How Do I ...

[ruthless]

Here is one that would make the purist wince, but it has been accepted at national photography competitions, in the creative section so is still classified as photography

I saw that when I was stalking you on your flickr page I like it, and I think that's a different kettle of fish cause it's obviously something you couldn't achieve using traditional methods.

[persephone]

has been accepted at national photography competitions, in the creative section so is still classified as photography

It is a terrific and appealing artwork................. guess digitally enhanced photo should accompany it.................

[persephone]

Oh..best of luck at the Doc's Chezz!!!!!!!!!

[ruthless]

polorising filters are popular for landscape and can increase blues in skies etc, different films had different chemical mixes so different films have more saturated colors than others

I know with film there's heaps of different options, but I'm curious about replicating those effects on a DSLR without the help of a computer. I'll use a computer if that's the only way, but if there's a way to do it with settings and filters I'd like to try that first.

[helen]

has been accepted at national photography competitions, in the creative section so is still classified as photography

It is a terrific and appealing artwork................. guess digitally enhanced photo should accompany it.................

Creative section is for digitally enhanced artwork

mine is small fry compared to some, just have a look at this gallery from the last Vigex international competition http://www.vigex.org.au/Slideshow.html?Sal...SalonSection=CE

Edited March 5, 2008 by helen

[persephone]

There are some very talented folks out there !!

Just wish flickr didn't take so long to download for me..I don't go in there anymore Would like to have a look at your work!

[helen]

I promise there are plenty of unedited photos too LOL, mainly tonnes of puppy photos lately http://www.flickr.com/photos/rivamist/

I would love to do more creative work but just don't have the time

Edited March 5, 2008 by helen

[ruthless]

has been accepted at national photography competitions, in the creative section so is still classified as photography

It is a terrific and appealing artwork................. guess digitally enhanced photo should accompany it.................

Creative section is for digitally enhanced artwork

mine is small fry compared to some, just have a look at this gallery from the last Vigex international competition http://www.vigex.org.au/Slideshow.html?Sal...SalonSection=CE

I love the snails

[chezzyr]

So that is what Vigex expects in the creative section - I think I will save my money

[kja]

This is such a circular discussion, but I'll jump in again because I feel it's something that we all deal with and think about so it's important to be able to have discussions and develop our own sense of what pleases us....

Wow if I had to 'post process'every single photo I think I'd go mad!!!

Actually taking the image correctly in teh first place in large jpeg wins for me (every time I read how you dont need to get anything right by the sounds of it in RAW - just post process - thats an awful lot of work on teh computer??). The whole idea of photography is to take the photo using the correct settings in the first place isn't it?

Yes, you need to get the exposure and composition you want to work with in camera. Those who use RAW as a crutch aren't using its full potential - but it will save your butt if you do goof or if things too fast for jpeg's massive data toss out. You still need to get your exposures as close to correct as you can - lazy photos are easily recognized most of the time! I'm not sure where you're seeing all this "don't have to get it right with RAW" stuff, but it's really misleading wherever it is...getting it right is the goal no matter what you shoot. Using RAW is a little like using film instead of slide...you have a tad more leeway for what is "right" when it comes to film as it is more tolerant than slide emulsion is, but you still can't fiubar. And like you said, who the heck wants to live in front of the computer more than most of our jobs have us do now?? Not me, that's for sure.

In a properly exposed jpeg and a properly exposed RAW file, the RAW file will have far more data (that's why it's a bigger file). This means your highlights and shadows especially will have more detail, good things. Jpeg isn't bad and there are plenty of reasons to shoot jpeg, of course, and RAW isn't magical or mandatory. It's just another tool.

I post process every photo I take:

1 - I cull anything I don't like or didin't work

2 - I (usually) rate the rest of the stuff

3 - I tweak whatever needs tweaking on images I am going to use. As I shoot RAW, this usually means a little contrast and white balance, two of the biggies that are done in camera when you shoot jpeg. A series of images can be batched or synched and takes about three seconds.

4 - I resize for output...often the web. Again, I have an action that does this so it takes no time.

I'd guess most people's photography workflow is similar.

It would be very very rare to spend more than a minute or two on an image...even one with vignette, cropping, extra loving and the like.

Shooting in jpeg simply moves the decisions from you to the little guys sitting in their dark basements writing the code for jpeg and away from your computer. You are doing the same thing, just at a different stage and with less control. You're still using post processing. The image is not "pure" It never was, even with film.

Photoshop simply give you the tools that they use to use to print a photo (the vignetting, the sepia tone, the cropping, etc) plus more for those who are into the arty effects. You tweak an image not totally redo it.

This is a great definition. Post processing is the development period - but it's also the choice period. We used to choose the film/slide we used...remember DisneyChrome (Fuji Velvia)?! Definitely not suitable for every application but when you wanted colour and were shooting slides, it was the only choice. And Ilford's yummy choices for making awesome black & whites...I remember discovering that grain could be oh so sexy with Ilford...

I don't consider this cheating myself as I knew when I took the photo what I wanted

Exactly. Have the vision, use the tools to get there. Ansel Adams would be proud

I thought there were 2 kinds of photographers, ones that use photoshop and ones that don't!

Acutally, I don't really think that there are two definitive camps...everyone post processes with digital whether they admit it or understand it or not. Some do more, some do less. Some choose after shooting, some choose before/while shooting. Oh, and who cares? As long as you are being ethical about your work and not submitting photojournalism that you've created in your home Shoot for yourself first.

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!

Or, am I wrong, is there a certain amount of post processing that's acceptable to the ones that don't like photoshop.

Yes, there is a certain amount. Only you can decide what is acceptable to you and which tools are acceptable.

Many competitions, for instance, allow for white balance, contrast and cropping. Others don't allow cropping. Some allow anything at all except adding elements. Some allow bits and pieces in between. Even the people who run these things can't decide what's acceptable. Digital is still relatively new technology and as with every change, we the users have to feel our way and create new paths.

I'd like my photography to be good enough not to "cheat", so I'm wondering if I want those lovely saturated shots, and I'm not using film, is the only option to post process?

As long as you keep thinking of things as "cheating", your photography will suffer, imho. You'll be so fixated on NOT cheating that you're bound to fluff up Just relax, concentrate on getting the very best image you can out of your camera each and every time then work from there. Experiment in post a little bit and see what works for you and what doesn't. See how much you feel comfortable doing for various outputs (friends, family, professional, web, big prints, newspapers, magazines, brochuers, whatever you like to do) and stick with that...it will likely evolve and oscillate as you go along. I know every photographer pro and keen buff I know has seen this happen...different stages of discovering new things so really dressing up for the opera and then stages of cleaning up for a nice casual night out LOL

To add saturation in camera, look at adding an extra light source. I shoot outside in the bright sunlight a lot and being able to use a fill flash lets me up my shutter seriously to get those awesome blue skies but keep my subject well balanced.

I may have missed it, but are you shooting jpeg or RAW? If you are shooting jpeg, check your camera functions for a saturation, contrast etc adjustment. Play around with that until you are getting results that you like. Be aware that when you use the one in camera you'll likely need to know how to change it as sometimes what looks incredible for things like scenic shots isn't terribly flattering to people's faces. If you are shooting RAW, you can do this too - your camera will apply your presets to the jpeg image that you see on your lcd (you don't see your RAW image there, that's why RAWs look different - assuming your settings are neutral in your RAW converter - on your computer screen). To see those settings on your computer screen when you import your RAW file, simply change your RAW converter's default setting (each one has a different way to do this, but it's pretty easy).

Food for thought...when we shoot film we take it to a lab. That lab chooses the chemicals, the papers, the developing time and in the new you beaut processing machines at the mini-lab they also mess with colours...red, blue, yellow and black. Ask to see if they have +/- chart. It's a chart with a single exposure processed to neutral and then all of the combinations around it (+1R, 0B, 0Y, 0B etc). It's really cool and is a great demonstration of things that go on behind the scenes in an image that has seen no post processing

but if there's a way to do it with settings

I'm sorry but I don't get this attitude. Why would you let the camera and little geek decide for you? And why is this OK or better than doing it on the computer? It is applying exactly the same things you would do yourself in a software program but taking all of the control away from you?

Edited March 6, 2008 by kja

[helen]

I love the snails too.

here is another one

Edited March 5, 2008 by helen

[chezzyr]

Sometimes it comes back to ethics also. Even though I "can"

photoshop an image doesn't mean I automatically do/will.

If someone wants me to enhance a dog's structure/conformation

(change topline, move a leg etc) that is a no in my book.

And yes I have been asked and still do get asked

off to docs now argh

Edited March 6, 2008 by chezzyr

[ruthless]

Good point kja, I need to stop worrying about what lens, what post processing effect and just get out there and experiment. I'm getting seriously bogged down with all the variables and technical stuff. I guess I don't want to have to take a bunch of crap photos to get to where I want to be. I want to be good now god-dammit

[ps I'm shooting jpeg at the moment, but would like to try RAW. Again, bogged down with all the ins and outs!]

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

thanks kja. that was an excellent explanation and i enjoyed reading it.

[kja]

Sometimes it comes back to ethics also. Even though I "can" photoshop an image doesn't mean I automatically do/will.

Excellent point!

Good point kja, I need to stop worrying about what lens, what post processing effect and just get out there and experiment. I'm getting seriously bogged down with all the variables and technical stuff. I guess I don't want to have to take a bunch of crap photos to get to where I want to be. I want to be good now god-dammit

[ps I'm shooting jpeg at the moment, but would like to try RAW. Again, bogged down with all the ins and outs!]

The only way to get better images is to go out and shoot! Try stuff. Who cares if it doesn't work - as long as you figure out what went wrong and work from that next time your images will improve! And being able to see things right away is such a time saver - you'll be fast tracking so much your head will spin when you look back in just a month's time

If you have a RAW converter program switch over. At least just try it for some things. It's not scary. It's not particularly more time consuming. The camera and shooting the image works exactly the same way.

My biggest regret when I moved to a system that allowed RAW was waiting "to get better" before I switched. I have several images I love and that are OK but had I shot in RAW I would be able to better white balance them and tweak my shadows to make them into POW shots. Exposure and composition are fine...but those little things the camera chose for me just took the images down a notch.

Now, if I was a better photoshopper maybe I could tweak them, but I'm not and a lot of the data is gone...

You can always shoot both at the same time or switch back and forth

[charlottereeves]

... take pics as nice as these

http://www.charlottereeves.com.au/

More specifically, the vignette on some of the pics, is that a photoshop thing or a filter thing? Also, some of the pics are very saturated, can that be achieved on a DSLR or is it another photoshop thing?

Hi Ruthless, just found this thread of yours! Thanks for the PM.

Without giving away all my secrets lol, I can give you a basic rundown of the techniques I use and the process I go through to create a lot of my images. I did start off with film, developing and printing black and white and colour photos, however I love love LOVE digital and opportunities it presents. I do however have to practice some restraint as I tend to go a little overboard at times!

I shoot with a Canon 5D and lenses including a Canon 24-70mm F2.8, Sigma 100-300mm F4 and a cheap little Canon 50mm F1.8 prime lens. It's definitely not all about the camera used, however you do notice a difference in sharpness and details when using a good setup.

I shoot in RAW which enables (as kja outlined) greater flexibility with regards to post-processing options. I do my initial edits in Adobe Lightroom (LOVE that program) then decide whether to continue in Lightroom or move to Photoshop. The beauty of Lightroom is that the editing is non-destructive. I can make some edits, close the program, then come back to it again and start over with a blank slate. I've developed a few different Presets in Lightroom which I usually run my shots through just to test what might look good, so if I hit something that I like, I can refine it a little more and might not even take it into Photoshop. If I can't settle on a 'look', I will take the image into Photoshop, play with some settings and run some more actions and eventually come up with the final look.

Quite often I will envisage the look I want to achieve at the time of shooting, but it's also fun to leave that open then experiment with a few different looks on a particularly co-operative image. So I might end up with a neutral colour version, a jacked-up colour version, plus black and white and sepia versions.

One thing to remember though is that you can rescue an average image to make it good, you can make a good image great, or a great image outstanding, but if you start out with an average image, it's quite difficult to jump up more than one level! And if you start out with a bad image, the best you are ever going to be able to do is make it 'average' (in most cases). So my philosophy is to nail the exposure, sharpness, depth of field and framing in-camera, then work upwards from that.

Regarding the vignetting, the cheapo 50mm lens I often use creates that effect all by itself. It's one of the side-effects of using a cheap crappy lens on a good full frame SLR, you get light drop-off on the edges. My other lenses also do it to a certain extent but not nearly as much, and yes I often increase the effect when editing. Love my vignette's, like I think you noticed! Another I need to practice more restraint on sometimes.

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.

Regarding saturation, yes you can do this in-camera. There are custom functions in mine that allow you to set the level of sharpness and saturation. I've played around with this but much prefer the results I can get from editing in Lightroom/Photoshop - MUCH more control over the end result and again, once you have an over-saturated image from the camera, you are stuck with it. You can desaturate while editing yes, but it's never the same and tends to degrade other aspects of image quality.

PHEW, long post. I hope this answers your questions (and some you probably didn't even ask lol) Ruthless!

[ruthless]

Thanks for that, I saw you reading and was hoping you were going to post I was looking at your blog and Flickr pics. Really love your pics. You should post more often!

[helen]

ruthless, here are some free photohop plug ins to download and play with http://www.optikvervelabs.com/

[ruthless]

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

[charlottereeves]

The only way to get better images is to go out and shoot! Try stuff. Who cares if it doesn't work - as long as you figure out what went wrong and work from that next time your images will improve! And being able to see things right away is such a time saver - you'll be fast tracking so much your head will spin when you look back in just a month's time

I agree completely. Before last year, I had a 5 or 6 year break from photography as I pursued a career in web design and graphic design. At the start of last year a photographer friend asked me to do a project with her - 365 Photos of 2007. It involved taking a photo a day, and posting it on a blog. It was FANTASTIC as it FORCED me to pick up my camera every day and shoot. I shot everything - my dogs, people, friends, family, myself, my hobbies, places, holidays....

It was probably the best thing I could have done to get myself back into the swing of being a photographer. I thought I already knew most things about photography but boy was I wrong, I learnt so much, especially about post-processing/editing.

Ruthless if you tend to think about post-processing as 'cheating' then I have this to say. Photography has evolved over time, quite rapidly over the last 10 years or so. There have been massive changes! Instead of photography enthusiasts setting up darkrooms and playing around with different papers and enlarger settings, dodging and burning their images, they instead install programs on their computer to do what is essentially the same thing. Post-processing is definitely not a new thing! It's been around as long as photography itself has been, it's just the method that has changed.

And with change has come progress! Embrace it!