The Photography Thread

[paul04]

what was your DoF? I feel like it should have been greater to get the whole leaf in (DoF also affected by zoom) But I love the detail and colours...

I was testing out my new nikon 50mm lens, just getting use to it.

 

[Crackle]

I was testing out my new nikon 50mm lens, just getting use to it.

The quality looks superb.

 

[betty swollocks]

don't you just hate power cables sometimes! I have had to 'throw' out a couple of really nice photos that have them in that would have done for this years calendar because they were just too obvious and too distracting and way too much editing (I usually don't edit at all) to get rid of them...

I do.
I have a friend who could photoshop them out....I'm tempted to ask him!!

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

I do.
I have a friend who could photoshop them out....I'm tempted to ask him!!

those ones won't be difficult to do... but make sure to catch the ones on the right of the tree...
I would do it from the RAW file using Canon's own Digital Photo Professional, but you need to working with Canon RAW files for that... easy enough to do in the program... what camera are you on?

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

[QUOTE 3343528, member: 9609"]I have a canon and the file extention is JPG, is that a RAW, or is the raw left inside the camera and I am only downloading jpg ?

I really should learn about this stuff, i had to look up what DoF meant from one of the above threads, never heard of that either[/QUOTE]
depends on what canon camera you have... and if it can take in RAW...

Edit: you can just edit it out in any other editing software program, its just I only work in RAW format and when done convert to JPEG.

 

[Crackle]

Squirrel watch.

I often wonder what others have done to their pictures if anything and I know some of you don't but I always used to fiddle in the darkroom to, so it's no surprise I still fiddle now, looking to get the best out of a shot.

So what did I do to this. Well the original shot was a bit flat, taken against the light and given 1.5 stops extra exposure. it also left the sky burnt out. So first thing to do was to convert to B&W. I then used the curve tool in it's individual channels of red green and blue, of which red always has the most dramatic effect to separate dog from background. This still left me a white sky. So I copied the image onto another layer and used the green curve to darken the sky. I then painted that darkened sky back in on the original picture. I quite deliberately didn't do that evenly. Final thing was to just enhance the catchlight in his eye with the clone tool, just making it a bit bigger. And there you go that's the best I can do, I think.

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

Squirrel watch.

I often wonder what others have done to their pictures if anything and I know some of you don't but I always used to fiddle in the darkroom to, so it's no surprise I still fiddle now, looking to get the best out of a shot.

So what did I do to this. Well the original shot was a bit flat, taken against the light and given 1.5 stops extra exposure. it also left the sky burnt out. So first thing to do was to convert to B&W. I then used the curve tool in it's individual channels of red green and blue, of which red always has the most dramatic effect to separate dog from background. This still left me a white sky. So I copied the image onto another layer and used the green curve to darken the sky. I then painted that darkened sky back in on the original picture. I quite deliberately didn't do that evenly. Final thing was to just enhance the catchlight in his eye with the clone tool, just making it a bit bigger. And there you go that's the best I can do, I think.

wasn't it so much easier in darkroom! quick bit of dodging and applying a filter to the bulb.... done

 

[Crackle]

wasn't it so much easier in darkroom! quick bit of dodging and applying a filter to the bulb.... done

You know, I don't miss the darkroom, except in a nostalgic way. I couldn't have got a shot out of this in the darkroom, I don't think. I got the angle to the light wrong and the exposure slightly wrong when I took the shot. Only the power of Photoshop saved me.

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

You know, I don't miss the darkroom, except in a nostalgic way. I couldn't have got a shot out of this in the darkroom, I don't think. I got the angle to the light wrong and the exposure slightly wrong when I took the shot. Only the power of Photoshop saved me.

despite being an IT Engineer I still like getting my hands dirty... I do miss not having a darkroom at home anymore... but then I don't like in that home anymore either and don't do a huge amount of editing to my pictures... balance of the 4 histograms, touch of exposure/contrast and the occasional spot removal but nothing else. I prefer to get it right 'in camera'... mind you it occurred to me the other night that I haven't had my big camera out since Easter when we were last in Scotland! all my photos recently have been taken on my small compact which shoots in RAW but I guess that is easily explained by how uninspiring I find Cheshire!

 

[delb0y]

I really need to learn much much more about post processing. My workflow at the moment is to run my photos through DxO Optics to correct any lens distortions. The same programme converts the RAW to JPEG - at the moment I just accept the default output. I suspect there's some learning there, too. Once I've done that it's into Photoshop (CS2) where I've just learned how to crop to a perfect square (see below)! And that's it. I sometimes run the results through Perfect Effects 8 to add a border (I have been told they're not the done thing - but I still like them) and in the example below I ran it through DxO Filmpack 3 and applied a Kodak B&W emulation as I wasn't happy with the colour version. It's quite a long winded process and I'm sure there's something better!

 

[Cyclist33]

Doesn't need the whole leaf in focus. That would be too "straight" an image, imho. A little section in focus does just enough to show off the detail.

what was your DoF? I feel like it should have been greater to get the whole leaf in (DoF also affected by zoom) But I love the detail and colours... [/QUOTE

 

[Crackle]

[QUOTE 3344545, member: 9609"]If you're in the right place at the right time there is no need to edit, just cropped a little of the water off the bottom. The threatening sky behind the well lit buildings as the sun started to go down was worthy of a few shots
[/QUOTE]
Firstly that's a good pic and you're right, it's about being in the right place at the right time and then, most importantly, seeing the picture. I still think though if you're shooting with a digital SLR you need to process the image to some degree because SLR and their equivalent are set up to present the image quite neutrally, especially in raw format. There's normally more info captured than you use in the picture. So I reckon that picture would be even better with a few small tweaks, nothing major, just tweaks.

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

balancing the histograms on my laptop gave this... it showed that the picture was ever so slightly over exposed - only a very minor OE but pulling that back has given a touch more impact.
I have not changed the contrast or saturation directly - just balanced the RBG, R, G & B histograms.

 

[Crackle]

I really need to learn much much more about post processing. My workflow at the moment is to run my photos through DxO Optics to correct any lens distortions. The same programme converts the RAW to JPEG - at the moment I just accept the default output. I suspect there's some learning there, too. Once I've done that it's into Photoshop (CS2) where I've just learned how to crop to a perfect square (see below)! And that's it. I sometimes run the results through Perfect Effects 8 to add a border (I have been told they're not the done thing - but I still like them) and in the example below I ran it through DxO Filmpack 3 and applied a Kodak B&W emulation as I wasn't happy with the colour version. It's quite a long winded process and I'm sure there's something better!

I really like that. I do have a thing about eyes and catchlights but that may just be me, it may not work in this picture.

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

[QUOTE 3344753, member: 9609"]you've improved the light ! how have you done that ?
Do you give lessons ?[/QUOTE]
all I did was a minor edit in Canon's Digital Photo Professional (which is software I get free with both my compact and my dSLR). Incidentally all of my pictures since the spring have been taken on a compact - not necessarily a cheap one, but a compact all the same, but always in RAW - you just have more data to play with and changes are easier. The same can be done in any photo editing software -such as Photoshop or Core's Paint Shop Pro (much cheaper than Photoshop and just as capable, just not the industry standard).

basically the first shot is the original which shows the marginal over exposure (by the camera). If it had been taken with RAW (possibly not possible on your camera) then I would have simply dropped the exposure in the RAW tab... editing the JPEG, I have balanced first the individual colours (R, G, B) and then the overall brightness (RGB) and re-saved the picture.

I have highlighted what I changed, maybe 30 seconds work to the picture if that.