View Poll Results: Are you photographer or photoshopper

Voters
133. You may not vote on this poll
  • >80% of collections PS enhanced

    49 36.84%
  • about 50% of collections PS enhanced

    17 12.78%
  • <30% of collections PS - touch up only

    49 36.84%
  • nah... I don't do post processing!

    18 13.53%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Are you photographer or photoShopper?

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    In my own world
    Posts
    1,314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clive
    mmmmm...this setting is u gather from a lot of trial n error.. or one fine day u met some wizard n he told u one? must go n try out =)

    Haha! all wrong...basically this is the default adobe element is giving...I just do some offseting from there...Yah the wizard is rainman

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Bukit Batok West Avenue 2
    Posts
    1,734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clive
    ultrasonic motor


    got some qns here...does sharpening have the same effect as just using a sharper lens?? ie can we have it such that say i take a pic with EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 @ 85mm @ f4.5 ..then sharpen it until it is as sharp as the same scene captured with EF 85/1.8 @ 85mm @f4.5?
    Hee... obviously sharpening on ps or any other software isn't the same as a
    truely sharp image/image taken with a good set of lens (or else there'll be no point making such expensive lens right?).

    Let's look at what we mean't by an image is sharp. Objects in a sharp images have well defined edges and thus has more details. What USM or most other sharpening filters does is to make 'halos'. it tries to look for region of great contrast, which are suggestive of edges and apply 'halos' on both sides... These Halos are region of a lighter colour adjacent to detected 'edge'. This increases the colour contrast and gives the impression of a sharper image. So, in a blur image where details are lost, the lost details will never be sharpened properly, a blurred face is a blur face, no amount of sharpening will put eyes nose and mouth on it. So a sharp image is still worth a million USM.

    All the things you tweak in USM affects how often the halos are applied and how much. One way to see the halo effect is to drawa black line on a grey background and apply sharpening, you'll be able to see the halo when you zoom in (i think).

    p/s: All the super zooming and sharpening programs in TV/movies are c*ap unless you can teach a computer how to recognise objects in an image and make educated 'guesses' (rather calculations) about what it's really like and redraw the whole image based on these calculations, what is not captured on the image will not appear just because u sharpen it.
    Last edited by Flare; 4th July 2004 at 01:14 AM.

  3. #23

    Default

    For DSLR, the image out of the camera will not be as sharp cos the camera manufactuer want to provide the photographer the flexibility to edit the image. Therefore a slight USM is required from DSLR. Digital workflow is part of the digital photograhy process. If one want to do away with it, then it is better to set the contrast, sharpness and color tone from the camera setting instead of using the default.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clive
    ultrasonic motor


    got some qns here...does sharpening have the same effect as just using a sharper lens?? ie can we have it such that say i take a pic with EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 @ 85mm @ f4.5 ..then sharpen it until it is as sharp as the same scene captured with EF 85/1.8 @ 85mm @f4.5?

    if your image is blur or exibit some hand shake, it is not likely that the sharpening processing can help you. USM is not a wonder tools. IMO, USM is there to enchance the already sharped image.

    there are some limit as how far USM can go... overdo will cos halo around your image which will make it look very un-natural.

  5. #25

    Lightbulb

    after playing around. here r some of my findings for a jpeg file at highest setting straight out from camera, viewed at 50% (my screen is only 14 inch keke):


    this

    amount: 175%
    radius: 1.5
    threshold: 3

    will make the pic look sharp when view straight in front of the screen and viewed also at 3m away from the screen

  6. #26

    Default

    Allow me to give another perspective on "photographer versus photoshopper".

    Implicit in the question is whether you make alterations to the taken picture.

    Actually. "Analogue-Photoshop" have been in existence for a long, long, time, way before computers are invented and before somebody made this thing called PHOTOSHOP.

    Ansel Adams applied the analogue-photoshop long ago to most of his landscape photos. The reason is that the camera CANNOT capture what the human eye sees accurately. An example, when you look at the sky, your pupils constrict and the dark is darkened. Then when you look at the fields below, your pupils dilate and the fields lighten up. But when you point the lens at the scene, the aperture remains fixed, so you chose to expose for the sky and darken the fields, or chose to expose for the fields, and lighten the sky. You have no choice. So the negative, no matter how well processed, will have this discrepancy. It cannot capture what your eyes (or more accurately, your brain, visualized) So after the negative is developed, post processing is required. Either at the negative stage, or at the printing stage. An excellent example is Ansel Adams well-loved "Moon over Hernandez". For this picture both the negative and the print were heavily "photoshopped".

    This tradition of "analogue-photoshop" is carried on today by practically all fine-art photographers, including some of the finest black & white printers (persons, not machines) such as John Sexton and Bruce Barnbaum. The important thing is that the final picture should generally not deviate from the original scene visualized by the photographers. It means that "analogue-photoshop" is applied to allow the photographers to show what they saw.

    However there are photographers who do not like the tremendous alterations of the "analogue-photoshoppers". A person who came to mind is Edward Weston with his concept of "Purity of Vision", where all elements will have come together at the moment when the shutter is clicked. His pictures have the simplicity and clarity that is very refreshing. Ansel Adams's pictures are best described as Wagnerian drama. A more contemporary photographer for "clear vision" is Paul Caponigro (the father, not the son)

    Today, we have photoshop. Actually what photoshop offers is essentially what traditional photographers have been doing all the time, but on the computer instead of the wet darkroom!

    So, that is! For practical purposes, most photographers are "photoshoppers", analogue or digital. But I think the "Purity of Vision" would be what I would like to strive for.

  7. #27

    Default

    actually most of the people are photo shopper.. ( ie the kind who hangs out at peninsular )

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,922

    Default

    So far, none of the cameras I've used before actually captured the images that my eye desires. Photoshop helped me most of the time. Just my two cents.

    For those having problems with print jobs being darker, next time, ask the lab 'auntie' to push the brightness up a bit. If it still doesnt work, maybe you should try calibrating your monitor.

    Cheers!

    PS: I want a mamiya!
    Last edited by hazmee; 1st August 2004 at 11:09 AM.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    215

    Default

    no matter it is white or black, it is a good cat if can catch rat. as long as it brings fun, who cares whether is photographer or photoshoper.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •