Forum Index > Photography Talk > Photoshop Opinion
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
swbkrun
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 444 | TRs

swbkrun
Member
PostTue Feb 20, 2007 12:10 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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.

Black and White
Black and White

--------------
2.4 Miles of Hope,  112 of Work, and 26.2 Miles of Truth

www.averymckenna.smugmug.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Rob Jordan
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 371 | TRs

Rob Jordan
Member
PostTue Feb 20, 2007 11:18 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Eric
Peak Geek



Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 2029 | TRs
Location: In Travel Status
Eric
Peak Geek
PostTue Feb 20, 2007 11:33 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
swbkrun
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 444 | TRs

swbkrun
Member
PostTue Feb 20, 2007 4:03 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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.

--------------
2.4 Miles of Hope,  112 of Work, and 26.2 Miles of Truth

www.averymckenna.smugmug.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Rob Jordan
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 371 | TRs

Rob Jordan
Member
PostTue Feb 20, 2007 11:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
swbkrun
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Posts: 444 | TRs

swbkrun
Member
PostWed Feb 21, 2007 9:35 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
Dog

--------------
2.4 Miles of Hope,  112 of Work, and 26.2 Miles of Truth

www.averymckenna.smugmug.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
David¹
Token Canadian



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 3045 | TRs
Location: The Great White North
David¹
Token Canadian
PostWed Feb 21, 2007 1:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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

--------------
Warning! Posts may contain traces of sarcasm.

Hiking Website: http://members.shaw.ca/karenanddavid/Index.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
jimmylegs
"BRB...JK."



Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 200 | TRs
Location: Boring, Ore
jimmylegs
"BRB...JK."
PostSat Apr 08, 2017 11:47 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15257 | TRs

Tom
Admin
PostSat Apr 08, 2017 3:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
jimmylegs
"BRB...JK."



Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 200 | TRs
Location: Boring, Ore
jimmylegs
"BRB...JK."
PostSat Apr 08, 2017 4:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15257 | TRs

Tom
Admin
PostSat Apr 08, 2017 5:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sore Feet
Random Quippy Bit



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6166 | TRs
Location: I'm on a boat
Sore Feet
Random Quippy Bit
PostMon Apr 10, 2017 6:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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).

--------------
Bryan Swan
Pictures - http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan
Waterfalls - www.waterfallsnorthwest.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7063 | TRs
Location: The Hermitage
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
PostSun May 21, 2017 12:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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?  wink.gif

--------------
Photo Portfolio
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
boot up
Old Not Bold Hiker



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 4714 | TRs
Location: Bend Oregon
boot up
Old Not Bold Hiker
PostMon May 22, 2017 3:45 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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

--------------
friluftsliv
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sore Feet
Random Quippy Bit



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6166 | TRs
Location: I'm on a boat
Sore Feet
Random Quippy Bit
PostMon May 22, 2017 8:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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.  lol.gif

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.

--------------
Bryan Swan
Pictures - http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan
Waterfalls - www.waterfallsnorthwest.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Photography Talk > Photoshop Opinion
  Happy Birthday jjmoss99, meowich, meandering Wa, AlpineDill!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy