Forum Index > Photography Talk > Exposure Bracketing and Digital Blending
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Damsel Adams
Guest




Damsel Adams
Guest
PostSun Jul 06, 2003 12:51 am 
Hear, hear, Mcaver. In that case the photo ain't "straight", it's mighty crooked and deceiving. Especially if marketed as nature photography. Your comment and others that emphasize getting the best image in the camera, and previsualizing the final image, is key to getting the best results. Very few artists are successful at heavy photographic manipulations. I also prefer straight photography. Still shooting slides for their incredible look when projected. When digital projectors become affordable, it'll be time to jump into the digital bandwagon.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostSun Jul 06, 2003 1:47 am 
Damsel Adams wrote:
that particular example of the sunlit mountain top, and shaded slopes/lake doesn't seem to work. Maybe it's because I'm used to overly contrasty images for that situation. Are we so used to blown-out mountain tops that this doesn't "look right"? Perhaps there are better examples of this technique. The scene would work superbly with the entire mountain in shade. The lake with it's misty surface is a superb scene. I'm sure the technique has some powerful uses.
It would have been nice to get a shot before the sun hit the top of the mountain, but you're seeing what I had to work with when I awoke at 5:30 AM so the choice was either bracket and blend, or settle for the blown out compromise. You're probably right about the look. I re-did it with the middle exposure so as not to overexpose the shadows.
Blown out Compromise (-1 exposure compensation)
Blown out Compromise (-1 exposure compensation)
Blended (using -2 and -1 exposures)
Blended (using -2 and -1 exposures)
Comparison Shot (straight out of camera)
Comparison Shot (straight out of camera)

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Damsel Adams
Guest




Damsel Adams
Guest
PostSun Jul 06, 2003 8:57 am 
Wow! I like the third one, which has a warmer light on the pinnacle, and framed by trees to give depth, and the misty surface. The eye wanders around this image in delightful exploration of dark, light, near, far, warmth, coolness, the beginning of a new day (or could be end of a perfect day)... It's a good image to dwell on for quite some time.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostSun Jul 06, 2003 9:14 am 
I'm with Damsel, the third image is stunning. It's definitely the best of the bunch. The tree silhouettes and misty lake add dimension and depth. Very nice image!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostSun Jul 06, 2003 11:05 am 
I agree the third image is best, but if you hadn't seen it you might have mistakenly concluded that bracketing and blending was creating a look that wasn't there. It's actually pretty close, and better than the blown out or underexposed compromise (the main thing I was trying to illustrate). If I had bracketed lower, the blended exposure might have rivaled the colors in the third image. It's difficult to say as the third picture was taken 10 minutes earlier. I could have tweaked the colors in photoshop to get there, but that's where I'd start considering it manipulation.

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
PostTue Jul 08, 2003 1:00 am 
Alright, here's my entry (Kelcema Lake). I purposely underexposed the lake so as to make sure the fog / smoke in the background wouldn't stand out too much for one picture, then I exposed the second one for the sky, and just overlayed them in Photoshop, masked and airbrushed until I got the scene as it looked to the eye. This is obviously more doctored than Tom's pic, but it again shows how to avoid overexposing the sky when shooting for the detail of more shadowed areas.

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 09, 2003 3:19 pm 
Doctoring images
I once took a pix of Clark Mtn from the Napeequa. The color slide looked very disappointing so I made an internegative and then a black and white print from it. It turned out gorgeous in B&W cuz of the contrast. This would be considered doctoring, or would it be artistic creativity. Those worried about doctoring, are they worried about the craft being a scientific technoogy or being an artform. Before digital came along, Photographers were always trying to be recognized as artists, not technologists, are we seeing a shift?

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
PostWed Jul 09, 2003 6:27 pm 
I for one would be disappointed if finding that the photos that inspire me to take photos as good had been doctored. Photography is and art form where the manipulations take place with the camera, developing and printing. With digital the medium is different and thus the manipulations are according. But if you have PS or PSP, just use it to help out the bad ones. Tough call, but I prefer the real thing, film or digital, with minimal help. 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
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostWed Jul 09, 2003 8:34 pm 
Quote:
But if you have PS or PSP, just use it to help out the bad ones
Not sure I'd agree with this. If your philosophy is to leave everything up to the camera you might as well shoot in "auto" mode. When you switch to manual mode, you're overriding aperture and/or shutter speed. I see *nothing* wrong wtih overriding anything else the camera (otherwise) guesses at, such as color, contrast, sharpening, saturation, etc. (assuming you're adjusting toward reality). When the camera guesses wrong about the color is it the fault of the photographer? In the film world this compensation is done by the photolab. In the digital world it's done in photoshop or similar. Just use it to help out the bad ones? I'm afraid it isn't that black and white.

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
PostThu Jul 10, 2003 4:50 am 
I would think if you wanted auto mode you would just get a point n shoot. We override with our setting to get the depth of field, stop action and enhance movement as in waterfall photos. I agree that in most cases the lab or PS do the final touches on images that need a little tweaking. And maybe using the word *bad* was not the correct word. *Not so good* or *not as seen* photos can be be made to look pretty darn good with some work with PS provided they are in focus. Most photos are enhanced one way or another thru the use of filters, labs and programs but I think when you take muliple photos, including stitched panoramas, they are less photos than those that are composed, shot and printed with very little tweeking at all. Digital media and film do not have the ability to reproduce exactly what is real or what we see so we must compensate with tweaking. People use different films and different papers to achieve the desired effect that they want, to either represent what they saw as real or to enhance the colors or create a mood. When Art Wolfe mentioned he used 14 filters to get an image it blew my mind. I'm sure the photo represented what he saw but he still enhanced it a bit to bring the flavor out. I have no problem with that. but to take an image of the stars and add it to a desert landscape would be a different story. If it were all that black and white it would be point and shoot for the perfect photo as Adams did. IMO. 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
Larry
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap
Larry
Member
PostThu Jul 10, 2003 6:36 am 
Don't know how much manipulation is "too much"...probably depends on how you market photos to the public, and how much you disclose to the buying public. I don't market my photos, so I don't feel too bad about the "small" (a relative term) amount of manipulation I use in some photos. Generally, I agree with trying to "get to the final product" as much as possible within the limitations of the camera. That said, I utilize a polarizing filter, a warming filter, and a graduated neutral-density filter when needed. I scan my slides and prints for digital storage and display purposes, and nearly always bump the saturation 10 or 15 points, as they always seem to come out less saturated than the original. Sometimes I'll also use Curves in Photoshop to pull up shadows. I think that, if I ever sold a print, I would certainly let the customer know what I "did" to the image. But, I don't bother with any disclaimers when posting on a web board or sending to friends. It gets pretty "monitor dependent" at that point anyway. The current avatar photo is a case in point. The color in the slide was true to what you see in the image (it's a small image on here, of course, but you can see the colors, which is what I'm talking about). But...the scan was slightly washed out. I added 15 points of saturation to the image. That brought the colors up to approximately the original slide. So...it would be a "personal call" on whether or not that is acceptable manipulation.

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


Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 13 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere around these parts
Synchro
Member
PostThu Jul 10, 2003 8:33 pm 
Newbie Newt wrote:
Digital media and film do not have the ability to reproduce exactly what is real or what we see so we must compensate with tweaking. People use different films and different papers to achieve the desired effect that they want, to either represent what they saw as real or to enhance the colors or create a mood.
Film and paper do not have the ability to reproduce exactly what we see either. So where you draw a delineation between bits, bytes, paper and chemicals, you are still using technology to "attempt" to reproduce what is seen or what the photographer/artist wants you to see. What is the difference between me using an old camera that vignettes the edges and creates a dreamlike haze because I am using period sh##ty optics like what a photographer in the 1920s named Atget used to use and me getting that exact same effect in the Photoshop? is what I do a gimmick or less artistic? manipulations done with filters, processing in the lab or what have you are NO different that what can be done in photoshop. There is one celebrated artist that I can think of off the top of my head, but whose name escapes me right now, that made a huge name for himself back in the 60s and 70s making photographic landscapes that never existed and were "darkroom tricks." Either way, when it comes to my images, I am the artist. the final image is what I produced, what I want to see and what I want the viewer of my piece to see. If you do not like my image for aesthetic reasons, (line, shape, form, composition, use of color, subject matter, lighting, etc) then fine. but if you do not like it because of how I created the final image then you are critiquing my vision, not the art. critique the final piece for what it is, not for how the artist created it. Do not think you are that much better of a photographer just because you do things in camera. that is just your technique for creating the image that you wanted, nothing more.

It could be that your life is meant only to serve as a warning to others.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostThu Jul 10, 2003 9:52 pm 
Synchro wrote:
Either way, when it comes to my images, I am the artist. the final image is what I produced, what I want to see and what I want the viewer of my piece to see.
And if you are generating images that never existed (see my example of Art Wolfe's eagle above) and passing that off as an actual unmanipulated image, then you are perpetrating fraud on the viewers. The default is for people to believe that a landscape image is an approximate capture of the actual scene. The subject isn't the photo, it's what in the photo. If that's been faked, people should justifiably feel cheated, IMO. All I'm saying is be up front. Do whatever art you want, that's the fun. But don't pass the result off as something it's not.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Art Wolf
Member
Member




Art Wolf
Member
PostFri Jul 11, 2003 12:05 am 
Three photographers use exactly the same camera to shoot exactly the same scene using exactly the same settings. Photographers A and B take one picture each. Photographer C takes two pictures - the second shot includes a grey card for white balance calibration. Photographer A has been taught any manipulation in photoshop is of the devil. In order master photography, all pictures must be "straight out of the camera". The color does not look right, but concludes it must be due to skill as a photographer. Photographer B reviews the picture, realizes the camera's white balance was fooled, and adjusts the color manually in photoshop. Photographer C understands the camera's white balance is never 100% correct and uses the grey card shot to achieve near perfect white balance in photoshop. As it turns out, photographers B and C burn in hell for their sins... with Arte Wolfe devilsmile.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostFri Jul 11, 2003 12:11 am 
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.

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 noahk!
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