How Do I ...

[Ripley]

Those shots look like they have dodge and burn going on. Some sort of plug in filter applied too perhaps - maybe Alien skin? I've seen a few shots with that plug in.

I am organising some travel shots now that I took in January. I shot a lot of them in RAW so I'm just processing them in RAW and totally leaving photoshop alone. I prefer to shoot landscape images as I hike a fair bit when we travel, so in RAW I can just adjust everything there.

I should get Lightroom but want to buy this Canon Lens and can't afford both.

If I look at my histogram and it's spaced evenly along, I know I've got exposure good already, so I don't need to tweak it. Especially if the light was good at the time.

If I were to adjust jpegs shots, curves and colour balance is all I use - sometimes unsharp mask but if I've shot in jpeg, the camera usually sharpens the shot and using a tripod and a good lens. it doesn't need it. RAW images need a little bit of sharpening, I've noticed. Just think I've finally got my head around this whole RAW processing thing as I found a fantastic "converting your RAW images" 4 page spread in a UK camera mag I have. That is always near my computer when I'm editing so I can refer to it - it's helped me so much. My RAW version shows clipping warnings when I turn a button on too so you can see how you are going.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Ripley

[charlottereeves]

Thanks but I'm on a mac and they're PC only

Mac's rule! I will email you some links to some great Photoshop actions.

[ruthless]

Thanks

[persephone]

This is the BEST thread!

Thanks to all you knowledgable people..I am learning to think a little differently.

thanks Ruthless..I am glad you started it!!!

[ruthless]

No worries, I'm sure I'll start plenty more, I've so many questions

I prefer it here to photography forums too

[helen]

.........

The biggest issue I see most people having is blatant manipulating and then passing it off as a "real scene": adding elements (there was only one penguin and now there are two with their heads together - have you seen that cutie card?), subtracting elements (one penguin had his flipper in front of the belly of an otherwise perfect pose so it is removed), the sky was grey but now it's a brilliant sunset.

Everyone has to decide how much manipulation is acceptable on an image - and often that line will move depending on the target audience, the intentions of the photo and many other factors. There's no right or wrong. Personally I feel trying to pass off an image where elements are added goes beyond the photograph. But then there are probably exceptions to that, too!

....

This makes more sense to me for any definition of cheating, but I don't have a problem with people doing this sort of editing for professional shots, but I think in the competition sense it is different

Edited March 6, 2008 by helen

[Ripley]

I never use filters on the lenses when I shoot, as I find it can limit what you can do with an image later. Much better to get a nice clean well exposed image to start with, then go from there.

With landscapes, I think filters are a blessing. Different for portraiture, of course. I have a polariser and a 2 stop ND soft grad filter. Polarisers are great for cutting down glare on water and reflections and as someone said, emphasising blue skies.

With the graduated filter you affix it to the camera lens with a holder. Then you can expose for the land and the sky won't be washed out and you don't need to fiddle around trying to put a gradient on it or select it and feather it in PS - using those methods makes the image appear kind of fake unless you are a PS whiz, and I'm definitely not.

There are ways to cheat in PS to get a perfectly exposed landscape image, of course, but it's fiddly and I won't be trying it. You take 2 exposures of the same image, expose one for the sky and one for the land. Then you merge them together using HDR in PS CS3 or other software. You can also convert 2 separate RAW images, process one for the sky, one for the land and copy and paste them together, then use a mask to erase back the image. Phew! Hard work - I'd rather use a filter.

I used a ND Grad filter for a blerky grey sky whilst on hols and was happy with the image as the sky came out darker and not that white wash out you sometimes get on overast days.

But I know bugger all about taking portraits.

ETA: Here is a Grad filter that looks like mine - I have a Cokin one. I got some strange looks when I was taking photos with it attached on some bland overcast day. I had no choice, we were only at the spot for an hour and I wanted a few photos. I have the paler one - you can get them in different colours too.

ETA: Um, just remember to take a meter reading BEFORE you affix it. I learned that one after using it the first time and viewing my shots.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Ripley

[helen]

I would love to try and do some more landscapes, thanks for the filter info

[Ripley]

Helen, I paid just under $80 for the Cokin filter and holder + postage from that place in Perth mentioned here - delivery was speedy - received it in 2 days.

You need to be careful with it not to drop it if you are walking about as if it slides out and drops, it will break. You have to get the positioning right too and I found with a wide angle lens, it causes vinegetting on the corners if the lens is at its widest setting.

It's fantastic for darkening skies and that way you can take a photo on a boring bland day and still have some colour in the sky.

[Ripley]

I've found a couple of 'without grad' and with grad' photos in a google search.

You can get different colours, sunset one used here, but the most popular is probably grey.

This is the effect of using one and not using one.

Shot on the left is using a grey one and the shot on the right looks like they have used a sunset grad filter.

ETA: Shot on the right has a ND grad filter + warming filter. Gosh, you'd have to line both up precisely!

Edited March 6, 2008 by Ripley

[kja]

Just out of curiosity, assuming that using these types of filters is "OK" to those who abhor using software to achieve similar results...why does it matter if you use filters/techniques before shooting or after if your vision is the same? Why does the order we do something matter?

Edited March 6, 2008 by kja

[chezzyr]

I am back. OMG I haven't read all the novels that have been posted here

I just had 45mins with a GP, we covered alot of stuff, I have been put on

anti-inflams, then maybe a CT scan next.

And I am going to blame photography

[Ripley]

Tomorrow I pick up the first attempt I've had using slide film and ruthless' mid 1990s model Canon EOS camera . I didn't know the settings on that camera and what if they are crap?

Velvia 50 is supposed to be THE film that landscape photographers use if they aren't using digital. I buy Outdoor Photography, which is a UK mag for film and digital and some of the images in that using Velvia slide film, a good lens and a grad filter are beautiful.

Velvia 50 is known for its increased colour saturation. I didn't put Velvia 50 in the camera I borrowed off ruthless, I used Ektochrome 100 as the bloke at the shop said it was pretty good too. I didn't use a tripod so I'm wondering what these photos are going to be like, I did it merely out of curiosity.

[Ripley]

Just out of curiosity, assuming that using these types of filters is "OK" to those who abhor using software to achieve similar results...why does it matter if you use filters/techniques before shooting or after if your vision is the same? Why does the order we do something matter?

Personally I think that using filters takes more practise and as you do it in the field, you can see the effects first hand on the back of your camera. I also think it's more about being creative with your camera at the time, not putting gradients and selections on a computer afterwards.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Ripley

[kja]

Velvia 50 is known for its increased colour saturation.

DisneyChrome Beautiful stuff!

Will you post your photos? (what a pain in the butt having to scan slides, but we'd still like to see!)

If you can find it, Kodak used to make a 25 that was outstanding for colours like reds, oranges, purples...and it wasn't even slide! But YOWZA did the colours leap off the page. Great for macro and those scenic shots with lots of bright colours. At 25 you need a whole truckload of light, though!

[Ripley]

As I didn't use a tripod, kja, I'm a bit worried about the sunset shots I took with the film camera to be honest. No grad filter used eihter. Yikes. I didn't take many as it was too much of a pain to cart around 2 cameras on a hike and we hiked up hills sometimes.

I should add that I don't like the sunset filter effect of one image above used as an example.

Using only a 2 stop ND grad filter affixed gives the scene an 'as I saw it' look. When you look at a landscape, you don't see a washed out sky, you see the land and the sky with your eyes that are perfectly exposed. But if you take a shot of that scene, you will get either a washed out sky or a dark foreground as the digital camera won't expose them both perfectly. So by using a grad and exposing for the foreground, you get an image that is "how you saw it".

[chezzyr]

I have slide films sitting in my fridge - some used some unused.

Frustrating waiting to finish them all as I want to get them all

done in one hit and the lab will put them on disc for me also.

Think I will be shooting some slide over the long weekend and Easter.

Mix of Provia and Ektachrome.

[rubiton]

I'll take over 300 photos that are 'keepers' at the races each week - I think I'll stick with the large jpegs thanks. The camera in jpeg mode takes the photos I program into the settings not the manufacturer (digitals and film cameras are what you make them and they general take pretty damn good photos in jpeg as long as you get the settings right). Perhaps RAW is suited more to portrait photographers rather than sports action.

If this image links works - this was taken as a jpeg and only cropped that was it.

[persephone]

hey, rubiton..love that horse's name!!!!!!!! Tosstesteroan LOL

Nice capture, too

[persephone]

I don't have RAW on this camera..had it on my old one..but my puter hasn't the room to deal with the extra info!!!