All Forum Comments
In a recent AP issue a stunning image turned out to be an amalgam of elements from several different pictures to create a totally 'false' photo - a tree, a peasant, a path and some distant hazy view all pasted together with some added manipulation for good measure. This is the oeuvre of a professional photographer so not a one-off experiment; It might be creative, but it's not art and it's not photography and when I realized what had been done I felt strangely cheated!
Comment by RobL posted on I'm just waiting for the flak !! -or not!!! at 22/11/2014 - 15:29
McGregNi wrote:
I don't think anyone on here would want deliberately to produce effects that are excessively distorted away from reality .... mostly we photographers aim to process in a way that reproduces and illuminates the best output quality that the sensor is capable of. That is the real purpose of image processing, and it is an essential, integral part of successful high quality digital photography.
The reality is that the camera can't do it on its own ... it's not intelligent enough. I agree with David's points above about camera JPEGs ... no such thing as 'SOOC' ... does not exist as a concept or a reality. Camera JPGs are nothing more than edited and processed image files ..... they are just being processed by the camera's tiny computer instead. This does not imply that camera-processed images can not be high quality, only that the possibilities and range of adjustment is more limited than with powerful computer software.
This limitation may be an advantage for some ... if you are not experienced with computer imaging software then it is easier to do 'too much' than to produce subtle and true to life results. Camera jpeg adjustments are more restricted so you can not make such excessive effects. But neither can you realise the full potential of the sensors ability to capture the true range of tones that were in the scene.
It seems that the journey to good, effective processing requires an individual to pass through a few stages of learning .... I certainly produced quite rough results when I started out compared to what I do now, and at the same time as learning about specific types of adjustment.
I don't think anyone on here would want deliberately to produce effects that are excessively distorted away from reality .... mostly we photographers aim to process in a way that reproduces and illuminates the best output quality that the sensor is capable of. That is the real purpose of image processing, and it is an essential, integral part of successful high quality digital photography.
The reality is that the camera can't do it on its own ... it's not intelligent enough. I agree with David's points above about camera JPEGs ... no such thing as 'SOOC' ... does not exist as a concept or a reality. Camera JPGs are nothing more than edited and processed image files ..... they are just being processed by the camera's tiny computer instead. This does not imply that camera-processed images can not be high quality, only that the possibilities and range of adjustment is more limited than with powerful computer software.
This limitation may be an advantage for some ... if you are not experienced with computer imaging software then it is easier to do 'too much' than to produce subtle and true to life results. Camera jpeg adjustments are more restricted so you can not make such excessive effects. But neither can you realise the full potential of the sensors ability to capture the true range of tones that were in the scene.
It seems that the journey to good, effective processing requires an individual to pass through a few stages of learning .... I certainly produced quite rough results when I started out compared to what I do now, and at the same time as learning about specific types of adjustment.
Comment by RobL posted on I'm just waiting for the flak !! -or not!!! at 22/11/2014 - 15:19
There is a link to this site elsewhere but it's worth a reminder: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/ There are some super examples and If you click Camera and Lenses at the top you can select combinations to see what can be achieved.
Comment by RobL posted on Pentax Photo Gallery at 14/11/2014 - 11:33
I am considering the new Pentax 1.4x WR teleconverter to use with the Pentax-DA 55-300mm WR zoom lens. There are cheaper options but it makes sense to maintain the WR integrity of the lens and camera combination. Does anyone have any experience of this combination? Does the image stabilization automatically compensate?(I have an old Vivitar 2x which needs manual calibration of the focal length for IS).
Comment by RobL posted on Pentax HD Pentax 1.4x Teleconverter at 30/10/2014 - 09:43
Ok confession time! My K50 is white with a matching lens, and cool it looks too. black lenses work ok with it visually but I don't think that would be the same with the more lurid options. It also has a practical benefit in that the various knobs and markings are easy to read.
Comment by RobL posted on Sweety anyone at 28/10/2014 - 20:16
I have just bought this camera and lens and although no expert I'm really pleased with the results. I have posted a photo of a mallard taken with this combination, not claiming to be great nature photography but showing a nice level of detail in the feathers and water droplets.
Comment by RobL posted on Pentax K50 plus Pentax DA 55-300mm f4-5.8 ED WR lens. at 15/10/2014 - 19:36
Thanks all for your considered advice. I should add that the Photoshop I have at present is Elements 8 which was free with some other software; I might have upgraded for a one-off purchase but definitely not a monthly sub. My editing is at present 'light touch'. Some of the articles in magazines have left me a bit dismayed at the amount of tweaking and touching up involved in getting those stunning National Geographic type pics by professionals- are the results an accurate record of what was seen or designed to generate a fee? But that's another topic methinks.
Comment by RobL posted on Best editing software? at 14/10/2014 - 08:23
Hi All
My digital photo experience has for a long time been limited to a Lumix set mostly on auto and tweaking the jpegs with Picasa. I have just bought a K50 as I miss slr and applying long-forgotten manual controls; so far so good. Everything I read says Photoshop is the go-to software but the first thing I do is (if needed) straighten - in Picasa and the freebie Silkypix this is a slide control on a grid with automatic cropping; great for fine-tuning. Photoshop's draw a line, trial and error followed by manual cropping is medieval by comparison. What are your thoughts? Is it worth straightening first in one software and then opening Photoshop for more editing?
My digital photo experience has for a long time been limited to a Lumix set mostly on auto and tweaking the jpegs with Picasa. I have just bought a K50 as I miss slr and applying long-forgotten manual controls; so far so good. Everything I read says Photoshop is the go-to software but the first thing I do is (if needed) straighten - in Picasa and the freebie Silkypix this is a slide control on a grid with automatic cropping; great for fine-tuning. Photoshop's draw a line, trial and error followed by manual cropping is medieval by comparison. What are your thoughts? Is it worth straightening first in one software and then opening Photoshop for more editing?
Comment by RobL posted on Best editing software? at 13/10/2014 - 19:21
