All Forum Comments
I don't want to scare my IR camera!!
Comment by Spad posted on Mixed bag of IR... AGAIN! at 16/10/2022 - 23:58
...think I am going to have this camera surgically removed from my hands!
Comment by Spad posted on Mixed bag of IR... AGAIN! at 16/10/2022 - 21:06
pschlute wrote:
A very interesting discussion topic where it is impossible to declare absolutely what is and is not acceptable. Many competition rules have a clause along the lines of "images should not be overly manipulated". What on earth does that mean these days ?
Extensive dodging and burning is nothing new to photography, nor is adding something which was not there in the original shot.
I posted a photo today that would have been a very poor image if I had not done extensive pp work on it. Is that fake ? No. My aim as a photographer is to produce an image which pleases me, and hopefully the viewer. I carry a camera, not a photocopier strapped round my neck. If the dynamic range of my camera is insufficient to create an image SOOC, then it needs to be worked on in pp. This is as much photography as pressing your finger on the shutter.
The issue of things like sky replacement is at the extreme end of this argument. Does it make a difference if the replacement was taken yourself ? What if it was taken in the same location ?
If photography is art, then what matters is the end result. If an image is enhanced by sky replacement then do it. It is no more fake than trying to compare two different types of film. You may shoot with Kodak Porta, and I with Fuji Velvia. Two different outcomes.....which one is "fake" ?
Fabtastically put and I 1000% agree with you!A very interesting discussion topic where it is impossible to declare absolutely what is and is not acceptable. Many competition rules have a clause along the lines of "images should not be overly manipulated". What on earth does that mean these days ?
Extensive dodging and burning is nothing new to photography, nor is adding something which was not there in the original shot.
I posted a photo today that would have been a very poor image if I had not done extensive pp work on it. Is that fake ? No. My aim as a photographer is to produce an image which pleases me, and hopefully the viewer. I carry a camera, not a photocopier strapped round my neck. If the dynamic range of my camera is insufficient to create an image SOOC, then it needs to be worked on in pp. This is as much photography as pressing your finger on the shutter.
The issue of things like sky replacement is at the extreme end of this argument. Does it make a difference if the replacement was taken yourself ? What if it was taken in the same location ?
If photography is art, then what matters is the end result. If an image is enhanced by sky replacement then do it. It is no more fake than trying to compare two different types of film. You may shoot with Kodak Porta, and I with Fuji Velvia. Two different outcomes.....which one is "fake" ?
Comment by Spad posted on i tried 'SPOT Metering' on my PENTAX 6x7 Mk II at 16/10/2022 - 20:52
loadoftripe wrote:
Been debated infinitum already.
Not for me.... normally i keep me nose out of it... but I am sick of hearing the "It's Fake" crap Spad wrote:
I use my skill to capture 2 images maybe an hour apart or stack 20 plus images over 10 to 15 minutes. Then stack or combine them to get better light or reduced noise on high ISO... that's not fake... it just interpreting things in a modern way, just like playing in a dark room using film 25 plus years ago!
Oh no, not this old chestnut again RobL wrote:
Any image which purports to be a description such as a landscape should never ever have sky replacements. I once pasted a deer into a rural scene, two images from the same location taken a while apart; it worked, no one could tell it was fake, but I binned it as I knew it was fake. Model and product shoots are another matter. As a photographer would you be truly satisfied with fakery just to win some crummy contest? In competitions that matter you would be disqualified. Anyhow with fake skies the lighting on the ground rarely matches the new sky, shadows, light direction and colour temperature are all wrong. Work with what you have, fine, but photoshop trickery is no longer photography.
Total and utter crap....Any image which purports to be a description such as a landscape should never ever have sky replacements. I once pasted a deer into a rural scene, two images from the same location taken a while apart; it worked, no one could tell it was fake, but I binned it as I knew it was fake. Model and product shoots are another matter. As a photographer would you be truly satisfied with fakery just to win some crummy contest? In competitions that matter you would be disqualified. Anyhow with fake skies the lighting on the ground rarely matches the new sky, shadows, light direction and colour temperature are all wrong. Work with what you have, fine, but photoshop trickery is no longer photography.
I use my skill to capture 2 images maybe an hour apart or stack 20 plus images over 10 to 15 minutes. Then stack or combine them to get better light or reduced noise on high ISO... that's not fake... it just interpreting things in a modern way, just like playing in a dark room using film 25 plus years ago!
Been debated infinitum already.
Probably got outta the wrong side ofthe bed this mornin and decided to be a twat... which is rare....
Comment by Spad posted on i tried 'SPOT Metering' on my PENTAX 6x7 Mk II at 16/10/2022 - 20:49
RobL wrote:
Any image which purports to be a description such as a landscape should never ever have sky replacements. I once pasted a deer into a rural scene, two images from the same location taken a while apart; it worked, no one could tell it was fake, but I binned it as I knew it was fake. Model and product shoots are another matter. As a photographer would you be truly satisfied with fakery just to win some crummy contest? In competitions that matter you would be disqualified. Anyhow with fake skies the lighting on the ground rarely matches the new sky, shadows, light direction and colour temperature are all wrong. Work with what you have, fine, but photoshop trickery is no longer photography.
Total and utter crap....Any image which purports to be a description such as a landscape should never ever have sky replacements. I once pasted a deer into a rural scene, two images from the same location taken a while apart; it worked, no one could tell it was fake, but I binned it as I knew it was fake. Model and product shoots are another matter. As a photographer would you be truly satisfied with fakery just to win some crummy contest? In competitions that matter you would be disqualified. Anyhow with fake skies the lighting on the ground rarely matches the new sky, shadows, light direction and colour temperature are all wrong. Work with what you have, fine, but photoshop trickery is no longer photography.
I use my skill to capture 2 images maybe an hour apart or stack 20 plus images over 10 to 15 minutes. Then stack or combine them to get better light or reduced noise on high ISO... that's not fake... it just interpreting things in a modern way, just like playing in a dark room using film 25 plus years ago!
Comment by Spad posted on i tried 'SPOT Metering' on my PENTAX 6x7 Mk II at 16/10/2022 - 18:21
That's what i read a short while ago...
To be honest... i dont want to buy more filters. I have a case full of them. I much prefer the fact that I can just grab my K20D and go... if i wanna shoot in IR. Think I prefer it that way...
To be honest... i dont want to buy more filters. I have a case full of them. I much prefer the fact that I can just grab my K20D and go... if i wanna shoot in IR. Think I prefer it that way...
Comment by Spad posted on K10D converted to IR at 16/10/2022 - 16:44
Lubbyman wrote:
Did you try a hot object in a darkened room?
Steve
No.....Did you try a hot object in a darkened room?
Steve
Is full spectrum like proper IR then? Shoot only on sunny days?
Hope I haven't done owt stoopid....
Also.... on the invoice it stated "Pentax K10D IR Conv?" When I called then they said they didn't test it and they also said the widow of the chap who owned it brought in it and she claimed it was IR.
Comment by Spad posted on K10D converted to IR at 16/10/2022 - 10:57
This is an image taken on my IR converted 720nm K20D of the same flower in my garden and converted in PS, no editing....
Comment by Spad posted on K10D converted to IR at 16/10/2022 - 10:56
Theses are the test images I took....
Don't look IR to me... Surely full specturm would not look like this?
Don't look IR to me... Surely full specturm would not look like this?
Comment by Spad posted on K10D converted to IR at 16/10/2022 - 10:41
Your path to the darkside is not complete.....
Back we well bring you!!!
Ay oop from the Hills of the Peak District in the UK.
Back we well bring you!!!
Ay oop from the Hills of the Peak District in the UK.
Comment by Spad posted on G`day from Australia at 16/10/2022 - 10:10
