View Full Version : photography examples and learning
mr.anderson
08-01-10, 07:23 PM
I have added a 3rd version of the shot above (Link (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=2143999&postcount=98)). I processed the RAW file on the camera using the in built processing/retouching tools.
I think it has come out better than my gimp effort.
Long Exposure Noise Reduction will capture a "dark" shot with the same exposure duration as the original one, but with a closed shutter, to try and replicate the sensor noise the first original shot might have picked up, and then subtract it from the original. It does this at the time of shooting because sensor noise will vary with temperature conditions, amongst other variables, hence taking a second shot right after the fact is the closest way of getting it as accurate as possible. So what the camera was doing during those 20 secs was exactly this, taking a second "black" exposure.
Ah, thanks. So this may be a silly question - do I need to leave the camera in place for the post processing time too?
Thanks for your pointers Filipe.
Limitations of the digital lab.
As you can see from the images in this thread already, there's a lot you can do after the event, to tidy-up your images and recover ones that may not have turned out as expected.
Reading this thread, seeing some of the fantastic shots you chaps have captured, and offering a few pointers along the way (tips hat to Filipe M. who has offered much more detailed help), had gotten me in to thinking about picking up the camera again. It's something I used to love, but I somehow lost my passion for it over the last few years. So, I've started to dig out some more of my kit, and going through what I've got and decided to offer this little nugget on extra bits, for those of you who have some christmas spends left over.
Filters - much of what you can do with the sometimes bizarre and wonderful filters that have been available over the years, can now be done in your digital lab. Some however cannot.
Skylight filter
Most commonly used to protect the lens. It offers reasonably little in the way of difference to a photo, but can save you a lot of money by protecting your lens from getting scratched. Worth considering if you have expensive glass or are a clumsy so and so.
Polarising filter
These come in several types, circular and linear, Hoya do them that screw on to the end of the lens, or Cokin do the holder type variety. Have a google for what they do if you don't know, or wait for Filipe to expand ;), or go get your polarising shades and sit in front of an lcd wobbling your head about for a bit. These are a must have for fluffy white clouds in a blue sky, and shooting through glass, or around water.
ND (Neutral Density) filter
Various styles and strengths, these simply reduce the amount of light coming through the lens, allowing longer exposure times. Or graduated ones, that allow you underexpose a bright sky for balance. Some cameras even have these built in now, although I'm not sure how, or how well, they work.
Filipe, over to you.
Filipe M.
08-01-10, 10:16 PM
Ah, thanks. So this may be a silly question - do I need to leave the camera in place for the post processing time too?
Thanks for your pointers Filipe.
You're welcome! And the answer is no, you can move it around as it's just capturing a black frame with closed shutter, just try not to trip the Off button while you do it 8-[
Limitations of the digital lab.
As you can see from the images in this thread already, there's a lot you can do after the event, to tidy-up your images and recover ones that may not have turned out as expected.
Shooting digital is wonderful for that, and the ability to shoot raw files is just the icing on the cake. While shooting jpg is similar to having minilab prints of your shots (fully "optimised" and processed with automatic "averaging one-size-fits-all" algorithms, which you can still process further but it won't be long before they break up), shooting raw is even better than having developed film in your hands. It's a bit like still having the film in its canister, waiting for better chemicals (software, in digital terms) to be invented so you can develop it with even better image quality, while at the same time having the prints in your hands, processed with the current state-of-the-art.
As a quick example, Adobe has released a preview / beta version of Lightroom 3.0, and already the processing differences are substantial in the image quality stakes. So much so that I'll probably be going over my "pick" shots again to see what more I can get from them.
Reading this thread, seeing some of the fantastic shots you chaps have captured, and offering a few pointers along the way (tips hat to Filipe M. who has offered much more detailed help), had gotten me in to thinking about picking up the camera again. It's something I used to love, but I somehow lost my passion for it over the last few years.Good man, we'll be waiting! :D
So, I've started to dig out some more of my kit, and going through what I've got and decided to offer this little nugget on extra bits, for those of you who have some christmas spends left over.
Filters - much of what you can do with the sometimes bizarre and wonderful filters that have been available over the years, can now be done in your digital lab. Some however cannot.
(snip)
Filipe, over to you.:lol: okay I'll bite. I'll write after your original text then.
Skylight filter
Most commonly used to protect the lens. It offers reasonably little in the way of difference to a photo, but can save you a lot of money by protecting your lens from getting scratched. Worth considering if you have expensive glass or are a clumsy so and so.
Like boot said, Skylight / Haze / UV filters are essentially used for lens protection now. They were normally used in the film days to increase the image contrast by filtering the UV content in sun light (Skylight would also give the image a slightly warmer tone because of its light pink colour).
Digital sensors are not as sensitive to UV light (they've got their own filtering layers), so they're usually seen as "cheap" neutral protection devices for the lens more expensive glass.
On the negative side, they will increase the ammount of light travelling back and forth between the lens elements and the sensor, which might actually decrease contrast and create ghosting.
Polarising filter
These come in several types, circular and linear, Hoya do them that screw on to the end of the lens, or Cokin do the holder type variety. Have a google for what they do if you don't know, or wait for Filipe to expand ;), or go get your polarising shades and sit in front of an lcd wobbling your head about for a bit. These are a must have for fluffy white clouds in a blue sky, and shooting through glass, or around water.Ah, the secret weapon of landscape photographers. ;)
Polarising filters, through some black magic 8-[ , will make sure that all light rays hitting the lens will do so polarised in the same direction, removing stray reflections and increasing colour saturation. Want deep blue skies? Slap one in front of the lens and shoot at a 90º angle to the sun. Rotate the polariser until you get the desired effect. Careful though, it's not hard to get Disney-like colours. ;)
DSLR users beware: you'll have to use circular polarisers (linear will make your autofocus system very un-cooperative - see I told you it was black magic!).
All users beware: polarisers will eat light, forcing you to use much slower shutter speeds, or wider apertures (or increase ISO, but I wouldn't really recommend this - you'll be saturating colours and working with darker tones all around, and the higher the ISO, the less leeway your camera will have for dealing with this, and the noisier the image will be). Tripod territory!
I'll try and come up with a couple of examples of use.
ND (Neutral Density) filter
Various styles and strengths, these simply reduce the amount of light coming through the lens, allowing longer exposure times. Or graduated ones, that allow you underexpose a bright sky for balance. Some cameras even have these built in now, although I'm not sure how, or how well, they work.As boot said. These will allow you to get creamy, smooth water in waterfalls, or "hazy" sea shots, or "remove" people moving in your street shooting. Brilliant things. Tripod mandatory!
It's here!!! :-D
Yay! Now you smell of wee! :lol:
Shooting digital is wonderful for that, and the ability to shoot raw files is just the icing on the cake
Digital's nice 'n' all
But as technology improves, the ability to extract a better scan from the negative does too :)
The other solution for avoiding white balance problems is to use black and white. If using digital, shoot in colour at the time as normal, then if you want later, use your raw editor to convert to B+W taking more or less of a contribution from each colour channel separately until it looks good. magic.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2676/4239340284_1260558bce.jpg
(film rather than digital, but you get the idea)
For a classic look, then jack up the contrast something crazy - it'd normally unbalance the colours, but since we've gotten rid of them, who cares.
Here's Peter's original image reworked:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2753/4257240749_a88f74e818.jpg
Only had a small go this evening but i like! :-D
my poor cat has been subject to a lot of photos tonight
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/858/dsc0014cw.jpg (http://img132.imageshack.us/i/dsc0014cw.jpg/)http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/dsc0014cw.jpg/1/w800.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img132/dsc0014cw.jpg/1/)
Filipe M.
08-01-10, 10:56 PM
Digital's nice 'n' all
But as technology improves, the ability to extract a better scan from the negative does too :)
That's the reason why I keep my F100 loaded and within easy reach at all times ;)
The other solution for avoiding white balance problems is to use black and white. If using digital, shoot in colour at the time as normal, then if you want later, use your raw editor to convert to B+W taking more or less of a contribution from each colour channel separately until it looks good. magic.Indeed it is a brilliant way of doing it, the results can be amazing.
For a classic look, then jack up the contrast something crazy - it'd normally unbalance the colours, but since we've gotten rid of them, who cares.And with some careful processing you can make image noise look like film grain :lol: result!
Filipe M.
08-01-10, 10:59 PM
Only had a small go this evening but i like! :-D
my poor cat has been subject to a lot of photos tonight
Off to a very good start, focused on the closest eye and everything else falls where it will :thumleft:
Drew Carey
08-01-10, 11:05 PM
Guys, as you can see from Lilys posts our new toy arrived.
One thing we are keen to do is get a new lense as the 18-55 is good for simply taking basic pics, but we want something with a bit more range. Am I right in thinking that a 55-200 as a compliment to what we have would be a good start?
Have found this one in Amazon and quite a decent price.....
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-55-200MM-F4-5-5-6G-AF-S-Black/dp/B000O161X0
Drew you are right in your thinking, you might want to check out the 70-300 VR as well a bit more pricey but, might be worth getting the next step up. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-70-300-4-5-5-6G-IF-ED/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1262993061&sr=8-1
I have 55-200 and have got some amazing results, so much so that the standard 18-55 rarely comes out of the bag first now.
.... this is an uncropped image only with standard lightroom processing.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1927/dsc1679z.jpg (http://img43.imageshack.us/i/dsc1679z.jpg/)
Although I would say that I have now got to the point of recognizing the limitations of this lens, and would love to have a bit more flexibility with closer focusing.
Drew Carey
08-01-10, 11:34 PM
Cheers for that, thats a nice pic. I think the price may be a stumbling point as the difference is quite a lot. I would love to get the best lense possible, but I think may have to compromise on price. What is the main differences between the two?
Drew Carey
08-01-10, 11:34 PM
Ignore my post. lol. Saw it was the 300m not 200m. I see the difference now. lol
Filipe M.
08-01-10, 11:46 PM
Cheers for that, thats a nice pic. I think the price may be a stumbling point as the difference is quite a lot. I would love to get the best lense possible, but I think may have to compromise on price. What is the main differences between the two?
Ignore my post. lol. Saw it was the 300m not 200m. I see the difference now. lol
There's a bit more between those two lenses than just longer focal length. In fact, 300 mm sounds like a lot more than 200 mm, but in reality it's a just a bit more extra reach. While this extra reach will make a difference in specific situations, IMHO on its own it's not enough to justify the price doubling.
The "problem" is the image quality is a lot better on the 70-300 VR, and even build quality goes up. It'll focus faster, too, due to a better AF-S system.
I'm not saying the 55-200 VR is a bad lens, quite the opposite, as Anna said we've had some very good results with ours (and it has won at least a "best consumer lens" award), it just happens that the 70-300 VR is a much better lens for what can be considered a very good price.
Consider these factors when trying to decide wether to get the cheap one or save up a bit more and go for the better one. Buying the 55-200 might not be that good of a deal if you outgrow it and decide that you'd actually like a better one in a short space of time... like I did! 8-[
I'm sure Fizz will come along shortly with his view on this subject too as I believe he has already made the jump.
mr.anderson
09-01-10, 12:08 AM
On the post processing or even primary processing, what are the options?
Anna, you mention Lightroom - that's about £230. Someone else recommended Aperture which is £130.
Are either of these products something that a beginner could make use of, or are they a bit too advanced and should I stick with gimp (free) for the time being?
On the post processing or even primary processing, what are the options?
Anna, you mention Lightroom - that's about £230. Someone else recommended Aperture which is £130.
Are either of these products something that a beginner could make use of, or are they a bit too advanced and should I stick with gimp (free) for the time being?
I like LR, and I'd say that if you have lots of photos to work on, it's probably worth it since it makes the most common operations trivially easy. It's not a photoshop replacement though. Not tried Aperture since i'm on a windows pc.
Go and get the free trial version.
One thing we are keen to do is get a new lense as the 18-55 is good for simply taking basic pics, but we want something with a bit more range. Am I right in thinking that a 55-200 as a compliment to what we have would be a good start?
Don't underestimate the power of an 18mm focal length!!
On your 1.6 crop, it's a classic street photography wide angle.
Just get a bit closer to the subject :)
On the post processing or even primary processing, what are the options?
Anna, you mention Lightroom - that's about £230. Someone else recommended Aperture which is £130.
Are either of these products something that a beginner could make use of, or are they a bit too advanced and should I stick with gimp (free) for the time being?
Again the question is going to be, What are you going to want out of your post processing software?
Aperture is for Mac´s only.
Lightroom is very user friendly whilst being extremly powerful. I believe this is the tool of many professionals out there.
Photoshop well yes it is a great tool and can manipulate images beyond that of lightrooms capabilities. This does pixel level editing.
If you have Gimp then stick with it for now if you find that you are able to use it quickly and effectively. As cmsd2 has said you can always try the trial version of light room and see for yourself.
At the end of the day it really doesnt make too much difference to the tools you use after the photo has been taken. If your initial shot is badly composed, or has completely the wrong camera settings then no amount of post processing will make your shots good.
As a beginner, take lots of photos, learn how to get the composition right, then move on to post processing if you continue to enjoy photography.
Filipe M.
09-01-10, 12:37 AM
Don't underestimate the power of an 18mm focal length!!
On your 1.6 crop, it's a classic street photography wide angle.
Just get a bit closer to the subject :)
Nikon D3000, 1.5x crop :lol:
Coat!
Nikon D3000, 1.5x crop :lol:
Coat!
Lol.
Canon user here. Sorry :)
Filipe M.
09-01-10, 12:45 AM
Lol.
Canon user here. Sorry :)
Thought so too. :lol: You're forgiven. :lol: As for that camera of yours... *runs*
Specialone
09-01-10, 01:02 AM
Here's couple of my efforts messing about witha nikon d90, i just getting into photgraphy so almost complete novice.
Havent touched these pics at all.
My cat saffie...
http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx225/specialone0055/DSC_0019.jpg
http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx225/specialone0055/DSC_0135.jpg
fizzwheel
09-01-10, 10:11 AM
I'm sure Fizz will come along shortly with his view on this subject too as I believe he has already made the jump.
Yep I did a while ago. But it was for a specific reason. 200mm is just not enough at Donnington 2 layers of catch fencing / long distance from the track wasnt giving me the pictures of Rossi et all I wanted. The 200 was just about but relied on zooming / cropping afterwards if you wanted a close shot, and I like to let the camera do the work rather than faffing about with the pic afterwards.
TBH the difference betweent the two is image quality as well as the extra tele length. the 70-300 takes a much better picture, the image just looks better to my eye. Its also a faster lens, i.e. it autofocus' on the image much faster than the 200mm does.
However the 300 is just to big to lug about all the time. Its OK if you can pop it into a rucksuck, but it just doesnt fit in any of my normal camera bags. Its also much heavier than the 55-200 lens I have.
Its just about how much budget you have and how much you'll use the lens, I find myself reaching for 70-300 alot, even if I dont use the full zoom on it alot of the time, simply because it takes a much better picture.
If you can afford it, get the 70-300 IMHO, That way you wont be left thinking "I want more zoom" like I did when I got the 55-200mm
Heres a pic of the two, so you can see how much bigger the 300mm lens is.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e344/fizzwheel/DSC_0392.jpg
kwak zzr
09-01-10, 10:32 AM
i find my 300 is attached to my camera nearly always, the range is just so much better for for what i use my camera for, it is big and awkward to carry but like said the range usage is just so versatile its what i need most.
On the post processing or even primary processing, what are the options?
Anna, you mention Lightroom - that's about £230. Someone else recommended Aperture which is £130.
Are either of these products something that a beginner could make use of, or are they a bit too advanced and should I stick with gimp (free) for the time being?
Both LightRoom and Aperture are digital darkrooms and library management tools. They are both great tools and it really comes down to how you want to manage your libraries, and which you like using more. If you have a Mac or are successfully running OSX86, then it's worth downloading a trial of Aperture. I use Aperture on the mac, and love it.
I use LightRoom on the pc, but generally only for quick edits/imports where I'm not concerned with keeping the images archived in a library.
On the whole, I prefer Aperture, but that's probably because I've spent more time with it.
Neither of these compare in the slightest to Photoshop or Gimp, which are designed for images manipulation. While there is always a little cross over with tool sets, repairing skin blemishes in Photoshop is far easier, with more powerful tools than in Aperture or LightRoom.
Gimp, while a very good piece of free software, lacks Photoshop in ease of use, tool set and variety of tutorials available.
If I could find a job using photoshop all day long, I would probably be a happy bunny.
I'd strongly urge any of you using Photoshop, LightRoom or Aperture, to take a look at lynda.com (http://www.lynda.com), or drop in at our house for a brew.
Filipe M.
09-01-10, 11:44 AM
Heres a pic of the two, so you can see how much bigger the 300mm lens is.
Oops, seems like we're not talking about the same 55-200 then, yours is the non-VR model! My bad, I thought you had the other one.
In that case I'm not surprised you are enjoying your 70-300 VR that much, then, not only you have much better optics but also the vibration reduction, which can give much sharper handheld shots at medium-slow shutter speeds.
This is the one we were talking about, mounted on Anna's D60:
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1052/dsc5690.jpg
As I said, it's a very cool lens for a starter kit, but the 70-300 VR blows it out of the water (I'm still saving for mine, so if someone wants me to make a detailed review of one I'll PM my address so you can send me one! 8-[ ... doesn't hurt to try now, does it?! :lol: )
Drew Carey
09-01-10, 04:57 PM
Cheers all, brilliant advice about them both. Think that for what we are planning, which is catching nice family moments, nice scenic shots and some bike shots etc; then the 200mm VR will probably suffice to begin with. I think the price difference is just too much to justify our starting out.
Having looked at the second hand lense prices, if in the future we do want to make the jump up, then like Filipe, we will just save some money and sell the 200mm to cover some of the cost.
Just looking forward to recovering from my op so that me and Lily can go to some of the nice local countryside and start our photography learning process. lol
mr.anderson
09-01-10, 05:25 PM
I have the AF-S DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G G ED VRII (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_18-200mmf_35-56g_ed_vr2/index.htm), which I decided to go for instead of the 18-105 that comes with the camera as the kit lens. From my (limited) experience, it's a very handy lens to have for everyday use, only a very small amount larger than the 18-105mm when at 18mm.
mr.anderson
09-01-10, 05:30 PM
Here are a couple of B&W shots from today. Again, a subject that I know very little about - what do you think of my first efforts?
They were both taken at ISO 3200 in an attempt to create a bit of noise, especially for the 2nd one, but that didn't seem to be as strong as I had imagined it would.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0328_processedfromraw.jpg
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0318_processedfromraw.jpg
mr.anderson
09-01-10, 05:42 PM
Both LightRoom and Aperture are digital darkrooms and library management tools. They are both great tools and it really comes down to how you want to manage your libraries, and which you like using more. If you have a Mac or are successfully running OSX86, then it's worth downloading a trial of Aperture. I use Aperture on the mac, and love it.
I use LightRoom on the pc, but generally only for quick edits/imports where I'm not concerned with keeping the images archived in a library.
On the whole, I prefer Aperture, but that's probably because I've spent more time with it.
Neither of these compare in the slightest to Photoshop or Gimp, which are designed for images manipulation. While there is always a little cross over with tool sets, repairing skin blemishes in Photoshop is far easier, with more powerful tools than in Aperture or LightRoom.
Gimp, while a very good piece of free software, lacks Photoshop in ease of use, tool set and variety of tutorials available.
If I could find a job using photoshop all day long, I would probably be a happy bunny.
I'd strongly urge any of you using Photoshop, LightRoom or Aperture, to take a look at lynda.com (http://www.lynda.com), or drop in at our house for a brew.
Cool, thanks - will do some free trials over the coming weeks.
Thanks for your advice all.
I really like the first of these two shots, it's very interesting, and of all the images so far in this thread, I would say this 'speaks' the most.
For noise, the creativity of a high ISO film for black and white, cannot be reproduced with digital. With digital, you're best aways attempting to shoot with the lowest ISO the you can, and adding the film noise in the digital darkroom, where you have a lot more control over it, and will be able to reproduce with practise, very convincing 'film noise'.
You have good contrasting colours and textures, however they're a little flat. Opening these in an editor, the histogram shows so room for a 'levels' boost. I've done this to both, and also very slightly adjusted curves. You can see the difference, it gives the images a little more punch.
Understanding the histogram and what it tells you, irrespective of whether your shooting for black and white or colour, is an important part of digital photography.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f251/Ausfahrk/SV650/DSC_0328_lc.jpg
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f251/Ausfahrk/SV650/DSC_0318_lc.jpg
Mr Anderson, I like both of those pics, very interesting and well-framed. I'm personally not a fan of post processing, so your two images as they are, although I agree the mods Boot made do add something, I think they were perfectly good enough beforehand :)
Mr Anderson, I like both of those pics, very interesting and well-framed. I'm personally not a fan of post processing, so your two images as they are, although I agree the mods Boot made do add something, I think they were perfectly good enough beforehand :)
Yes, they were, I'm simply trying to assist with learning. I do not mean to offend, and am not implying there was anything wrong with the pictures, I'm just trying to show where they can be enhanced.
Post processing is developing. Before the advent of digital, many of the adjustments you now make in the digital darkroom, would have been considerations before the event, such as film type, film speed, and with black and white especially, with filters, on top of the work carried out in the darkroom after. The developing process is now, to say the least, a lot less messy. There was still plenty of work done with dodging and burning ('tis where the tools got their names) and the rest, to get images how the photographer wanted the final print.
Filipe M.
10-01-10, 12:50 AM
Here are a couple of B&W shots from today. Again, a subject that I know very little about - what do you think of my first efforts?
Brilliant, I love the first shot, like boot said it speaks, it tells a story, and lets your imagination run free. Very good.
They were both taken at ISO 3200 in an attempt to create a bit of noise, especially for the 2nd one, but that didn't seem to be as strong as I had imagined it would.Digital noise isn't as visible in black and white shots as in colour shots. Digital sensor or preamp noise has two components, chroma and luminance. Simplifying it a bit, chroma noise is "random" colour variation from pixel to pixel in the picture, while luminance is tone variation from pixel to pixel (there was an example of this in a "noisy" sky in a picture earlier on in the thread).
Of these, chroma noise is the most objectionable and can usually be found in the shadow areas of the pictures (less information there). Luminance noise will usually be found in big smooth areas like the sky.
Now if you keep in mind that the D90 sensor is rather well behaved where noise is concerned (I believe it's still considered the best 1.5x crop sensor in the market together with the D300 / D300s / D5000), especially in the luminance side of things, and that you've effectively tossed away your chroma noise by converting your pics to B&W, you'll easily undertand why you didn't get the "film grain" effect you were looking for.
On the other hand, boot is absolutely right:
For noise, the creativity of a high ISO film for black and white, cannot be reproduced with digital. With digital, you're best aways attempting to shoot with the lowest ISO the you can, and adding the film noise in the digital darkroom, where you have a lot more control over it, and will be able to reproduce with practise, very convincing 'film noise'.
Lightroom 3.0 is adding a "film grain" feature that actually looks very good from what I've seen in the little time I've spent playing with it. I still shoot real B&W film every now and again, both 125 and 400 ASA (Ilford FP4 and HP5), and I really liked what I saw in Lightroom.
Understanding the histogram and what it tells you, irrespective of whether your shooting for black and white or colour, is an important part of digital photography.Here, here, the man speaks sense. Learn how to read a histogram, learn the limitations of the in-camera one (especially if you shoot raw) and you're on your way to digital exposure nirvana. :D
Mr Anderson, I like both of those pics, very interesting and well-framed. I'm personally not a fan of post processing, so your two images as they are, although I agree the mods Boot made do add something, I think they were perfectly good enough beforehand :)
Yes, they were, I'm simply trying to assist with learning. I do not mean to offend, and am not implying there was anything wrong with the pictures, I'm just trying to show where they can be enhanced.
Post processing is developing. Before the advent of digital, many of the adjustments you now make in the digital darkroom, would have been considerations before the event, such as film type, film speed, and with black and white especially, with filters, on top of the work carried out in the darkroom after. The developing process is now, to say the least, a lot less messy. There was still plenty of work done with dodging and burning ('tis where the tools got their names) and the rest, to get images how the photographer wanted the final print.
A "quick" read of "The Print" by Ansel Adams would be very useful to people who think that there was no post-processing done in the "old days"... there was a lot of it. The amount of stuff that can be done to enhance a photo taken on film is nothing short of amazing.
What's more, the digital camera itself is already post-processing the files right after you press the shutter button, before you take them into the computer.
Nikon's "Picture Control" system is brilliant (I believe Canon has something similar, but I've never used it), where it allows the user to fully customise the picture processing parameters, including hue, saturation, contrast (with custom curves, if need be) and sharpness in camera. What this means is that an experienced user can actually program the camera to do the post-processing itself and save custom processing options for any given situation they come across before even getting the pictures into the computer.
I prefer shooting raw files, with custom picture controls that will show my images on-camera to be as flat as possible (within reason) so I can take a look at my histogram and see where I stand exposure wise. This allows me to get home, import pictures into lightroom and take it from there, "developing" them into my vision of what was there when I took the shots.
Is this wrong? Ansel Adams didn't think so. ;)
Obviously, getting it as close to the end result as possible on camera is always preferrable, but not always do-able.
Cool, thanks - will do some free trials over the coming weeks.
Thanks for your advice all.
Give the Nikon stuff a try too. ViewNX (freeware!) and CaptureNX have very awkward user interfaces (read: cr@p), but ViewNX will allow you to take a raw file and play with it by processing it as if you were doing it in camera, with all the original settings (saves you some time and shutter cycles when you want to find out what the heck are all the Portrait / Landscape / Vivid settings all about, or even program some custom curves), and CaptureNX is an extremely powerful editor that only suffers from the really bad interface.
If nothing else, ViewNX will allow you to shoot only raw files, then get home, import all your pics into it and export them back to jpg as the camera would have done in the first place if you think you don't need to do anything else to them.
Mmm I like those a lot mr.a :)
and Boot's slightly enhanced versions even more so.
had a go at cropping from that one that was too busy...
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7871/2191e.jpg
adjusted some setting in Lightroom.
I like that Richie
Maybe even a crop putting the birds slightly to the right of the frame would work too - gives them somewhere to fly to.
Mr Anderson, love those pictures fantastic!!:thumleft:
You may also if you have time go visit this ...
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/index.jsp
and for us mere mortals check out the winners of the junior competition
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/categoryGroup.do?group=2
and then cry at all the lovely toys 10 year olds have to play with these days!!! :smt090
If I could be half that good. :smt101
Filipe M.
11-01-10, 12:22 AM
and then cry at all the lovely toys 10 year olds have to play with these days!!! :smt090
:smt088
If I could be half that good.
Patience, young grasshopper!
Patience and practice! ;)
mr.anderson
14-01-10, 12:13 PM
Right guys n gals, I have been doing a little messing around with Lightroom and Nikon Capture NX.
Here is the a before and after - keeping in mind that I really know very little about colours, balance, saturation etc.
Before:
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0277.jpg
After:
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0277_1.jpg
Filipe, you're spot on about Capture NX - it is impossible to use.
Lightroom is comparatively very easy to use and very intuitive. A very nicely written piece of software.
So, have I got this photo looking better?
Filipe M.
14-01-10, 04:15 PM
Filipe, you're spot on about Capture NX - it is impossible to use.
Which is a shame, because the Colour Control Points feature is pure genius. Now they just need to hire someone with two brain cells to redesign the interface.
Lightroom is comparatively very easy to use and very intuitive. A very nicely written piece of software.
I love the thing, you've got pretty much everything you need right there, if they take the time to add the features it still lacks (like soft proofing :rolleyes: ), I'll give it 10 stars rating.
So, have I got this photo looking better?
To my eyes, yes! 8)
Bluepete
14-01-10, 05:03 PM
I like the modded version of that pic! As for NX, I never use it at all. Hatefull.
I'll have a look at Lightroom.
Pete ;)
So, have I got this photo looking better?
I'd say so - I like it!
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.