Forum Index > Photography Talk > Exposure Bracketing and Digital Blending
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Alan Bauer
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Jan 2002
Posts: 942 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fall City, Washington
Alan Bauer
Member
PostFri Jul 11, 2003 8:57 am 
Exactly, Michael. Nothing wrong with any of them....it just is another case where the photographer who is more educated in his skills, has mastered the learning of HOW his camera works, HOW it and whatever film he is using RESPONDS to reading light, and thus will be behind the camera more vs. behind the computer. If they know this much about their tools already they also are most likely capable of 'seeing' and pre-visualizing what it is they hope to create ahead of time. This will result in more creative and better quality end results from the start in all other areas of photography. I encourage all three listed above to keep up what they like to do! The end result will be continual enhancement of their photographic eye which will always be good for future photos...or whatever digital art you wish to create!! up.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostFri Jul 11, 2003 1:55 pm 
MCaver wrote:
I see nothing wrong with any of those three scenarios, because they are all three utlimately trying for the same thing -- getting an accurate representation of the scene before them. What i've been objecting to in this thread is creating artificial scenes through combining of disparate images and/or not being straightfoward about what was done to an image.
I certainly see the validity of this point, however, one could also argue that pictures which are taken with the intention of producing results that the naked eye cannot see falls in the same line as digital manipulation. Take most of the pictures on this site for example. Incredible pictures all, but with a lot of these scenes, the naked eye doesn't see what the film produces. This really doesn't seem any different to me than digital manipulation.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Newt
Short Timer



Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner
Newt
Short Timer
PostFri Jul 11, 2003 3:59 pm 
I have no problem with doing what it takes to get the image to represent what was there. I have no problem with photos that look old either. But let me tell you, if I was to spend hundreds of $ on a Wolfe or any others photo that I found to be a photo of a lake added to a photo of some mountains that were added to a photo of a full moon, I would be screaming fraud and/or refund if I was not made aware of it first. I would consider them art as they would be a montage or collage of photos and not *a* photo. Once it goes past *real* I personally consider it art. Not that I don't like it. I do. I can't consider Alans Massey Harris Combo a photo, but do I consider it a fine piece of art. I like it and would consider buying it as such. A big difference between an artist and a photographer IMO. Take a portrait and morph it out and I can't see it still being a photograph. Image, yes. Photo, no. With todays film and digital cameras, one has to tweak to get the results (read realistic). Even tho Adams did very little of this with B/W, he achieved it from the camera to the print knowing the out come. He could control the contrast very well. I don't feel you can do this with color anything without making adjustment after you see your photo. Just my feelings NN

It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostSat Jul 12, 2003 12:35 am 
Definitely. If I bought a pic which turned out ot be faked, I'd be rather mad too. But I think what the main point we were discussing initially was the idea of taking two pictures of the same scene, and just metering the exposures off of different locations, then blending the two, as both Tom and I did with the pics we posted. Since we're on the subject, what about blending of multiple pictures in the darkroom? Anyone done it (I have, not easy)? Same principal or not? Discuss.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
hikermike
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 1238 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
hikermike
Member
PostWed Jul 16, 2003 8:54 pm 
Photos
I stand in my comfy campsite on a high mountain ridge at dusk on a clear nite surveying the vast mountain ranges disappearing into the dark with their untold stories of centuries past and I am filled with an overwhelming feeling of transient emotions that I wish to preserve to recover again in another time and another place and to share with others. I grab my Olympus OM-1 (film) and my Olympus 3030 (digital) and take a picture. What is real, the scene as is, what my eyes seem to see, or what each type of camera records in its own fashion. At home I process each in its own matten. I dodge and burn, crop and expand. I enhance and saturate, find levels and analyze histiograms. What is art and what is technology. After all, are eyes dodge and burn, stitch together panoramas, enhance saturation and brightness. It was a full moon and a cat came out and sat on a rock. My camera could not catch the moon and the cat as it disappeared showing only its tail. At home, I found a picture of a cat and also one of a full moon and added them to the picture. It is what I saw and will remember. What is technology and what is art?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
blindie
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Posts: 26 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snoqualmie
blindie
Member
PostWed Jul 16, 2003 11:08 pm 
I do what I can to capture the image as best I can with my camera. It seems with every new piece of equipment the learning curve on how to master it increases. i.e. with my 10D I have not been successful spot metering on grass or grey areas to get a good exposure. I am learning to overexpose / underexpose to get the shots I am looking for. I also seem to be playing with the white balance adjustments more then I ever intended to. This all goes to show the digital sensor is as different from Velvia as is Kodachrome. The 10D does produce the most contrasty exposures over anything I have ever shot. I see doctored shots every time I look at any type of media. Even in nature magazines. Most people are so used to seeing doctored shots as real that they prefer them over a natural shot. Photography is art, who is to say what can and can’t be done? Look at movies today. It is impossible to tell what was photographed and what was digitally created. I love your shot Tom. The 10D couldn’t create that image on its own. Thanks for going the extra step to reproduce what you experienced.

Blindie
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
blindie
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Posts: 26 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snoqualmie
blindie
Member
PostWed Jul 16, 2003 11:15 pm 
Ansel Adams shot some great color photographs. He preferred black and white because he could dodge and burn in the dark room. Not possible with color... Until Photoshop! Think of what he would produce with todays tools?

Blindie
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
polarbear
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snow Lake hide-away
polarbear
Member
PostWed Jul 16, 2003 11:31 pm 
I don't think Ansel's pictures would be as memorable if they were done in color. His use of lighting in the black and white format really makes his pictures unique.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MooseAndSquirrel
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Nov 2002
Posts: 2036 | TRs | Pics
MooseAndSquirrel
Member
PostThu Jul 17, 2003 3:53 pm 
Polarbear, I agree. There is something special about a great black and white picture- one thing I've heard is that the lack of that color "punch" in a b&w photo forces you to examine it more, paying more attention to the subject and composition, etc. Blindie, I don't agree with your statement of "who's to say what can and can't be done?" (with photography) Even though many people may be fooled by a "doctored" photo or "prefer" it to the original, there has to be some kind of ethics followed in my opinion when doing this. Case in point: National Geographic in the early years of digital manipulation moved one of the Pyramids of Giza in a cover shot, I assume to either make room for the masthead or for a better composition. It was a very subtle change but just the idea that anything like that would be done, especially by a respected magazine like NG, was disturbing to many. I don't recall if that was leaked out internally by a NG staffer or what- but that did cause quite a ballyhoo. The sky should be the limit on what can and cannot be done with the photographic art, but there shouldn't any kind of misrepresentation done with what we are looking at (and paying for).

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jenjen
Moderatrix



Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 7617 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sierra stylin
jenjen
Moderatrix
PostFri Jul 18, 2003 11:06 pm 
color balance and calibration
This is jenjens hubby again. I have a couple links for calibrating monitors and printers. There is a very good (and FREE!!!) on-screen calibration web site that will get your monitor about 85-90% of the way there - check out: http://photographerusa.com/screencheck/index.html I had mentioned the Gretag Macbeth colorimeters in my earlier post - I found out today that they are coming out with a unit that competes well with the ColorSpider ($250 MSRP). Here is the review I saw (good site too - worth drilling into) and the link to the company: http://www.outbackphoto.com/color_management/cm_05/essay.html http://www.i1color.com/ Finally, I was planning to mention the Norman Koren photography site but MCaver beat me to it... Still, this is a good jumping off spot for calibrating the workflow: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints.html Also, for printer calibration, check Google - use the make and model of your printer and the word "calibration" - some people have developed calibration files for the specific printers that they own and offer them to other owners for free or for cheap. Worth checking out... Dave

If life gives you melons - you might be dyslexic
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Photography Talk > Exposure Bracketing and Digital Blending
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum