Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

The Death of Photographic Portraiture

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
trivets12
trivets12  101151 forum posts
20 Jun 2005 - 7:39 AM

Love spacemans new word 'phart'!

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
20 Jun 2005 - 7:39 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Just Jas
Just Jas  1225751 forum posts England1 Constructive Critique Points
21 Jun 2005 - 4:38 AM

Working on manual seems to hailed as some great attribute.

I would ask the following questions: (Not to the 'Old Hands!')

1) Are you using a seperate meter, or the camera metering?

2) If seperate, do you know and use the various modes of operating it?

3) If camera metering do you know and understand its working in camera manual mode?

If you use the camera metering when shooting in manual mode then you are still allowing the camera metering to determine exposure. Might just as well shoot in an auto mode.


jas

randomrubble
21 Jun 2005 - 5:05 AM

I agree that overmanipulated shots can be over praised, but sometimes it really does come off, and as a forum for debating images people must be able to post wahtever style they like.

Problems come when the author works up an image where they had no clear intent in mind at the time thay made the exposure, and I'm sure we've all done that. If you know where you want to go then PS is a fantastic tool, and allows us to acheive things that would only be possible at great expense by experimentation in a trad darkroom.

Whilst some of the effects can be OTT having the option to do them can allow improvements. It's always been the case that not all improvement's are positive, to all viewers.

strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
21 Jun 2005 - 5:07 AM

Jas Do I count as an old hand or an old bodger. Just so I know if I can chip in.

c_evans99
c_evans99  107013 forum posts Wales1 Constructive Critique Points
21 Jun 2005 - 5:10 AM

Well as a youngster I'd answer...

1. Separate meter - a Master II

2. I've been making an effort to use it in different ways instead of just whopping the invercone on, so yes...

a. direct reading
b. incident reading with invercone
c. C setting for reading shadow area
d. U setting off a white card for highlight readings
e. range readings off high and low (and working sqaure roots in my head)

3. Cameras have meters?

Ceri

strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
21 Jun 2005 - 5:12 AM

Ceri I read the levels display for the same thing.

I use manual for flash to balance the flash light and daylight plus often use manual to slow myself down and make myself think.

Westers
Westers  93905 forum posts Burkina Faso1 Constructive Critique Points
21 Jun 2005 - 6:04 AM

I'm struggling to get the basics right, all of the time, so haven't even got to looking at PS. Have to say though, I don't think I ever will get to playing with PS in the way that some people do - just don't have that artistic streak to take a picture here and a picture there, mix 'em up and produce a quality picture.

Spent 3 hours on the Roaches last night and came back to find every single shot was useless. It was like I'd forgotten how to take a picture. Did try and play in PS to add some drama to them but deleted them all.

It may be a great hobby but it can also be an extremely frustrating one. Me and the camera are currently not talking to each other (it blames me for last night) Smile

Edit

Not sure this fits into this thread, but I had to have a rant about last night, lol

andytvcams
andytvcams  1110396 forum posts United Kingdom
21 Jun 2005 - 6:21 AM

I know of a website that is running a workshop there soon Smile)

julianevans
21 Jun 2005 - 7:26 AM


Quote: I know of a website that is running a workshop there soon Smile)

There's also a rumour that they're also doing one on looking after your lenses Wink

sabretalon
sabretalon  101918 forum posts United Kingdom
21 Jun 2005 - 7:33 AM

I know what you mean Keith!

I have been spending a lot of my time recently, being very selective about what I shoot, how I shoot and why I'm shooting it. In other words I go out with an image in my head first and then let my photographic skills take over to try and achieve that result.

I am spending more time trying to get it right in the camera than shooting and then manipulating in PS, and as you know I do have a good knowledge of PS, since I teach it to graphic designers and to photographers.

The only time I find myself cropping an image now is because I made a mistake in my composition.

There are times that I have to do some cloning due to circumstances beyond my control (items in windows behind main subject, client does not want)

I have two areas of workflow, 1 is my processing which can include colour balance, curves, levels, noise reduction, basic cloning (removal of blemishes etc..) dodge and burn and sharpening. Anything outside of that is in my manipulated workflow, which can include, cloning, removing items or adding items that were not in the original, adding graphic elements etc...

I am trying to be more of a photographer than I am a computer user. If I spend more time on my photography then I spend less time behind a computer, which gives me more time for my photography.

Someone pointed out that maybe people should be more carefull on which catergory they upload into!

Yes I have done some very manipulated images before and they have been for a particular purpose and suited my graphic requirements of the image, but I always call them images and not photos.

I don't think that Keith is having a go at people on here that do do a lot of manipulation of their images but more about how, good camera work and lighting is overlooked by images that have that "venture" look to them via manipulation?

There is some excellent work on this site and it crosses lots of boundries, image, photo, graphic or experimental. At the moment though everything is being judged in the one box i.e. as images. Therefore a lot of good photographic work gets overlooked or that some would suggest manipulating it to make it look like something from venture!

Mixpix
Mixpix  101058 forum posts England
21 Jun 2005 - 8:17 AM

Well said. I like to fiddle on the PC but I'm fed up with having to fiddle with everything, even sharpening. When I used slide film if the shot was in focus it was sharp. Now if its in focus its still not sharp. I'm told you have to fiddle with all RAW images, why? I'm not a computer expert. My main failing I think is my compositional skills, if you don't have the eye you'll never be a photographer but thats fine as I don't want to be a photographer, I just want to make images in any way possible. Thats just my view.

Mick

strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
21 Jun 2005 - 8:38 AM

For RAW think of the chemical processing and basic filters. Much of the sharpness and contrast is set by your choice of film and then for white balance think of the use of warm up etc filters.

If you have ever used a wet B/W negative developing and printing process then much is similar. Adjusting exposure compensation is the same as pushing the film. Running of test strips is achieved by the levels adjustment. Changing paper grade is achieved by the curves adjustment.

Sharpness is the new item, not quite certain how to equate that.

But if you just want straight out of the camera shots use the parameters settings and either save as JPEG or process using in-camera settings.

Mixpix
Mixpix  101058 forum posts England
21 Jun 2005 - 9:05 AM

Thanks for the explanation, not sure I understood much of it, my problem is with the sharpness. I don't see how we are letting them get away with producing very expensive goods that dont produce sharp images straight from the camera. I can understand wanting to fiddle with the rest but sharp is surely the most important thing most of the time. As far as fiddling with the images goes, no two monitors are usually the same so what looks ok on mine would probably look cack on someone elses so I rarely touch colours when I'm playing around.

I'm off now, all this thinking on such a warm day is making by brain ache.

Mick

strawman
strawman  1022006 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
21 Jun 2005 - 9:35 AM

Ah sharpness, they set it soft in dSLRS because they assume you want to control it. I think if you want to enlarge and adjust an image a lot it is better to be too soft than too sharp.

If you have a Canon shooting with parameter 1 gives a good result though for most photots you can set sharpness to +2.

If you calibrate the monitors then you should be ok. Remember you are now taking on the job the film processing lab used to do, so you need to take on a bit of that.

Doclassie
Doclassie  91135 forum posts England
21 Jun 2005 - 9:44 AM

Very true

In fact out of camera DSLR pics are usually by default slightly soft and lacking in contrast and saturation.... its to give the user a middle ground with which to post process. Digital compacts and prosumer cameras have these settings boosted and so the pictures they produce can often appear "better" than DSLR pics.

I have a D70 and have set it so my sharpness, saturation and contrast in-camera processing is boosted. Means I hardly have to tweak JPG files.... yet if I want to possibly change the in-camera processing I can do so by shooting RAW. I find this works as a good compromise.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.