Suggestions, praises, slatings, ideas, articles - all comments and thoughts!
We can't promise that we can undertake everything, but we'd like to hear from you! This thread will remain at the top of the forum, so you can come back and check out progress.
See what others think, support and discuss ideas that could come to life....!
Articles on getting the most/best out of cameras, particularly digitals - and not just the top of the range ones.
I joined up because I have Fujifilm S9600 and wanted some tips/hints on getting the most out of it. I don't just want a camera review, there's lot of sites that do those (don't stop doing your own though). What I would like is tios that suggest a setting then exploring a different route or process that will render a better, sharper, clearer image.
Maybe even - how to get the most out of Photoshop or something.
.
Apart from that a few more responses on the forum might help. When someone does respond with a comment one almost feels like posting "So, there is life after death." - Joking, of course.
There's too many threads start to comment on a photgraph, there should only be one and then everyone can see what everyone else has said.
Being a bit of a novice at digital imaging, I would like to see seperate galleries an/or competitions for "untouched "photos and manipulated images. I don't know how this could be enforced or moniotred though, but I also don't think I am alone in my thoughts.
In mynaive mind there are two distinct disciplines in digital photography. One is photography in it's purest form, the other is manipulation on the PC once you get home. Don't get me wrong I have absolutely nothing against photoshop etc and I intend to learn how to use it properly one day, but I think it is distinctly different from taking a shot and uploading it as is, any warts and all!
OK, I am now prepared to be shot down in flames people!
I would agree with you Keith, and I don't think that your comment about the two distinct disciplines is naive at all. I have been mulling over this one for quite some time and reached a similar conclusion. I was originally, albeit quietly, firmly in the camp that there was somehow something not altogether 'kosher' about manipulated images, but then I remembered that a similar situation exists in music, whereby at one end of the spectrum you have the more 'purist' approach where someone strives to capture the realism of the performance with absolute clarity, and at the other there is a producer whose role is to stamp a certain 'sound' on a piece of music.
What the beginner learns through hard won experience, is that you can't polish a t*rd, ie if the performance isn't right, and the method of capturing is not done with care, then no amount of electronic wizardry is going to produce a masterpiece even if the intention is to produce a 'processed' work. I am speaking mostly from musical experience here, but I think the message holds good for photography too.
When i referred there to the 'method', that shouldn't be taken to mean the equipment used, because a skilled user will inevitably get better results from 'inferior' equipment than a beginner might from the latest Fantasmagoria 2000.
After a certain amount of practise with ones audio or visual recording equipment, it will dawn on the user that in actual fact, even the seemingly pure recordings have been polished, but subtly and with great care. This is what makes them shine or sparkle just that little bit more, but in such a way that 99% of listeners/viewers will not realise.
What I always find ironic is that 90% of the effort in producing anything seems like a complete waste of time, because almost nobody realises why it's such a good picture/film/song - but you can be certain that without that effort, almost nobody would give it a second glance.
With that in mind - what sprang to the fore for me when I saw this thread, was, when someone sees a picture and asks how it was achieved, we're not after F numbers and shutter speeds, we want to know all the other things that were taken into consideration to achieve the stunning final result, if we have to stand on our heads with wellies full of custard to get that vibrant landscape, then we want to know, because we've tried everything we can think of and ours still come out as rather unsatisfyingly pea green affairs.
Personally I'm still learning how to take photos, so Photoshop can wait ...
Good point Keith and Alan, I agree (almost) wholeheartedly.
The reservation would be about "manipulated images" and what you define that to be. For example a little cropping and improving the contrast or brightness. Maybe turning a colour shot into B/W or increasing sharpness, but then where do you stop?
Would the definition mean that the picture is as you would get from developing your own prints and choosing all of these options to crop and improve quality, but in essence it is still a straight picture?
Hm, The main difficulty is how pure do you want your photography. I shoot in Raw on an (now) old D70. I need to apply some photoshop basics to bring my pics to life. I could shoot in JPEG, but than the camera applies the basics. And you can now in modern DSLR's apply a lot more effects without using a PC.
So in my opinion, if you want to have untouched photo's you need to shoot film only and have them developed by a lab, because if you develop yourself, you will do the same as what you do in photoshop. All this purist babble is a load of balls as far as I can see. Nearly all famous photographers had specialist retouchers who spend hous/days/weeks in the darkroom getting images the way the photographer wanted it. Now we do it in minutes on a PC. Bring on progress.
I do agree however with Keith that there are a lot of images overcooked in PS because it is so easy to do, but I do not think that a seperation between "pure" and "photoshopped" images is easy to make.
In my 40 years of working/playing in my darkroom processing B&W, Colour and Reversal film, I would say there is no such thing as "untouched " photos, unless of course you took them to your local chemist, and we all know what happened to them. Stuffed in a shoe box placed under the bed, never to see the light of day again.
As Simon has already pointed out when shooting jpegs a great deal of processing (touching up) has already taken place.
How many of you Jpeg shooters use the scene modes on your camera?, or vary the parameters to increase contrast, colour/ brightness etc. but then suggest that Raw shooters are somehow cheating because they do the same in photoshop.
Now manipulation as apposed to "touching up" is a totally different kettle of fish.
Extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation
Photo manipulation is often much more explicit than subtle alterations to color balance or contrast and may involve overlaying a head onto a different body or changing a sign's text, for example. Image editing software can be used to apply effects and warp an image until the desired result is achieved. The resulting image may have little or no resemblance to the photo (or photos in the case of compositing) from which it originated
This I agree with and yes a different category for manipulated images should be a requirement.
What I suggest is that the novices spend a little more time honing their photography skills, not want a level playing field by restricting the skills of others
Nice to know I'm not talking completely out my backside... And I do get all the points made above. How on earth do you put a definition on "manipulated" as opposed to say "tinkered with" via the camera settings, cropping etc. Where do you draw the line? I don't understand enough about either photography or photoshop to give any in depth opinion, but my gut instinct is that anything including effects done with the camera whilst out (or in) taking photographs is distinctly different from anything that is done back at base with the aid of a pc/Mac.
I for one am trying to develop my skills, and will once I think I have enough experience and expertise, move on to photoshop in due course. To take Harry's point above, there are still a load of "settings" I haven't properly explored within my D50, and these could easily, and maybe should be called manipulation tools.
I completely agree with Alan about his comments about standing on my head in wellies filled with custard (words you don't often see together in the same sentence!). It the "how on earth did he/she do that" stuff I am interested in. It is easy to go look up technical exposure and f stop guides, what to do in low light, etc, but the benefit of others practical experiences is something you can't learn from a textbook, generally speaking.
The main issue from my point of view is IF there were to be a separation of "Manipulated" images as opposed to unmanipulated (whatever definition is ever arrived at by those who know more than I), in the galleries and competitions, is this practically enforceable as such? Is ther a way of telling 100% whether or not a shot has been throught the photoshop experience? This is probably something everyone else on here knows.... so sorry if I am asking a really stupid question folks. Bear with me.
Keith, there is no such thing as a stupid question, in fact I have often found that people with knowledge respond better if you're not afraid to ask the question.
Another paragraph that I didn't get around to typing last night, as I felt I was in danger of rambling, was that as you become more proficient in polishing your work, it becomes easier to detect where such improvements have been made by others, so I don't think anyone should have any qualms as to whether a 'manipulated' image might get passed of as something straight from the camera.
I think the arguments about whether cropping etc count as manipulation, are a bit of a red herring, as I would imagine the only distinction that can be realistically sought would be to separate representative images from the more abstract. It terms of the photographer of the year competition, the organisers made it open, and so it was quite valid for types of pictures to be entered against one another, and the majority of voters decided that the most striking image (which incidentally was shortlisted because it came from a consistently striking selection of images from the entrant) was one which happened to have been 'manipulated', nothing unfair in that, it just means that the onus is on those of us who prefer the representative art form need to try harder next time in terms of subject, lighting, composition and final polishing to strike a blow for tradition.
So in essence, Harry S was right, even if it might have sounded a little harsh - after all no-one suggested the other week that Liverpool should play without boots to give Havant a better chance.
Anyway, all this has given me another idea - how about The Editor or someone, submits a photo each month, for manipulation by members. Either by way of refinement, or something more radical, the proviso, of course, being that the manipulator must tell everyone what they did to achieve the result. I appreciate that working on Jpegs would be less than ideal, but it's better than nothing surely ?
Alan I would also ask what is the difference between pre-manipulation and post manipulation.
Here are 4 images all have been manipulated, but I believe for varying reasons all 4 are acceptable, but before giving my reason as to why I think they are acceptable, let's hear comments from others.
That illustrates some points quite nicely Harry. Based on my understanding of what is photography (drawing with light) I would say that numbers two and three would lend themselves more towards a graphic design than photograhy.
Number four is a very interesting example, because as soon as the close-up competition appeared earlier this year, I remembered a shot which I had taken many years ago on film, and set out to create something on similar lines, which because of the dry weather involved dribbling water on leaves with a syringe. I was hampered because the meagre digital equipment which I had at my disposal at the time wasn't really up to the job, and then, of course you entered one of you excellent examples, so I pretty much gave up. I presume you included this one because you had gone to similar trouble to set up the shot ? I assume that most people would consider this 'fair game' because you have photographed your creation.
Personally, I'd rather expend the energy setting up a shot as per 4 , than trying to compete with number 2, for instance, I guess because it has taken an image and turned it into something completely different altogether using a different discipline to photography.
I'll leave it there for now, because my tea's ready ...
Fantastic shots Harry. I think I agree with Alan to an extent. To me although each one has it's own merits, number four is to my untrained eye, what I would call having the least post shutter manipulation.
The flower at number one is great, and I would guess has had the background changed somewhat.
Number two I would almost put into the "athena" poster category.
The plane I love! It looks so natural it's not until you think about the chances of shutter going down at the exact right second you realise it has been worked on so to speak. But I think what I love so much about it, is the shot "could" have been obtained "naturally" if that makes sense? whereas number two is a piece of , well, art almost. (I guess that is another debate.. "what is art?")
The same goes for the bottom picture. My own tastes are drawn to this shot as well as the jet, and I think for the same reason. Both are the more natural effects, and I love close up stuff anyway.
In my humble opinion all four are great, but I think the bottom two appeal to me personally than the top two. Maybe this is influenced by the fact I "could" potentially take these shots myself, with enough experience. The top two seem to have needed more post shutter work to achieve the results, which maybe I find a little scary to do myself, which therefore affects what I "like" more?
I'll stop rambling now.. and see what anyone else thinks.
maybe my statement that all four photos are manipulated could be confusing as there is a combination of pre and post manipulation. I doubt that any of these photos could normally be taken by just pointing a camera, not impossible, but very unlikely.
I will post the methods used Sunday evening.
In the meantime here's question. Is it ok to use filters without it being called manipulation?
This is a link to a photo taken by Simon on which he used a neutral grad.
I was with Simon when he took this shot, in actual fact I was stood at the side of him, but not having a neutral grad filter I squeezed of a couple of shots at differing exposures. At home I "Blended" both images together to get this result.
For what my opinion is worth, I wouldn't consider #1 and #2 as natural at all since both look like they have been subjected to post-manipulation. Albeit I keep looking at #1 and thinking - maybe, but it lacks any shadow, which even with the best lighting is nigh on impossible. I could be wrong of course.
Picture 3 has all the odds stacked against it being a natural shot. You would really need to convince me.
Picture 4, is simply beautiful. I hope you tell us it is natural - ish.
"Is it ok to use filters without it being called manipulation?"
Yes! Filters have been around for many decades along with all the best film cameras. They are nothing more, to me, than a lens accessory. They don't require an Einstein to use them, just a little nous on the effects they will produce. Using the definition you provided they are not a post-production manipulation to that extent although effects similar to some filters can be applied in photoshop.
To distinguish between the two is where the grey area would come in and decisions would then have to be left to the judging panel.
.
And I like Simon's in preference to your "manipulated" image of the sunset as it looks softer and more natural with far cooler colours in the distance, but I expect you're probably going to now say "Oops. Sorry that should be the other way around. Simon's is the manipualted image."
In which case - throw them both out, judges, and set the dogs on them.
I will take woody's point about filters first. I guess if manipulation was ruled out, just about all images from compacts would be ruled out as they would not be able to compete with the DSLR.
It would be very difficult to use a grad with a compact, so either the sky would be burnt out, or alternatively there would be no detail in the shadows. If we had a competition for this type of photo only people with the best cameras and equipment would stand a chance of winning.
Personally I do not see a problem with this basic editing and does help provide a level playing field
Of the 4 photos that I posted .
No. 1 is the nearest to being straight out of the camera, with just a tiny bit of cloning taking place. This was to remove a thin piece of wire.
For this image I used 4 flash heads and a white cardboard background. 2 flash heads where set to illuminate the background. I flash gun mounted on the camera set as bounce flash and also to trigger the 3 other heads.
The 4th head was a little tricky and I would not advise you doing this unless you know exactly what you are doing as high voltages are involved.
I removed the flash tube from the gun, extended the wires and fixed the tube directly behind the flower. The wire from this tube was placed very carefully behind the stem of the flower. Unfortunately a small amount of this wire showed on the resulting image. This cloning was the only bit of manipulation that took place on this photo.
No.2
Well no explanation is required as this is obviously modified, so would not any confusion. Everyone would see it for what it was.
No.3
Ok a little manipulation on this one, but maybe not as much as you may think. In fact just the one mouse click. The photo is as it came out the camera apart from the lightning strike, for this I selected a suitable paintbrush and clicked the mouse to place the lightning, I'm not too sure now, but I may have used Edit Fade to tone it down a little.
No. 4
It would be extremely rare to find this particular shot in nature. The grass and dewdrop where there, but of course the blossom was several feet off the ground, so I had to remove the blossom from the tree and place it in the correct position, so for this shot pre-manipulation was used.
I guess we ought to apologise to Mike for getting a little off topic over the weekend, but I hope he thinks it's been a constructive discussion.
I wasn't sure about number one, because I couldn't see it clearly enough to work out whether it had had one of those 'art' presets applied to it, or whether it was achieved by the extreme;y clever use of lighting - I take my hat off to you for it being the latter, and I don't think that would give you an unfair advantage in a competition. I don't even use flash in the normal course of events, but I wouldn't complain about being beaten by someone who did.
Number two - as you say obviously graphic design rather than photography.
Number three, in my opinion comes under the same category as the starburst filter - ie it's a novelty to be able to add lightning to a photo, but I don't think anyone would seriously consider using that in an attempt to win anything (although I have seen pictures entered where the photographer has allowed praise to be heaped upon their expertise despite the artifice of the lightning strike, and that is one of the things I have a problem with).
Number four - just a great example of care in setting up the shot - no more unacceptable than applying makeup to a model to cover up the unfortunate zit that appeared on her face overnight.
So, it seems to me that you have expertly defined what is acceptable in terms of a photography competition, and perhaps it is the word 'manipulated' which is misleading in trying to define the guidelines.
Hi Mike..Well having only just joined Im finding this a very interesting site, although some of it way over my head at times, but I think that help from more experienced members, praises slatings and ideas are invaluable to a site like this. Keep up the good work. Lesley Key
I still think all four of those images are great Harry, no matter how they were achieved! I am stunned at how little editing the first one needed, but then considering the effort you went to with the lighting maybe I shouldnt be so surprised!
I also agree with Harry's point about filters. As I See it they are pieces of camera kit.. which has kick started the old grey matter and made me think of a couple of potentially suitable/acceptable definitions.
1) Uploaded piuctures which have not been subject to any editing, external to the camera and camera accessories used, when the picture was acutally taken.
2) Uploaded picutres which have been subjet of editing or changes outside of the immedaite camera and accessories present when the image was captured.
I think I could word these better given time to think about it more!! I'll await the suitable emedations ladies and gents!
I have found this to be a very interesting discussion and it has made me think a bit more, not only about my own photos, but how certain results are acheived. I have even been inspired to go to the local library and get a couple of books out. Digital Photography for Dummies and Digital Photography Special Effects (Michael Freeman). I'll try to browse these this week, if I get chance.
