All Forum Comments
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Weekly Competition #264 One for the wall at 02/08/2012 - 12:32
tyronet2000 wrote:
I posted a photo of "Twins" for fun which I couldn't have done without "cheating" in photoshop. Note the word fun, which to me photography is. When it becomes a chore look out for some bargains in the classified
Well if I'm going to allow myself to be drawn...I posted a photo of "Twins" for fun which I couldn't have done without "cheating" in photoshop. Note the word fun, which to me photography is. When it becomes a chore look out for some bargains in the classified
I don't have a problem with that. Enjoy! For me, the fun of photography is all about meeting the challenge involved in capturing a shot which is a unique capture of the moment, a goal I am still pursuing with limited success but enjoying 'the chase'! I don't find playing with photoshop for the sake of it particularly challenging. And since I use the damn programme a lot at work, not especially fun! YMMV
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on PentaxUser competitions at 02/08/2012 - 12:23
It's not 'cheating' but I can't really understand why you'd want to do it. Maybe there's a person in the background with a red T-shirt on that draws the eye too much - in that situation I might locally desaturate reds to 'knock back' the T-shirt colour. That's not really cheating in my book, it's just using the available tools to best effect.
Replacing skies or radically altering them - that might be seen as cheating. If you add a beautiful dawn sky to your shot artificially, that's intrinsically less praiseworthy (or honest) than setting your alarm for 4am and getting out there and getting the real thing. There is less stisfaction to be gained from such a shortcut, and the results are usually easy to spot as fake.
Tweaking the levels in the sky or using a grad filter? They're both permissible if they bring out the beauty of the actual sky that's there.
Replacing skies or radically altering them - that might be seen as cheating. If you add a beautiful dawn sky to your shot artificially, that's intrinsically less praiseworthy (or honest) than setting your alarm for 4am and getting out there and getting the real thing. There is less stisfaction to be gained from such a shortcut, and the results are usually easy to spot as fake.
Tweaking the levels in the sky or using a grad filter? They're both permissible if they bring out the beauty of the actual sky that's there.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on PentaxUser competitions at 02/08/2012 - 10:48
Why would you want to do that?
I must say, my own PP approach is generally limited to a little tweak of contrast and levels, and cropping/straightening.
Oh, and of course sharpening if I have resized the image.
Personally I hate manipulation for the sake of it, as in the 'keyboard' example you mentioned earlier. Again the question I ask myself is 'why do that?'
I must say, my own PP approach is generally limited to a little tweak of contrast and levels, and cropping/straightening.
Oh, and of course sharpening if I have resized the image.
Personally I hate manipulation for the sake of it, as in the 'keyboard' example you mentioned earlier. Again the question I ask myself is 'why do that?'
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on PentaxUser competitions at 02/08/2012 - 10:21
tyronet2000 wrote:
If it helps the wall is Almond White and the occupants are in their 60's and broad minded
How broad minded, Stan? If it helps the wall is Almond White and the occupants are in their 60's and broad minded
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Weekly Competition #264 One for the wall at 02/08/2012 - 10:20
Smeggypants wrote:
Digital sharpening is simply putting a higher contrast on just the edges IIRC. Isn't it?
Digital sharpening is simply putting a higher contrast on just the edges IIRC. Isn't it?
Wikipedia wrote:
The same differencing principle is used in the unsharp-masking tool in many digital-imaging software packages, such as Adobe Photoshop and GIMP. The software applies a Gaussian blur to a copy of the original image and then compares it to the original. If the difference is greater than a user-specified threshold setting, the images are (in effect) subtracted.
The same differencing principle is used in the unsharp-masking tool in many digital-imaging software packages, such as Adobe Photoshop and GIMP. The software applies a Gaussian blur to a copy of the original image and then compares it to the original. If the difference is greater than a user-specified threshold setting, the images are (in effect) subtracted.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on PentaxUser competitions at 02/08/2012 - 08:53
One of my dad's mates had a Jack Russell terrier that went mental barking etc whenever it saw police on TV :LOL:
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on PentaxUser competitions at 01/08/2012 - 22:39
Excellent summary Philip. It also strikes me that even if you are only aspiring to reproduce the scene as you saw it, some tweaking is often required - for example, where the dynamic range exceeds the camera's capabilities. The eye will not discern shadow areas as totally black, but if you expose the picture to retain highlight information in the clouds, that's how they might end up. Unless you have ND grad filters on you, some form of PP would be required to create an image which faithfully reproduces what you saw.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on PentaxUser competitions at 01/08/2012 - 21:43
Whatever it is, it's nothing to do with bit depth or dynamic range. A bit is not a measure of dynamic range. I believe more bits are better, in terms of capturing more colour and tone information, but not in a simplistic 1bit = 1EV way.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on K5 - Exposure bracketing for HDR at 01/08/2012 - 18:45
As an aside, 'bits' do not = EV steps of dynamic range. It's coincidence that the K5 raw files are 14bit and can record a dynamic range of 14EV.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on K5 - Exposure bracketing for HDR at 01/08/2012 - 17:05
There is an adult filter in the galleries, but even with that there is a limit as to what PU will accept, so sadly the degree of broad-mindedness could be limited!
Just kiddin, chance'd be a fine thing!