Areas in Punggol

[Pauche]

bro,

u took these with ur L lens ah? really can see the defferent......... u very bad leh, very poisonous.

and can see the different style between mine and ur series. mine is more groomy and urs is more joyous. hahahhahaha

and hor, u dun have to stress to put up the photos. somebody still owe us the zoo outing photos.......

jay the "saddist"

no leh... i got no L lens at wide angle leh! :sticktong
u wanna sponsor me?

er

no no no, as much as i respect the quality of l lens, the fact is you would not be able to differentiate the difference between a photo taken with l lens and photo taken without

this is the reasoning why so many people new to the scene straight away go and buy expensive lenses then complain taht they are not getting the results they expect

the fact is, pauche's pictures are strong because of good composition, and good post processing (if any, i won't know). i am not entirely sure what l lens has up other than sharpness. maybe good color reproduction. but in any case, for point a - sharpness, this is not discernible at such small sizes as posted here. for point b, it is my belief that with the correct techniques, and good pp, even a normal lens can give you what a l lens can give you

i am wondering a bit about the distortion though, seems like there is distortion, the horizon is curving. in any case, the first photo you have quoted does employ the rough technique of leading lines, done subtly with the rocks, one in the immediate foreground pointing to the left, then your eyes move to the rocks in the secondary foreground, when then lead you to the background, i.e. the sunset and the sky.

the second i suppose, is a very classic punggol shot. just foreground with relatively orderly arrangement of the rocks, then the sky.

i suppose l lens, based on my description would only have one up in terms of large prints. when it comes to posting on the web, any lens will do, in my humble opinion

no L lens here, but I got to agree that its the composition and the post processing. however, L lens do make a difference to the sharpness and the colours of the pic, even on web posting.... try once and you will be poisoned...

boss,

why i make such comment was becos i know wats was the condition when he took these few shots. and i know that he will have minimal PP on his photos. (think i am the 1 using the most PP among them)

and his rock are so clear whereas mine was pitch dark (no doubt i PP it darker to have the groomy feeling). of cos i can do a stitch if i want to but i really dun wanna too much PP. hee hee

i may be wrong (very high chance) on the L lens but then it will make me ponder how he got those clear rock. no doubt even if i know, i may still choose to darken the rock but it always good to learn. hee hee

jay the learner

the clear rocks are a result of post processing done on photoshop. if you have some rocks to show on the foreground, its good to show some details, just my humble opinion. then again... there is no L lens used!!!

you mean, there is no use of filters? highly possible because i am not familiar with the timing at which he took his shots, the sky is still a little blown though

effectively if you expose correctly, i am pretty sure you will be able to get such results too. exif says f/20 for 30 seconds. i'm thinking that nd filters were used at the very least. so in this case it is more of a matter of exposure. also, after a quick look at the photos for your rock photos it seems like they were taken at a much later timing (i.e. night) whereas based on colors in his, it was taken at sunset. if you had done those same shots at sunset, i am sure you would have gotten the details on the rocks as well. anyways, i didn't mean to chide you or anything, was just a friendly post put in a blunt way, hope you don't take it the wrong way.

My shots are taken with a ND4 stacked with a CPL, so that I could get a longer exposure for that dreamy rocks feel even before sunset..... the shots are taken with exposure time of 6-30secs. I meter on the dark rocks because I want details of the rocks, thus the sun looks a little blown..... then I adjust it on photoshop loh.

 

[Pauche]

in fact pauche's pictures remind me of imran (can't remember his nickname here, ever, he uses a funny one)'s shot here. oh btw, you have to check out his photoblog, while we're on the topic. it is really good!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[calebk]

Jay, i think you must learn to understand exposure. Not everything needs to be at 18% grey. Sometimes you have to underexpose certain elements in the frame (by maybe one or even one and 2/3 stops), so as to preserve highlight detail. Landscape photography is a lot about the right exposure at the right scene. Overexposing or underexposing and you turn an otherwise dramatic scene into a bland, flat one.

I'm sure Pauche had that in mind (L lenses or not) when he shot the rock, fisherman and sunset photos.

 

[freezemaster]

Ok comment on my newbie shots ... i am new to DSLR.
ANd i missed the 'house' visit and the sunset.

No photoshop done, only resize and watermark.

 

[vaxvms]

got it. i try to do it on the original file but i still need to stitch 2 photo together to get pauche's result..... :cry:


jay the newbie

nice try on stitching ;p
btw u happen to be from the same killer_jay in shc?

 

[Killer_Jay]

Jay, i think you must learn to understand exposure. Not everything needs to be at 18% grey. Sometimes you have to underexpose certain elements in the frame (by maybe one or even one and 2/3 stops), so as to preserve highlight detail. Landscape photography is a lot about the right exposure at the right scene. Overexposing or underexposing and you turn an otherwise dramatic scene into a bland, flat one.

I'm sure Pauche had that in mind (L lenses or not) when he shot the rock, fisherman and sunset photos.

bro,

sorry. dun really get wat u mean by 18% grey.

yah, i know sometime i need to stitch 2 photos to form a "perfect" exposure photo for the background and the foreground.

i am trying very hard not to PP my photo too much but looks like there is no 2 way about it.

jay the old school

 

[Killer_Jay]

nice try on stitching ;p
btw u happen to be from the same killer_jay in shc?

bro,

yup. i am the same killer_jay from SHC, ISG, NEC, SMC, etc. sorry, may i ask who is this?

err.... all the photo i posted were not stitched. just adjusted the level and did some darkening to the shadows.

jay the newbie

 

[night86mare]

bro,

sorry. dun really get wat u mean by 18% grey.

yah, i know sometime i need to stitch 2 photos to form a "perfect" exposure photo for the background and the foreground.

i am trying very hard not to PP my photo too much but looks like there is no 2 way about it.

jay the old school

nah, i pp EVERY SINGLE ONE of my photos, there's nothing to be ashamed about it

if we're talking about landscapes, ansel adams, too, "photoshopped" his images in the darkroom

what say more about us mortals?

 

[zoossh]

frankly speaking, nowadays DSLRs are getting more and more advanced such that in-camera processing is not of significant difference to post processing - the difference only being that more time and more control can be applied in post processing. this processing is within the digital algorithms and the different modifiers in the menu. what's really there to be proud about one who applied sharpening in the menu than on the computer? that's doesn't make one a better photographer than the other person. yes, you save time, but the latter have more control.

some of the photos shot "fresh-out-of-the camera" can look more artificial than a post-enhanced photograph, both just depending on how big and how suitable the processing are. it is no longer true that one who does not post processed but commit to in-camera processing is a purist.

conversely filters have been used since the film days and still is used today. the use of filters can achieved a more post-processed look than what a post processed picture look

This is an example of which only levels is adjusted marginally. the overall effect is due to the haze and filters, nothing more.

 

[calebk]

bro,

sorry. dun really get wat u mean by 18% grey.

yah, i know sometime i need to stitch 2 photos to form a "perfect" exposure photo for the background and the foreground.

i am trying very hard not to PP my photo too much but looks like there is no 2 way about it.

jay the old school

Sorry to be blunt. Old school does not mean one does not PP their photos. As night86mare already mentioned, Ansel Adams had a darkroom, and every single one of his works underwent processing in that darkroom. In our modern context, Photoshop is that darkroom. Not having a good PP technique or workflow should never be covered up by saying "oh, I'm an old school photographer".

In fact, many old-school film shooters do their own processing and developing.

Need I say more?

 

[freezemaster]

Sorry to be blunt. Old school does not mean one does not PP their photos. As night86mare already mentioned, Ansel Adams had a darkroom, and every single one of his works underwent processing in that darkroom. In our modern context, Photoshop is that darkroom. Not having a good PP technique or workflow should never be covered up by saying "oh, I'm an old school photographer".

In fact, many old-school film shooters do their own processing and developing.

Need I say more?

Hohoho looks like i need to touch up on my Photoshop skills. i donno how to photoshop .... i admit ! haha there must be some online guide some where ... hmm

 

[night86mare]

Hohoho looks like i need to touch up on my Photoshop skills. i donno how to photoshop .... i admit ! haha there must be some online guide some where ... hmm

you just need to read one basic guide book, the rest is experimentation, and reading magazines

mine was a lot of experimentation, basically i learnt photoshop through pure trial and error after reading one book. speaking of which that was a fantastic book, available in the national library.. something called ps cs 2 for photographers? something like that, very big and thick, but very very useful.

 

[calebk]

Hohoho looks like i need to touch up on my Photoshop skills. i donno how to photoshop .... i admit ! haha there must be some online guide some where ... hmm

In Photoshop, one thing I found is that for some results, there's many ways to skin a cat. Just for B&W conversion alone, we have so many different methods you can go ga-ga.

Just read up on basic uses of the tools, and go experiment and play when you have the time. You will eventually find a set of methods that are most favourable to getting the results you want.

 

[Killer_Jay]

Sorry to be blunt. Old school does not mean one does not PP their photos. As night86mare already mentioned, Ansel Adams had a darkroom, and every single one of his works underwent processing in that darkroom. In our modern context, Photoshop is that darkroom. Not having a good PP technique or workflow should never be covered up by saying "oh, I'm an old school photographer".

In fact, many old-school film shooters do their own processing and developing.

Need I say more?

bro,

yes. i do know that time had changed. and lots of world class photogaphers also PP they shots.

but what i am trying to say is tat PP should not be overdone. e.g. panning shots can be easily mimic in PP. no doubt it also can be mimic in the old dark room as well.

but in order to have specal effect in the old darkroom, u need to know the different type of chemicals and the different technique. therefore, in the past, photographers will have to learn how to do panning shot in order to minimised the time spent in the dark room cos everyone know that the chemical is not good for the health....

being said tat. fyi. i am not against ppl who PP their shots. i am just trying to restrict myself on it so i can improve my skill rather than "never mind, i can do it in PP later".

for me as a newbie, i personally believed tat i should brush up my basics 1st rather than "oh, overexposed ah? never mind, i can bring it down in PP later."

anyway. its just me. no offence. cheers.

jay the newbie

 

[calebk]

bro,

yes. i do know that time had changed. and lots of world class photogaphers also PP they shots.

but what i am trying to say is tat PP should not be overdone. e.g. panning shots can be easily mimic in PP. no doubt it also can be mimic in the old dark room as well.

but in order to have specal effect in the old darkroom, u need to know the different type of chemicals and the different technique. therefore, in the past, photographers will have to learn how to do panning shot in order to minimised the time spent in the dark room cos everyone know that the chemical is not good for the health....

being said tat. fyi. i am not against ppl who PP their shots. i am just trying to restrict myself on it so i can improve my skill rather than "never mind, i can do it in PP later".

for me as a newbie, i personally believed tat i should brush up my basics 1st rather than "oh, overexposed ah? never mind, i can bring it down in PP later."

anyway. its just me. no offence. cheers.

jay the newbie

There are two kinds of PP IMHO. I think you are referring to 'oh no! rescue the horrible shot' kind of PP.

This is one kind that many photographers sometimes have to resort to.

The second kind of PP is what is known as accentuating/artistic PP, that will contribute to enhancing your final image. This kind of PP is what I encourage and what I do for almost all my photos. I shoot with the final product in mind.

 

[zoossh]

i am just trying to restrict myself on it so i can improve my skill rather than "never mind, i can do it in PP later".

i believe otherwise and i believe many others share similar beliefs too. i try to do whatever that needs to be done on capturing that cannot be optimise in post processing, and then i try to do on post processing on whatever that cannot be optimise during capturing.

 

[night86mare]

bro,

yes. i do know that time had changed. and lots of world class photogaphers also PP they shots.

but what i am trying to say is tat PP should not be overdone. e.g. panning shots can be easily mimic in PP. no doubt it also can be mimic in the old dark room as well.

but in order to have specal effect in the old darkroom, u need to know the different type of chemicals and the different technique. therefore, in the past, photographers will have to learn how to do panning shot in order to minimised the time spent in the dark room cos everyone know that the chemical is not good for the health....

being said tat. fyi. i am not against ppl who PP their shots. i am just trying to restrict myself on it so i can improve my skill rather than "never mind, i can do it in PP later".

for me as a newbie, i personally believed tat i should brush up my basics 1st rather than "oh, overexposed ah? never mind, i can bring it down in PP later."

anyway. its just me. no offence. cheers.

jay the newbie

i get your point, but you see, PP can never rescue a horrible shot. but PP can ADD to a good shot in the first place.

i would even go so far as to comment that there is NO shot out of camera that is immune to improvement if a good photographer knows how to PP it. there is always improvement to be made, if we must make a strong statement like this one.

agreed that PP can be overdone, there is always a thin fine line between "just nice PP" and "too much PP" and of course "too little PP". it is overstep the line and it is not uncommon for people to just try to avoid it altogether.

how do we put it in another context? ah yes. a good photograph is like a premium cut of meat. already in camera, there is slight pp being done, that's for sure, that is why you have an image processing machine in the first place. so the camera cooks it slightly for you. pp will serve to add your own flavour to it. too much pp will overpower the meat and spoil the taste just like what happens if you add too much seasoning to meat.

now, a bad photograph is likewise, like a shitty piece of rotten meat. can good pp improve it? yes, but the meat is still rotten. it can be saved, but it will still be inferior, and not even be as good as un pp'ed good photograph.

hope you get my drift. of course this is a very personal view, but at this point in time, i think it holds true for 99% of the photographs produced out there.

 

[Killer_Jay]

i try to do whatever that needs to be done on capturing that cannot be optimise in post processing, and then i try to do on post processing on whatever that cannot be optimise during capturing.

how do we put it in another context? ah yes. a good photograph is like a premium cut of meat. already in camera, there is slight pp being done, that's for sure, that is why you have an image processing machine in the first place. so the camera cooks it slightly for you. pp will serve to add your own flavour to it. too much pp will overpower the meat and spoil the taste just like what happens if you add too much seasoning to meat.

now, a bad photograph is likewise, like a shitty piece of rotten meat. can good pp improve it? yes, but the meat is still rotten. it can be saved, but it will still be inferior, and not even be as good as un pp'ed good photograph.

hope you get my drift. of course this is a very personal view, but at this point in time, i think it holds true for 99% of the photographs produced out there.

bro zoossh and night86mare,

please accept my sincere apology if i have offended anyone of u (or anyone out there) with my mindset.

both of u are well being respected by me for both your contribution in the newbie corner (Newbie Guide + Price List, and Prosumer: Long & Short). i've learn a lots from these 2 thread. i sincerely want to thank both of you for your unselfish sharing.

seriously, i fully understand wat both of u are saying. in fact, i attended some talks on PP (canon workshop at PIX, etc) and i can really see the different between a PPed and a un-PPed shot. i was like WOW.... and i like it very very very much.

1 of the speaker said tat initially he refuse to touch DSLR at all. he was really from the old old school. he was saying tat he had to go through the hardship of soaking his hand in the chemical to get good photos and now the mordern photographers just click click click and voila. but as time goes by, he see the advantage of digital photography and PP (no more chemical) and i must say tat his PP is really fantastic. :thumbsup:

actually, after all these being said, there is only 1 message i want to bring across to myself as a newbie. tat is to "concentrate on finding the premium cut of meat than to concentrate on the seasoning". hee hee

jay the newbie

PS - i do PP most of my photos also. think about 90% ba (cropping also a kind of PP)

 

[night86mare]

actually, after all these being said, there is only 1 message i want to bring across to myself as a newbie. tat is to "concentrate on finding the premium cut of meat than to concentrate on the seasoning". hee hee

jay the newbie

PS - i do PP most of my photos also. think about 90% ba (cropping also a kind of PP)

no, i do not think you have offended anyone, because of the manner you express your views. if only everyone else on clubsnap was like you, being able to see blunt words for a lack of a need to paraphrase things nicely because that is more direct.

and that attitude is very correct, like i always emphasize, screw color, screw sharpness. work on composition first, then everything else will come with practice.

 

[foxguy]

sorry to OT off a bit.
thanks night86mare and zoossh for sharing your knowledge. hope you both and join outting to show us some things that we should not door things we should do.

with that said.
THOSE WHO ARE LATE, ARE VERY LATE POST PICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
come on show them now
got ppl to C&C them, good learning chance.
you know who you all are!!!