All Forum Comments
Comment by RCA posted on Our Great Photo Processing Shootout! at 20/10/2012 - 13:44
davidstorm wrote:
This is great! I love to see everyone airing their opinions and it is this type of thread that makes the forum gripping at times. As long as we don't stray into arguments and pointing fingers, that is. Everyone has their views and others should respect them. It's very easy to misconstrue the written word and I don't think for example Clare is setting out to be rude to anyone or to stop anyone putting their point of view.
Regards
David
Oh - Im sorry if I appear rude - no I dont intend to David but I do feel strongly about this. Perception is everything - why would we ever try to average an image, firstly it is impossible to appeal to everyone and secondly one cant even approximate average - if I stood next to David I would not see exactly the same thing as he, our pictures reflect our unique view and I really cant fathom why we would ever try to change that whether through pp or any other way.This is great! I love to see everyone airing their opinions and it is this type of thread that makes the forum gripping at times. As long as we don't stray into arguments and pointing fingers, that is. Everyone has their views and others should respect them. It's very easy to misconstrue the written word and I don't think for example Clare is setting out to be rude to anyone or to stop anyone putting their point of view.
Regards
David
xx
Comment by RCA posted on Our Great Photo Processing Shootout! at 20/10/2012 - 13:36
davidstorm wrote:
I can't quite remember whether or not I had a filter attached to the lens when taking the shot in this thread. It is possible that I may have had a 0.3 ND Grad, but I certainly didn't have a UV or polarising filter attached. For most of that morning I had no filter at all, as the majority of shots were taken before this one, when the light was completely different (less blue). It turned bluer as the mist started to clear a bit, just before the sun came up. At some point I did fit the ND Grad, but this would not have filtered out any blue light (please correct me if I'm wrong on this point).
I have only posted one other colour shot in my gallery that was taken at a similar time, and on the one in my Gallery the blues were purposefully reduced.
I think most people have made some valid points in this thread, the main one for me is that to get a fairer result the same person should process an image in 2 different software workflows. The arguments about whether or not certain images look natural are not that relevant to me as this was not what the thread was about.
Regards
David
hahaha David - ever the peace maker xI can't quite remember whether or not I had a filter attached to the lens when taking the shot in this thread. It is possible that I may have had a 0.3 ND Grad, but I certainly didn't have a UV or polarising filter attached. For most of that morning I had no filter at all, as the majority of shots were taken before this one, when the light was completely different (less blue). It turned bluer as the mist started to clear a bit, just before the sun came up. At some point I did fit the ND Grad, but this would not have filtered out any blue light (please correct me if I'm wrong on this point).
I have only posted one other colour shot in my gallery that was taken at a similar time, and on the one in my Gallery the blues were purposefully reduced.
I think most people have made some valid points in this thread, the main one for me is that to get a fairer result the same person should process an image in 2 different software workflows. The arguments about whether or not certain images look natural are not that relevant to me as this was not what the thread was about.
Regards
David
Comment by RCA posted on Our Great Photo Processing Shootout! at 20/10/2012 - 13:18
I do not assume that the camera records exactly what we see - if it did and if we all approached photography from a purist point of view we would not need Adobe - your friend again reinforces my point - what we perceive is personal, therefore what we offer through our imagery is a reflection of our personal perception - the actual physics are not relevant. If you consider photography as an artform then one either likes an image or one does not, there are technical aspects which may well be worthy of debate but the 'naturalness' of colour is not one, in my opinion.It is a matter of perception! If one wants to employ physics then everything we see, including colour is a consequence of light and our physical position relative to the incident, since it is therefore a unique 'vision' it is always a deeply personal view.
Clare
Clare
Comment by RCA posted on Our Great Photo Processing Shootout! at 20/10/2012 - 13:12
johnriley wrote:
Pictures taken at high altitudes often look overly blue, but our eyes correct it out, whereas film and digital camerras don't. Hence we use filters or adjust WB to suit. It is perhaps the same thing here - none of David's images on his website look so overtly blue and his reworking of the image IMHO looks very much better.
Theres my point John - it looks better to you! Personally I prefer David's original version - as to any other image shot & processed by David - I dont see your point at all. Our eyes do not correct for the colour differences seen at altitude, but you reinforce the point regardless - at the time of the shot - David saw blue, it appealed, he took the shot - maybe because the scene was blue (I dont know) - one would not process out a heat shimmer if that is what we were attempting to capture in the first place would we!Pictures taken at high altitudes often look overly blue, but our eyes correct it out, whereas film and digital camerras don't. Hence we use filters or adjust WB to suit. It is perhaps the same thing here - none of David's images on his website look so overtly blue and his reworking of the image IMHO looks very much better.
Comment by RCA posted on Our Great Photo Processing Shootout! at 20/10/2012 - 12:56
I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about this - I have so often heard the 'it doesnt look natural' line - its bull! What they mean is - in their experience, which is by default - limited. As a photographer one 'sees' a scene and attempts not only to capture the visual but also the emotions evoked whether that is simply the prettiness (for example) or something deeper - that is the artistry behind the camera - any comment, ever, involving the word 'natural' has no validity to my mind. The only one who can say whether a picture adequately captures the reality of the scene is the person who took the shot - because even that is a personal perception.
Clare
Clare
Comment by RCA posted on Our Great Photo Processing Shootout! at 20/10/2012 - 12:50
johnriley wrote:
I think the conclusion was reached before the experiment was started. Photoshop is the single most powerful industry-wide imaging tool in existence, and the limits are those of the user.
Nobody has proved anything here because the original has not been available and the alternative programs have not been available to one user.
Even if the original image was available, if several people using different programs did their best with it and they were all compared, it would say more about the skills of the individuals than the programs themselves.
It's a similar misunderstanding to the "What a great photo, you must have a very good camera" that we have probably all heard at least once.
The comparison is flawed from the start, both participants need to process the same picture in both programmes & the subject needs to be simple - but quite apart from that, in this case I really have to say (and I rarely do these days) - the comments that the blue in image 2 is not real etc etc are not valid, I have seen scenes like this, colour cast is not always an artefact of phtography and neither is haloing, they are artefacts of light! Whether one choses to correct when processing is a matter of taste - I cannot see the benefit of a purist approach to landscape or for that matter photography in general. David you were there, if your picture reflects what you saw and you are happy with your rendition then stand by it!I think the conclusion was reached before the experiment was started. Photoshop is the single most powerful industry-wide imaging tool in existence, and the limits are those of the user.
Nobody has proved anything here because the original has not been available and the alternative programs have not been available to one user.
Even if the original image was available, if several people using different programs did their best with it and they were all compared, it would say more about the skills of the individuals than the programs themselves.
It's a similar misunderstanding to the "What a great photo, you must have a very good camera" that we have probably all heard at least once.
Clare
Comment by RCA posted on Our Great Photo Processing Shootout! at 20/10/2012 - 12:24
beautiful bird, #2 is a fab shot
Comment by RCA posted on Scaly-breasted lorikeet at 01/09/2012 - 19:53
Not bad for first time out with the Sigma & how fab to see a cuckoo!
Comment by RCA posted on Thanks Alan (aka Blythman) at 01/09/2012 - 19:51
Lovely shot
Clare
Clare
Comment by RCA posted on Bumble bee on blackberry at 27/06/2012 - 18:42
xx