you don't have filters.
    No filters used or needed. Singhray's I have a full set of ND Grads plus about a dozen custom filters made just for me. If you can't afford Singhrays then use Lee or if your on a budget Cokin. HDR techniques are nothing new, the techniques have been used in astrophotography since the 1970s using film.

    In the days before ND Grads (that's not that long ago to be frank) were commonly available photographers worked a sunset or sunrise to produce a quality image in camera.

    The whole point is this, you can ***** about in PhotoShop attempting to turn a sows ear in to a purse, and you may wind up with an acceptable image, but a really good in camera shot that's properly taken requires far more skill and results in minimal image processing. Work in professional photography for a while and you'll find that the least amount of processing is the most cost effective solution, ie: shoot well to start with.




    Did I say you don't have to know about DPM? No I did not. I've been using PhotoShop for about 15 years now (since R3) and it's a an essential tool, but it is not the panacea you and most amateur photographers think it is.

    Guess you've not shot fashion professionally? Touch up etc is the art editors job, not the photographers, though for small jobs like local fashion shots you need a different workflow as the images have to be finsihed. In the larger shoots the images are supplied raw to the client and then they do with them what they will, which usually involves very heavy PS'ing.
    No I didn't say that... it's just that the way you automatically classify all the rest as GWCs that I don't agree with And I'm just bringing the point across that doing little touch-ups/editing would not classify one as more of a non-GWC, from the way that you seem to put your message across

    It's true that in larger productions, most photographers will have a touch-up artist to do the work for them... but most of us here aren't working as a professional photographer.. cheers

    No personal attacks here... lets keep this discussion nice

  3. #83

    Default Re: Photographing your wife

    Quote Originally Posted by lypklypk View Post
    No I didn't say that... it's just that the way you automatically classify all the rest as GWCs that I don't agree with And I'm just bringing the point across that doing little touch-ups/editing would not classify one as more of a non-GWC, from the way that you seem to put your message across

    It's true that in larger productions, most photographers will have a touch-up artist to do the work for them... but most of us here aren't working as a professional photographer.. cheers

    No personal attacks here... lets keep this discussion nice
    well.. he mentions hdr.. that is a digital technique.. so i'm not sure what he's going on about here.

    one moment he says that everything can be done in-camera.. then the next he's saying that if you have no filters, with extended DR, you can solve this with HDR. isn't HDR a generally out of camera technique?

    i also fail to see the point of bringing in professional jobs into the picture. never mind that most of us are hobbyists.. and therefore would not have access or linkups. the fact remains - fashion photography requires touchup.

    whether it is done by a photographer, or some random DI artist in his own hole.. it doesn't matter.. fashion images are not spirited straight from camera to print. and to twist it to say that the professional fashion photographer produces out of camera images.. because he doesn't do any DI.. well, pardon me while i fail to see the leap in logic.

    to be fair, i didn't see any personal attacks on his side.. but making broad, sweeping statements devoid of logic is just as bad as making a personal attack in my book.

  4. #84

    Default Re: Photographing your wife

    lol haha

  5. #85

    Default Re: Photographing your wife

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    You mean a sunset like this?


    actually i would love to see more of the boat in the foreground....so, can't help "cheating" a bit....

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Photographing your wife

    Quote Originally Posted by zaren View Post
    actually i would love to see more of the boat in the foreground....so, can't help "cheating" a bit....
    Actually it's not a boat, it's a fishing platform and it was almost pitch black in the foreground.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Photographing your wife

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    well.. he mentions hdr.. that is a digital technique.. so i'm not sure what he's going on about here.

    one moment he says that everything can be done in-camera.. then the next he's saying that if you have no filters, with extended DR, you can solve this with HDR. isn't HDR a generally out of camera technique?

    i also fail to see the point of bringing in professional jobs into the picture. never mind that most of us are hobbyists.. and therefore would not have access or linkups. the fact remains - fashion photography requires touchup.

    whether it is done by a photographer, or some random DI artist in his own hole.. it doesn't matter.. fashion images are not spirited straight from camera to print. and to twist it to say that the professional fashion photographer produces out of camera images.. because he doesn't do any DI.. well, pardon me while i fail to see the leap in logic.

    to be fair, i didn't see any personal attacks on his side.. but making broad, sweeping statements devoid of logic is just as bad as making a personal attack in my book.
    Hate to tell you this but HDR techniques have been used in Film Darkrooms for 3 decades. David Malin pioneered many techniques in the mid 1970s including what you know as Unsharp Masking, HDR and a number of other composite methods. These techniques were developed using FILM, not digital imaging.(to be precise, glass plate "film") Mosaicing of images came from the military. All were done on film long before digital processing of images was much above simple video image processing. I won't even go in to dodging and burning (another more limited form of HDR exploitation). Rember High Dynamic Range is exactly what's written, enlarging the dynamic range of an image.

    The fact is I was specifically referring to a post that mistakenly stated photographers touch up fashion work, it's very much NOT the case in the professional end of the game, and that folks is where the images you all drool over in magazines etc originate from. When was the last time you saw an amateur here have the cover of say Vogue? The amount of PS'ing done at the top end of the game is horrific. The rather dodgy FHM or whatever magazine shots posted on CSnap a few days ago were bad, but nothing compared to what the fashion houses do inhouse on an almost daily basis. Versache for example, has almost never in the past decade put a shot in to print bearing their logo that wasn't photoshopped to death.

    The point YOU miss is that doing quality work in camera at the start will give you great images, regardless of processing. Garbage shots will only ever produce garbage or will look completely faked. An over reliance on PS is not an effective substitute for getting the best out of a shot. - This has nothing to do with GWC's though GWC's in general tend to over process images, but so do some professionals.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  8. #88

    Default Re: Photographing your wife

    Ok.

    Any other funny experiences from the other bros?

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •