Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
swbkrun Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 444 | TRs | Pics
|
|
swbkrun
Member
|
Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:10 am
|
|
|
I am messing around w/ Digital Image Suite PLUS by Microsoft, and man is there a bunch of different ways to skew pictures. I know that you can't really compare these 2 pictures side by side, but I did want to get your opinion? Thanks.
photoshop Black and White
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rob Jordan Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2005 Posts: 371 | TRs | Pics
|
That black dog looks pissed. You want to know what people think about the BW conversion? I think it looks ok. I think the color version looks better. There's not a lot of tonal difference between the camping stuff and the ground. You might be able to bring that out more by playing with the Channel mixer or the Curve in Photoshop.
Otherwise I think it's a nice shot. I like how you've kept the dog's heads from overlapping with the line of the mountains. Of course you have an exposure nightmare here with the while and the black dog. I think the light one is a little overexposed. Ideally you'd probably want to zoom in on him to get an exposure reading, and then open up a stop or two and bracket from there. That's pretty easy to do with an SLR but could be variously difficult with a point and shoot depending on the model. Also I'm sure you want to show some of the environment in the shot, but I think the dogs and their expressions are the real subject so you might have zoomed in much closer. Plus the basically featureless sky doesn't really add too much. You know what they say--zoom in or get close to your subject until you think you're too close. Then get a little closer.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Eric Peak Geek
Joined: 21 Oct 2002 Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics Location: In Travel Status |
|
Eric
Peak Geek
|
Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:33 am
|
|
|
The tonal range is too similar with the black/brown dog and the pack and clothes plus the shadows; all of which cause his shape to blend in. If it were being posed it might have been better if the white dog were on or near the dark pack and the dark dog on the gray sleeping bag as that would have provided more contrasting surroundings. But it would be tricky no matter what with the objects at hand.
|
Back to top |
|
|
swbkrun Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 444 | TRs | Pics
|
|
swbkrun
Member
|
Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:03 pm
|
|
|
Hey Thanks for the responses. Would either or both you be willing to mess around w/ your photoshop on the same picture, just so I can see the difference? I am extremely new to this, and don't have a trained eye yet. Thanks.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rob Jordan Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2005 Posts: 371 | TRs | Pics
|
Well, I'm not very good at this either. It looks like your program has used some set formula to convert color to BW where it takes mostly the green channel and adds in a little of the red. That often works pretty well. In this photo I think most of the detail is actually in the blue channel.
So, my version is mostly blue with a little red and green. Then I increased the contrast slightly with an s-curve. As you can see it's not a lot different. I think there's some more detail and maybe a bit more snap? But I think which is "better" is mostly a matter of preference. There's just not a lot of tonal difference between the camping stuff and the dark dog.
To make a really good BW version of this would require a lot more work with masking etc, to try to separate the dogs from everything else. I'd think I'd stick with the color version. The gold light on the black dog is nice.
|
Back to top |
|
|
swbkrun Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 444 | TRs | Pics
|
|
swbkrun
Member
|
Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:35 am
|
|
|
Ok. Thanks. I notice that with both of your concerns were that lack of color contrast with the darker color lab. He is my mutt, and I love taking pictures of him, however it seems like backdrop makes a huge difference. Being a dark lab, I take it Snow would be good, or light colored backdrops? Here is another one, skew it if you will, and let me know on this one....
Thanks
Like I sad, I am really trying learn this stuff...Dog
|
Back to top |
|
|
Davidą Token Canadian
Joined: 25 Jul 2002 Posts: 3040 | TRs | Pics Location: The Great White North |
|
Davidą
Token Canadian
|
Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:36 pm
|
|
|
swbkrun wrote: | Being a dark lab, I take it Snow would be good, or light colored backdrops? |
Actually no it wouldn't be good. It is very difficult for a camera to capture details in both really dark and really light elements of a scene. Your eyes make the adjustments automatically, a camera cannot do this very well. Of course in this case you're not looking for details in the snow, but I would still go with a neutral background.
I think the answer you are looking for is you need to use a uniform, simple, non-cluttered background. Try a field or a wall, no camping gear allowed in the shot! In your last picture the background lines right at the top of the dog's head are distracting, it takes the viewer's eyes away from your pooch.
Try moving around before taking the shot, try out different angles. Maybe there were less distracting elements shooting from the other side. Maybe if you shot from above, theere would have been only grass in the background. That's the great thing about digital, just snap away, see what works and what doesn't (as long as pooch is patient enough, I know my 2 year old daughter is NOT!).
I'm not sure what kind of camera you are using and whether or not you have control over the aperture. If you use a larger aperture, you can blur your background to place more emphasis on the subject as well.
Karen
|
Back to top |
|
|
jimmylegs "BRB...JK."
Joined: 11 Oct 2007 Posts: 200 | TRs | Pics Location: Boring, Ore |
|
jimmylegs
"BRB...JK."
|
Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:47 am
|
|
|
An acquaintance is trying to pass this off as not Photoshopped. Has a super fancy watermark and everything.
guns don't kill people, blood loss and organ damage do.
guns don't kill people, blood loss and organ damage do.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:00 pm
|
|
|
Photoshopping can mean a lot of different things. Dynamic range looks to be wider than you'd typically get straight out of the camera. They might have used lens filters to extend dynamic range or had the camera boost it, but I'd say some post processing has been done. Doesn't appear to be over the top. Looks good to me in terms of saturation.
|
Back to top |
|
|
jimmylegs "BRB...JK."
Joined: 11 Oct 2007 Posts: 200 | TRs | Pics Location: Boring, Ore |
|
jimmylegs
"BRB...JK."
|
Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:14 pm
|
|
|
My initial thought was that the foreground lighting and shadows looked like it was mid day. It just didn't look like it belonged in the same photo with the sun setting in the background. I may be all wet, wouldn't be the first time!
guns don't kill people, blood loss and organ damage do.
guns don't kill people, blood loss and organ damage do.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:56 pm
|
|
|
Well that's what you get with dynamic range enhancement. That can be done in camera or with filters or after the fact in Photoshop.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
I try to give photographers the benefit of the doubt, but the one jimmylegs posted has a 100% faked / substituted sky, and very poorly done at that. The shadows don't line up with the light source and are too harsh for that kind of lighting on the sky, the color in the sky isn't reflected in the water, and the horizon is way, way too flat to be believable - it looks like the sky was literally just cut and pasted without any effort in blending at all (it's literally perfectly horizontal down to the pixel).
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008 Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Sun May 21, 2017 12:38 pm
|
|
|
Agree with sore feet. No way that picture hasn't been modified. The lighting on the ground doesn't even come close to matching what's in the sky and that horizon line is ridiculous.
maybe they used an image editor other than Photoshop?
|
Back to top |
|
|
boot up Old Not Bold Hiker
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 4745 | TRs | Pics Location: Bend Oregon |
|
boot up
Old Not Bold Hiker
|
Mon May 22, 2017 3:45 pm
|
|
|
hasn't been modified? hahahahhaha....Oh, you are serious?
I agree, that the sky does not come close to matching the lower portion and is not showing up in the lower portion. Dynamic enhancement would not even make that combo.
What I find most interesting these days is that everyone is putting a big watermark across their photo, including ones that look like a poor snapshot out of a 2 megapixel camera.
I hang out a lot on the Oregon Images Facebook page these days. There are some great photos on there, but the trend is that everyone now has a photography business name and destroys a good composition or otherwise generally decent shot with a blaring and distracting watermark. Watermarks can be tiny, discreet, and hardly noticeable and still be effective, if required.
I have a policy of refusing to do more than a glance at any shot in which the watermark is the first thing that grabs my attention. I am impressed that people feel the need to protect their mediocre snapshots from someone deciding it is nice enough, out of the millions of shots out there, to put on their wallpaper. I am pretty much flattered to get anyone pausing long enough to hit "like" on my shots. Only a very small number of people watermarking have a life supporting business. And you can always compress and reduce down the size to keep the original resolution in your own control, which people will also be thankful for not clogging bandwidth with uncompressed shots.
But the sunset photo in question..... Definitely a photoshop hack job that does not require a watermark.......IMHO
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
The watermark thing isn't at all a new trend. If one were so inclined to dredge up the old legendary Eric G. Owens threads, you'd undoubtedly still be able to see the garish watermarks plastered all over his masterpieces.
My observation is that there does seem to be an inverse correlation between talent as a photographer and the visibility / scale of the watermark. I would imagine such a trend could be observed with any art form though. Digital cameras have simply made it a lot easier for anyone and everyone to suddenly become a photographer.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|