+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Wolfsatz's Avatar

    Re: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[

    ]*]*]*]  Wolf's School of Flight  [*[*[*[
    Quote Originally Posted by mikew View Post
    Sorry if i missed it but do you shoot in burst mode, i found with the P900 a burst of between 3 and 5 frames gave me some keepers more often
    ]

    I have not tried that yet... but yes, that will make more good ones ... specially with the little birds, they never stop moving.
    @dangespouse
    Yes, I do very little editing. For the most part I tried to recreate what my eyes are seeing as far as colours. In the respect to full editing, I am a PURIST at heart. Even when I was already shooting Digital; I still also shot B/W with film.

    But since we are on the subject.. what software do you use. I stick to very basic editing tools; either OEM on Iphone, or Flickr.

    VA Cardinal by Wolfsatz, on Flickr


    › See More: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[
    Thanks/Like Dangerspouse Thanks/liked this post
     



  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Dangerspouse's Avatar

    Re: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfsatz View Post
    ]
    @dangespouse
    Yes, I do very little editing. For the most part I tried to recreate what my eyes are seeing as far as colours. In the respect to full editing, I am a PURIST at heart. Even when I was already shooting Digital; I still also shot B/W with film.

    But since we are on the subject.. what software do you use. I stick to very basic editing tools; either OEM on Iphone, or Flickr.
    Lol. When I saw "I am a PURIST" I heard my own voice in my head screaming that same thing 2 or 3 years ago when I got my first DSLR. Like you, I come from a film background (still shoot with my Olympus OM-2s!). So when I was told that photo manipulation was SOP with these digital cameras, I bristled at the idea. "That's cheating! You should be a good enough photographer that your pictures come out the way you want it without any editing at all!" Seriously, I was adamant about that.

    Until I learned.

    Consider this:

    1. Pretty much all the great/professional film photographers of the past century and a half did post-process editing. You've heard of dodging and burning, right? Cropping? Those and many others were standard darkroom techniques for producing a desired result after they took their picture. So post processing is nothing new, not even to "purists" (Ansel Adams reportedly spent years processing "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" - arguably the most lauded photograph of all time - before releasing it. Check out the before and after.)

    2. This was the argument that finally won me over. Modern camera sensors record insane amounts of data when you click the shutter button, but here's the thing: it doesn't necessarily show you a true record of what you saw when you bring up the picture on the LiveView screen, your phone, or a monitor. This is particularly true when you shoot RAW. What the camera shows you is kind of a desaturated version of Real Life, allowing you to then play with all the data it stored behind the scenes to make things either true to life, or enhanced.

    Why would it do this? Primarily because your eye is a better camera than your camera. Think about it. We automatically white balance, to take just one example. You walk through a room with incandescent lighting and see a white wall, it looks white. Go to the next room with LED lights, and the white wall looks white to you there as well. Walk outside into bright sunlight and look at the snow. Looks white, right? We have AMAZING processors, far better than our cameras. Unless you perfectly dial in the white balance every time the light changes, the white you see in your picture probably won't look like the white you saw when framing the picture. Auto white balance has come a long way and does a great job overall, but even then it can still be fooled if the majority of the picture is either all white or all dark. And when that happens, the camera will under or over expose anything else in the frame. (Here's why.) If you don't compensate when you take the shot, you sure aren't going to have a "PURE!", true-to-life picture unless you post process. It's not cheating. It's compensating for your camera not being as good as your eye. Bring back details in the shadows that your eye saw, but your camera didn't show you! Color correct! Erase that smudge caused by a chunk of dust you didn't know was on your sensor!

    BTW, if you shoot in JPEG you'll see your pictures out of camera actually look better than RAW. That's because your camera does some basic post processing in JPEG, making the picture look like what it thinks it should, given all the data it collected on the processor. That's right - even your camera isn't "pure", at least in that mode.

    If you like taking pictures and leaving them the way the camera shows them to you, that is absolutely fine. I don't think anyone is gonna argue with you about a matter of personal taste, least of all me. Have a blast with it! I did for good number of months myself, and was quite happy. But seriously, don't think that processing your pictures is somehow "NOT PURE!". History, and technology, argue against that.

    Besides, once you get into it, it's a helluva lot of fun. You really should try it - make a copy of your picture to process, then compare it to your OOC (Out Of Camera, ie. unprocessed) version. You will probably be surprised at how often you say, "Now THAT'S what I saw when I took the picture!" at the processed version.

    To answer your question: I started with a very basic processor that came with my HP tower, but several months ago started a subscription to Lightroom, with PhotoShop and their cloud service bundled, 10 bucks a month. It's amazing.

    Again, I'm not criticizing your choice at all, or your stance on photo purity. If that's the route you want to take, go for it! But if you're doing that because you think your camera is giving you the exact picture you saw in your viewfinder, I hope my information perhaps gives you something to think about. "Post processing" doesn't mean making things look artificial. To the contrary, it often means adjusting for the way DSLR's take and display data to make the shot look real again.

    Hope this helped!

    Last edited by Dangerspouse; 01-14-2020 at 02:30 PM.
    Thanks/Like cwgrizz Thanks/liked this post
     
    Fiat lux. Fiat vox.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    mikew's Avatar

    Re: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[

    ]*]*]*]  Wolf's School of Flight  [*[*[*[
    I hear what your saying about purist and i have been known to end up with something that looks a long way off from the original.

    When i shot my P900 i took advantage of the long lens and got the hidden in the bush shots, then though i got carried away with the PP.

    original

    ]*]*]*]  Wolf's School of Flight  [*[*[*[-25986213354_7fc7c4657f_o.jpg


    After PP

    ]*]*]*]  Wolf's School of Flight  [*[*[*[-re-edit-72.jpg


    Now i think i like the first one the most
    Thanks/Like Wolfsatz Thanks/liked this post
     
    Mike



    https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

    Nikon Z50,Nikon16-50MM,Nikon50-250MM,FTZ Adapter
    Sigma 100-400, Sigma 105mm macro
    Nikon V2,10-30MM,30-110MM FT1 Adapter













  4. #14
    Staff
    Super Mod
    Marilynne's Avatar

    Re: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[

    Quote Originally Posted by mikew View Post
    I hear what your saying about purist and i have been known to end up with something that looks a long way off from the original.

    When i shot my P900 i took advantage of the long lens and got the hidden in the bush shots, then though i got carried away with the PP.

    original

    ]*]*]*]  Wolf's School of Flight  [*[*[*[-25986213354_7fc7c4657f_o.jpg


    After PP

    ]*]*]*]  Wolf's School of Flight  [*[*[*[-re-edit-72.jpg


    Now i think i like the first one the most
    Me too!
    Thanks/Like mikew Thanks/liked this post
     

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Wolfsatz's Avatar

    Re: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[

    ]*]*]*]  Wolf's School of Flight  [*[*[*[
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangerspouse View Post
    Lol. When I saw "I am a PURIST" I heard my own voice in my head screaming that same thing 2 or 3 years ago when I got my first DSLR. Like you, I come from a film background (still shoot with my Olympus OM-2s!). So when I was told that photo manipulation was SOP with these digital cameras, I bristled at the idea. "That's cheating! You should be a good enough photographer that your pictures come out the way you want it without any editing at all!" Seriously, I was adamant about that.

    Until I learned.

    Consider this:

    1. Pretty much all the great/professional film photographers of the past century and a half did post-process editing. You've heard of dodging and burning, right? Cropping? Those and many others were standard darkroom techniques for producing a desired result after they took their picture. So post processing is nothing new, not even to "purists" (Ansel Adams reportedly spent years processing "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" - arguably the most lauded photograph of all time - before releasing it. Check out the before and after.)

    2. This was the argument that finally won me over. Modern camera sensors record insane amounts of data when you click the shutter button, but here's the thing: it doesn't necessarily show you a true record of what you saw when you bring up the picture on the LiveView screen, your phone, or a monitor. This is particularly true when you shoot RAW. What the camera shows you is kind of a desaturated version of Real Life, allowing you to then play with all the data it stored behind the scenes to make things either true to life, or enhanced.

    Why would it do this? Primarily because your eye is a better camera than your camera. Think about it. We automatically white balance, to take just one example. You walk through a room with incandescent lighting and see a white wall, it looks white. Go to the next room with LED lights, and the white wall looks white to you there as well. Walk outside into bright sunlight and look at the snow. Looks white, right? We have AMAZING processors, far better than our cameras. Unless you perfectly dial in the white balance every time the light changes, the white you see in your picture probably won't look like the white you saw when framing the picture. Auto white balance has come a long way and does a great job overall, but even then it can still be fooled if the majority of the picture is either all white or all dark. And when that happens, the camera will under or over expose anything else in the frame. (Here's why.) If you don't compensate when you take the shot, you sure aren't going to have a "PURE!", true-to-life picture unless you post process. It's not cheating. It's compensating for your camera not being as good as your eye. Bring back details in the shadows that your eye saw, but your camera didn't show you! Color correct! Erase that smudge caused by a chunk of dust you didn't know was on your sensor!

    BTW, if you shoot in JPEG you'll see your pictures out of camera actually look better than RAW. That's because your camera does some basic post processing in JPEG, making the picture look like what it thinks it should, given all the data it collected on the processor. That's right - even your camera isn't "pure", at least in that mode.

    If you like taking pictures and leaving them the way the camera shows them to you, that is absolutely fine. I don't think anyone is gonna argue with you about a matter of personal taste, least of all me. Have a blast with it! I did for good number of months myself, and was quite happy. But seriously, don't think that processing your pictures is somehow "NOT PURE!". History, and technology, argue against that.

    Besides, once you get into it, it's a helluva lot of fun. You really should try it - make a copy of your picture to process, then compare it to your OOC (Out Of Camera, ie. unprocessed) version. You will probably be surprised at how often you say, "Now THAT'S what I saw when I took the picture!" at the processed version.

    To answer your question: I started with a very basic processor that came with my HP tower, but several months ago started a subscription to Lightroom, with PhotoShop and their cloud service bundled, 10 bucks a month. It's amazing.

    Again, I'm not criticizing your choice at all, or your stance on photo purity. If that's the route you want to take, go for it! But if you're doing that because you think your camera is giving you the exact picture you saw in your viewfinder, I hope my information perhaps gives you something to think about. "Post processing" doesn't mean making things look artificial. To the contrary, it often means adjusting for the way DSLR's take and display data to make the shot look real again.

    Hope this helped!

    I think this whole topic generates probably as much controversy as in WUS.. what is 'real' watch, automatic vs quartz... etc.

    I'll summarize in as few bits as possible:

    • I do basic editing to compensate for the camera's shortcomings.
    • While everything you said above is true; it is also used to hide the photographer's shortcomings.
    • When I shoot, I do challenge my self and take in consideration: Frame, Composition, Light, Movement with the objective to avoid editing.
    • IMHO - Heavy editing to include chopping, deleting or adding elements to a photograph relates more to Graphic Design than Photography. and not far from these ( everything here is manufactured and manipulated 001011021010101s 'fake')



    20180113162727 by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
    20180107021451 by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    20171119022425 by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
    20171024213258 by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    20171029011840 by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    To Illustrate my point... My eye saw this colours (These were taking with the Bird Scene which focuses exactly on the center:
    Chip by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    Hands off the Goodies by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    New Kids by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    Newbie by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    However, the same setting struggles with harsh lighting conditions (lack of proper light and proper contrast) Pretty dark shot.. but there was still plenty of light

    Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    This is Wolf's School Room
    Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    Untitled by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    I phone Shotsin Portrait Mode minutes before sunset:
    Sunset by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    Ligh Conditions by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    Sunset by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
    Last edited by Wolfsatz; 01-15-2020 at 12:31 AM.
    Thanks/Like Dangerspouse Thanks/liked this post
     

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Dangerspouse's Avatar

    Re: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[

    I understand all the points you made, and you'll get no argument from me about any of them. The great thing about hobby photography is that it's an artistic pursuit where you get to pick the rules. I was just throwing out my own thoughts, but by no means are they admonishments.

    I actually enjoy those car pics. For what they are, they are very well done. I can see where someone who's taste runs decidedly towards "if it's fake, it's wrong" will take exception to them. But that sort of digital manipulation is becoming more and more the norm in product photography, adverts, etc., and if a professional does not want to cut him/herself off from that particular revenue stream it would probably behoove them to get good at it. The rest of us, though, can stick to our pedantic guns

    LOL! Yeah, horophiles can certainly be a rather opinionated buch, you're right. Funny story: I got into watches in 2016 when my wife gave me a Movado Museum Classic in steel for our 15th wedding anniversary. Up until then all I had was 20 dollar beaters, and a G-Shock that I (still) use for work where I have to know the exact time to the second. That Movado was SO much more beautiful than the junk I'd been wearing that I was hooked, and wanted to learn more about higher end watches. So I immediately joined a watch forum (not WuS)...and they tore me to shreds! I think the first comment I got was, "Your wife must really hate you." Bwahahahaa! It was brutal, and I was really confused. Of course, after learning more about the hobby I understood their disdain. I've now got mechanicals, and a few other quartz, but I still love that Movado if only because my wife got it for me, and because it was my gateway into the hobby. Plus...it really does look good with a black suit and white shirt. (But please don't tell anyone at WuS I said that! )
    Thanks/Like Wolfsatz Thanks/liked this post
     
    Fiat lux. Fiat vox.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    mikew's Avatar

    Re: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[

    This is one of the best forums for understanding photography results are not a one size fits all, many years ago we had a member who took it upon himself to educate nearly every forum member as to how an image should be when finished,you notice i said used to have a member
    Thanks/Like Dangerspouse, Wolfsatz Thanks/liked this post
     
    Mike



    https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

    Nikon Z50,Nikon16-50MM,Nikon50-250MM,FTZ Adapter
    Sigma 100-400, Sigma 105mm macro
    Nikon V2,10-30MM,30-110MM FT1 Adapter













  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Wolfsatz's Avatar

    Re: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[

    Interesting... plenty of those at WUS to tell you what a real watch is and why you should not wear. Brand x, y, or z.

    In the wisdom words of my beloved grand father... they can tell me how to shoot or wear when they pay for my cameras!




    Sent from my Cyberspace Central Command
    Thanks/Like Dangerspouse Thanks/liked this post
     

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Dangerspouse's Avatar

    Re: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[

    I like your grandfather
    Thanks/Like Wolfsatz Thanks/liked this post
     
    Fiat lux. Fiat vox.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Wolfsatz's Avatar

    Re: ]*]*]*] Wolf's School of Flight [*[*[*[

    ]*]*]*]  Wolf's School of Flight  [*[*[*[
    While waiting for Dinner right before Sunset

    Cardinal by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    Cardinal by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    Dinner by Wolfsatz, on Flickr

    Dinner by Wolfsatz, on Flickr
    Thanks/Like mikew, Dangerspouse Thanks/liked this post
     





Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above before posting.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •