yeah I know what your saying what is nice to one is not nice to another.......
as for the editing of the film if that was mine it would of been done in the first 24hrs:lol2: but then I get excited about that sort of stuff :D
Printable View
yeah I know what your saying what is nice to one is not nice to another.......
as for the editing of the film if that was mine it would of been done in the first 24hrs:lol2: but then I get excited about that sort of stuff :D
I think that this is an interesting subject, and the thoughts or needs of each individual are related in to how serious the person would like be to learn or get involved with photography.
I will express my opinion based in that I take the images and PP them to be able to sell them to individuals or magazines and also make the basic standards to be able to place my images in photographic competitions.
Before I go a bit more into depth in the subject, I would like to mention that well before Digital photography even the great masters of the dark Room era were doing their own PP on their negatives in their dark room, so PP does not mean that the photographer is not good if he is not capable of posting an image without doing PP’
The great Joseph Ransfiled with his photos of the J Class and 12 meters yachts comes to my mind when I think about these photographers.
Another point to take into consideration is that in Digital photography the PP begins by fitting the lens selected for the job, then settings on the camera like WB, Tonalities, saturation, and many more on camera possibilities.
Not to mention if the photographer is using filters on the lens.
This leaves the argument of not using PP to make the competition even more redundant; the PP is already done and continued by taking or saving the image as a JPG.
If the photographer take the shots in RAW and use ACR then here is another PP because ACR ignores the camera settings, the image should be downloaded using Nikon NX :)
Further more the same photographer taking a shot of the same spot using 3 different brands of cameras at the same time will produce 3 different images because the “in camera PP”
A common or “Traditional Work Flow” used by nature photographers like Tim Grey will be as follow:
1) Select image and establish game plan
2) Optimize in ACR or similar software by adjusting the slides in a conservative way and do a “gross crop”.
2) Open image in PS or similar software
3) Duplicate layer(or use smart filters) and Apply Shadows/Highlights.
4) Gross crop and rotate if needed.
5) Clean remaining image.
6) Tonal adjustments, first global and then localized.
7) Apply filters including noise reduction.
8) Final crop, merge layers and save master file.
Then for the web:
Resize for web, convert to 8 bit, change color space.
Sharpen the image.
Save as jpg.
This is a very acceptable workflow and PP for any High quality image
If you do not have PSCS you can use the free software like GIMP and for the Raw images instead of ACR use the free Silkypix
There are some very good sites where they explain the subjects in depth and far better that I can do.
This site from University of Cambridge is excellent
And HERE is more
Good reading about working on RAW images
I respect your point of view, but on the film days(i ahve 40 years of those) the PP began when you selected which colors you like most Fuji, Kodak, others?Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot
Then on the lab regarding development techiniques.
Many times I have the same negative developed in diferent labs or in the same lab by diferent person. no 2 photos were the same!
PP at their best!
now I do my PP as my perception tell me how it was, and as long as I use the same printer all the copies are the same ;)
Just my opinion based on my experience.
As far as the issue of whether PP should be allowed or encouraged in this or any of our AULRO comps goes, my attitude is that it works OK as we have been doing it. Sometimes it is in, sometimes it is out and sometimes it is more or less irrelevant.
It is true that some people will not feel inclined to enter the ones where PP is forbidden and some people will not have the resources to enter the ones where it is necessary. However, there is nothing unique about that.
There have been other comps where some people would have been unwilling or even unable to enter for quite different reasons. Although I have some quite good shots of Halley's Comet taken with an SLR, I couldn't enter the "Stars" comp because of the limitations of the digital camera I currently have access to and because it had to be a new shot. There have been others that I didn't bother because although I am very pleased with some of the shots I have taken with my SLR, particularly in Central Australia, those shots would have been very disappointing without my polarising filter and I don't have one to fit the digital camera. I don't see that as a problem. I don't expect that things will always suit me.
People have come up with quite convincing arguments for and against PP, but as I see it, the merits of PP are not the issue.
The winner of of the previous comp had the right to set the rules and he decided to forbid PP. That went down well with some people and was not to the liking of others. That has probably been the case, for different reasons, with several other comps.
I see no problem if sometimes it is in and sometimes it is out.
I totally agree hence my comment i hope some that likes doing it wins soon:DQuote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by dullbird
I must be slowing down. :) I missed the full significance of your earlier comment.
I'm sure it will happen. Then a different group of people will feel that the rules don't really suit them. :p
You can't please all the people all the time. The best we can hope for is that everyone takes his or her turn at being miffed. :p
I have to agree with Chucaro and DB...
IMHO there's no such thing as NO PP. With the P&S cameras you don't even have a choice, since they generally don't give you a RAW, but rather a processed JPG.
I shoot RAW all the time, because I get the most out of my images in terms of dynamic range. RAW to JPG conversion done on the computer IS PP, even if the software just applies default picture modes.
I ask this question: my D700 has bunch of picture controls, from standard to vivid, B&W etc. Which picture control would I have to use to be eligible for a 'no pp' contest? Standard? Even that one does things to the RAW image...
Btw. I'm don't make a living taking photos, but I do have a business on the side selling fine are landscapes. There's not way I would not PP any of my images, even if it's just properly balancing levels (which is something I would have done, like Chucaro, in a darkroom in the past).
FWIW
slt
I agree with your comments slt, if there is a person that does not like PP then we have news it is unavailable, so it would be better to start looking for a new hobby :)
It would be interesting to know the opinion of the members about which it is the real image, the one that comes from Canon or Nikon, or Pentax and so on, ah! and perhaps not one of them, can be the one that the software people from Adobe think that it is the correct one.
Doing photography without PP it is like writing a book without grammar or spelling checking.
For that reason I do not write a story :D
lmfao this is so true:DQuote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
You'll really have to explain that bit to me :confused::confused::confused:
Otherwise to me even a RAW pic would have some degree of post processing.
To me anything that happens to the light before it hits the film or capture device can't be 'post' processing'
or have I totally missed what you are trying to say :o.
Martyn