the first one is awesome....
fotosmachen Hatchling  8 posts Joined May 2008 More info | the first one is awesome....
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mercersmoments THREAD STARTER Goldmember  1,271 posts Likes: 20 Joined Jul 2006 Location: Sydney Australia More info | May 16, 2008 16:15 | #17 I only ever shoot RAW. www.seonamercerphotography.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
sandpiper Cream of the Crop  More info | May 16, 2008 16:44 | #18 mercersmoments wrote in post #5538688  I only ever shoot RAW. in regards to the single catch light, I am finding it impossible to only get one ! I would prefer just the umbrella's reflection, but the soft box always ends up in their eyes as well ! Oh yeah, I have the same problem. You can't avoid it when taking the shot with this lighting setup, that's why I say it's a good example of Photoshop being used to make a shot more natural. It's a very quick job to remove the extra catchlight in PP, should take under a minute to lose both the softbox catchlights.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ironchef31 Senior Member 623 posts Joined Apr 2007 Location: Vancouver More info | May 16, 2008 17:03 | #19 As long as you don't alter the photo beyond reason like making skin look like smooth plastic or liquefy proportions to look like a plastic doll, PS is ok. Things like exposure, wb, tone curves, just bring out what is there already. It's just fine tuning what the camera can't. Ken
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ADAPTE Member  244 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2007 Location: Panamá More info | May 16, 2008 17:12 | #20 ironchef31 wrote in post #5538936 As long as you don't alter the photo beyond reason like making skin look like smooth plastic or liquefy proportions to look like a plastic doll, PS is ok. Things like exposure, wb, tone curves, just bring out what is there already. It's just fine tuning what the camera can't. +1 Xti
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RoyMathers I am Spartacus!  43,850 posts Likes: 2915 Joined Dec 2006 Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom More info | May 16, 2008 17:30 | #21 sandpiper wrote in post #5538838 Oh yeah, I have the same problem. You can't avoid it when taking the shot with this lighting setup, that's why I say it's a good example of Photoshop being used to make a shot more natural. It's a very quick job to remove the extra catchlight in PP, should take under a minute to lose both the softbox catchlights. I am all for getting the shot 'right' in camera, but some things can only be done later in PP. What did they do in the pre-digital days?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
sandpiper Cream of the Crop More info | May 16, 2008 17:43 | #22 We used to use photographic retouching inks and a fine brush, as part of the finishing process with producing a print. The catchlights would be corrected then.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
seaside Slapped with a ridiculous title  5,472 posts Likes: 2 Joined Apr 2008 Location: North Carolina Coast but traveling the Americas More info | May 16, 2008 17:44 | #23 "I'm not really a big fan of photoshopping, I like my photos to be as natural as possible and try to make what comes straight out of the camera the final result." Chris
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RoyMathers I am Spartacus! 43,850 posts Likes: 2915 Joined Dec 2006 Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom More info | May 16, 2008 17:49 | #24 sandpiper wrote in post #5539193 We used to use photographic retouching inks and a fine brush, as part of the finishing process with producing a print. The catchlights would be corrected then. What about transparencies?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
sandpiper Cream of the Crop More info | May 16, 2008 19:02 | #25 The same technique can be used on transparencies, it's simply a matter of making a clear part (the catchlight) more opaque.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
WalczakPhoto Goldmember 1,034 posts Joined Apr 2008 More info | May 16, 2008 21:48 | #26 What did they do in the pre-digital days? Retouching inks, in some cases air brushing, comps used to be done with scissors and tape/glue, Gaussian blur was actually done by taping gauze over the focusing lens of the enlarging camera, contrast and saturation were usually controlled by chemicals during developing...most of the stuff in Photoshop started in a darkroom. What? You thought all those vintage Playboy centerfolds were shot "as is"? LOL!!! "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment. " - Ansel Adams
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mercersmoments THREAD STARTER Goldmember 1,271 posts Likes: 20 Joined Jul 2006 Location: Sydney Australia More info | May 16, 2008 22:23 | #27 Another few SOOC www.seonamercerphotography.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
midnitejam Senior Member 806 posts Joined Jul 2006 Location: Parma Ohio More info | I'm not trying to be rude here so please take these comments as being a bit subjective, but I know there's a lot of folks that feel this way and I really don't understand it. A lot of people seem to think of Photoshop as "cheating" and it's not. Long before PS was around, photographers and artists were enhancing and manipulating images in darkroom and in fact, most of the tools you see now a days in programs such as Photoshop were developed in the darkroom long before computers were even around. As an example, most people would never think of someone such as Ansel Adams as a "cheater" but lets face it, he invented half the tools and techniques that we now see in programs such as Photoshop. I grew up with 35mm and spend many hours in darkrooms in my youth. Most of what I do in Photoshop I -can- do in a darkroom. The difference is instead of spending days working with scissors and noxious chemicals, squinting my eyes in that horrible red light until my head throbs, now I can knock out an image of comparable quality in less than an hour sitting here comfortably at my computer. The final results are essentially the same, but for me as the photographer and the artist, it's -MUCH- easier...and I see nothing wrong with this at all. Even when you take your images in to a "lab" to have them processed (via film or digital) you can bet that -something- has been done to them in the process. Now a days a great majority of it is automatic, but there are still exposure/levels adjustments, saturation, contrast, etc., etc.. The final results may "look" as though nothing has been done to them, but to me at least, that's the hallmark of good processing . To use another example, in the world of film, for years people used (and still use) films such as Fuji Velvia (particularly for portraiture such as what you posted) because it does NOT accurately represent "reality". Why? Because to most people it looks better! The way I see it, unless you are doing strictly a photojournalistic style of photography where you have a duty and responsibility to "document the truth" where your images should represent exactly what you see, then there is nothing wrong at all with using what ever tools are at your disposal to get the most out of your images. Once you get past photojournalism, photography in general is about "art" (in my humble opinion at least) and art isn't about documenting "the truth" it's about creating something beautiful or something that makes a statement. Just some thoughts for you to consider. Now to answer your question, I actually prefer the color version of the image you posted, however I also must add that I'm not normally fond of desaturated images. In this case the b&w version does seem to make the little girls eyes stand out a little more, but I think that's really the only positive aspect of the b&w. To me, the color version is much more lively and vivid and the little girls personality really shows through. In my mind at least, children are "colorful" and should generally be represented in color . Just my $.02 worth! Jim Well Said!! This is an absolute description of my take on photography!! Anyone that knows me knows I'm with Jim on this one. I do not like the camera making my post processing decisions for me so I shoot RAW. If RAW is not an option I turn off all in-camera sharpening, contrast, and saturation so that I can do it myself. If you did no processing out of camera (i.e. download to computer, resize and post) then it would appear that you are shooting jpg using a picture style setting, and allowing the camera to do the post processing for you. The results are satisfactory, but don't think that there is no post processing going on just because you didn't do it yourself. If my assumption is true, and you are in fact shooting jpg with a picture style setting, then I wouldn't do much in Photoshop at all. If you're starting your post work with an jpg image that has already been processed then you can easily do more harm than good in post. Another view that I totally agree with. Midnitejam--The happiness in your life depends on the quality of your thoughts.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mercersmoments THREAD STARTER Goldmember 1,271 posts Likes: 20 Joined Jul 2006 Location: Sydney Australia More info | May 17, 2008 17:42 | #29 If you do not post process this image further and eliminate the horrendous crop, it will never ever fly.
www.seonamercerphotography.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LeuceDeuce Goldmember  2,362 posts Joined Oct 2007 Location: Vancouver BC, Canada More info | May 17, 2008 18:15 | #30 mercersmoments wrote in post #5544251 I shoot RAW, so suppose I still do PP my photos, I just don't like to over do them Photoshop is not a verb that means "Bang on image with sledgehammer until artsy". It's a tool that can be used as heavy handed or with as much finesse as required to achieve your desired look. my website: Light & Shadow
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2905 guests, 176 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
.