Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 76 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
"Do you shoot in miserable weather with no contrast in the sky?"
Does anybody notice the raindrops in the water?
The blue sky was accomplished with contrast, vibrance and the luminosity blue slider in Lightroom.
I had Lightroom but was mostly using it to organize stuff. I then went into Lightroom and starting moving the sliders around. Holy cow, increasing contrast, saturation/vibrance and the blue luminance slider (for sky) turned a fizzle into a sizzle. It also found new energy and interest in photography, as I had the confidence to know that I could make beautiful images. This is when I truly became addicted. A few years have passed and I am way past that initial epiphany. However, even today I often incredulously ask myself, “I got THIS from THAT. I thought this would be a bomb.” I now find myself seeing beauty where I never noticed it before. It has given me an entirely new set of eyes.
Now how much you modify is a matter of personal taste. Many will comment that my images are “not quite realistic”. However, I am motivated by beauty first and realism second - a distant second. That view heavily influences my work and many seem to like it. I should note that I reject that heavy “HDR look”, which may involve HDR but is really processing taken to the point where it is hard to discern what the shot is of. But that is my view. If you like this, go for it. Some won’t like your work whatever you do, but you are not doing this to please others, but to please yourself. I would view the opinions of others as an opportunity to see the world in a new way, from a new perspective, to explore new avenues of creative expression and not as an affirmation or lack thereof of your work.
Err where is the selection tool?
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
Jeff I have struggled whether to respond to your post. My struggles have been that I am not sure if I can say what I want to say without it coming across as harsh but after some time in thought I feel that I need to comment.
I think your post has some fundamental flaws. The concept of relying on post processing to correct or create a beautiful image from a bomb is a self-defeating process. This process will take you down a path that will improve your post processing skills but will not make you a better photographer. Before everyone starts the chorus that Ansel Adams relied heavily on post processing, you are correct. However, if you look at his examples of before and after photographs, he started with a great image (an image that most of us would call a keeper) and then applied post processing to enhance that image. Mark Crislip posted a couple of examples on this site of his before and after processing and again he started with a great image and used post processing to enhance the image. Looking at your original and post process image, the post images do look heavily processed. Rather than using post processing to create an image, going back to the place you took the photo under better lighting conditions that would render a better photo to start with and would have the potential to render an even greater image. Before everyone starts beating me up that I am opposed to post processing, I am not. I have had to use it to save images for couple of my clients. These occasions are rare where I have used heavy post processing. I have found the better image I get in the camera the more I have to work with in Lightroom or Photoshop.
You are correct knowing the right amount of post processing to use is and can be difficult. I had one client that was upset with one of my images because I had very lightly softened some wrinkles around his eyes and removed his bloodshot look in his eyes. It was not the look that he was looking for but the magazine editor liked the image. In the end the client won and the image was published unedited. I had another client that rejected an image because I missed a pinhead size blemish on her neck that you could barely see at the print size but at was visible if you zoomed in 100%.
Concerning your comment about people liking or not liking your images I would agree with you to some degree about creating images that please yourself but if you are going to grow as a photographer being able to accept constructive comments and suggestions to improve your work is important. Social media is not a good place to have your images evaluated as to whether they are good or not, as not all likes or comments are equal. I do not post any of my professional work on social media as the only person I need to please is the client. I have professional photographer friends that post on social media for other reasons but they are not looking for affirmation.
The article that @heartyfisher posted is spot on and is a good reference. The same website (and a number of others) published an article about avoiding the use of heavy use of post processing to improve your photography.
Here is the link:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2015/12/31/7-bad-photography-habits-to-ditch-in-2016/
I am not trying to beat you up with this post. I hope you will take my comments as constructive. Your post and your methods may very well suit your needs but I have seen to many people that have taken the post processing capabilities to extremes. In many of these cases the image they started with was great to start with and the post processing did not add value and difficult to know when you have gone too far. Flickr and 500px are full of examples of heavy post processing examples.
Starting with the best image possible, under the best lighting possible, is an absolute must.
I also recognize the limitations of social media. It is like the Pepsi challenge. How is it that Pepsi wins every time yet its sales are a distant second to Coke’s? Well, Pepsi is sweet. Give a one ounce each of a sweet and non-sweet beverage to somebody and they are 90% likely to favour the sweet beverage. Make them drink a litre and you will achieve the opposite result. Social media is like a sip. It is not about affirmation, but marketing and fun.
I also agree that it is better to go back to the spot where the lighting is better and get an even better image. When I go on holidays I often scout out the best locations to maximize the benefits of golden or blue hour and park myself in that spot at the right time. If you look at my images of Rome on my Flickr account, particularly of the city taken from the Spanish Steps in the morning, you will see several examples of that. However, that was not really my point with those posts. I did not add anything to those images, except to draw out what was already there. However, I acknowledge that it is heavily exaggerated and not what you would see in real life. However, some post processing is necessary for the simple fact that human perception involves a lot of post-processing. A raw image is never what your brain “sees”. I think that Ansel Adams was able to apply the “just right” post processing to approximate what the human brain sees with an additional dash of post processing. For example, his use of filters added significant artistic license, probably more than is appreciated, to his images.
However, one must also consider that a good photographer must be able to shoot in any condition and produce great or at least good results. Now this applies more to an event or wedding photographer than a “scape” photographer. But it even applies in this case. Say you are passing by a great composition and think, “That is beautiful, but wouldn’t this look great at golden hour, except that I am going to be a hundred kilometers away.” What do you do? Do you skip the shot just because you can imagine a better way to take it. No, you take the best shot you can in the circumstances and make the best of it in post.
That is the true measure of a good photographer and that was my point – dull skies are certainly dull but they can be improved (or worked if you prefer) on. Whether you like the work that I did is a different and very valid question. I have always desired to make something beautiful first and realistic second. But I also acknowledge that it is a slippery slope to that over processed and frankly ugly “HDR Look”. My tastes are also continuously evolving and we will see where it leads me. I get a lot of exposure to different styles and techniques through my participation in a photography certificate program (18 courses and a portfolio to obtain the certificate) and clubs etc.
I appreciate your comments and welcome more.
Jeff
Sorry for a late reply. I have been traveling and working this week and this is the first chance I have had to sit down to reply. I am always hesitant about replying on Social Media because I had much rather be having these conversations over an adult beverage and not feel like I am responding to or hiding behind a computer screen (and that is not my intent).
I agree that one aspect of being a good photographer is getting the shot. However, I disagree with taking a shot under any set of conditions by taking average (or below average) shot and post processing to make it a good image. A good or great photographer has diligence and/or perseverance to get the best shot to start with and use post processing to enhance it if needed. I believe that a good photographer, if the conditions are not favorable will come back under better conditions/light and capture a better image even if it a several kilometers away. Personally, I had rather spend an extra hour or day to capture the best image possible and have to do very little post processing than spend hours post processing and image. I enjoy the process of capturing the image more than sitting in front of a computer trying to improve upon the image. I hold a degree in Computer Science and enjoy seeing and using the advances that computers have brought to photography. I use Lightroom , Photoshop and other photo software pretty much every day but believe that it is easy to go too far with them. Images that are over processed can easily be distinguished by and stand out. For me if I am going to be presenting an image to an editor or client with my name on it I want to present the best image possible. You are somewhat correct about a RAW image in that it does not see what the human eye sees but it also has been subjected to a series of algorithms by the camera manufacturer to capture the information from the sensor.
A separate thread on what makes good or great photographer would be interesting.
I believe that we come from two different philosophies or camps concerning photography, neither one being right or wrong. I have been influenced by a number of photographers during my life. The first was after I graduated from high school in 1973, I spent the summer traveling across the US to Seattle, Wa. to attend school at the University of Washington in the fall. In late June of 1973 I was just north of Santa Fe, NM. I was in the process of taking a photo with my 4 X 5 camera of a rock formation a few hundred feet from the road. I was under the dark cloth and heard a car horn. I looked out from underneath the dark cloth and there was a large light blue car and a young Hispanic man motioning for me to come to the car. At first I thought I might be trespassing but I was sure I was on public land. I tried ignoring him and went back under the dark cloth but he continued to honk the horn. When I looked out again he was walking towards me. I relented and walked over to see what he wanted. He said that there was someone in the car that wanted to talk to me. To my surprised when I go to the car this rather tall lanky elderly man stepped out of the car. It was Ansel Adams. He started by apologizing for interrupting me, I guess he could tell I was not very happy. I must have been in shock because I couldn't speak. He started asking me what I was trying to capture, what made me stop to take that image, what where my settings, etc. I stumbled through some answers. He said he was out scouting the area for some potential new photo locations. He asked me to sit with him in the car as it was very hot outside. We talked for about 45 minutes. I had a notebook that I documented the camera settings that I used for each of my negatives. He took the notebook and jotted down some notes and suggestions. His driver interrupted our conversation and said they need to leave so they could get back to Santa Fe. Ansel gave me a business card and then took out his Hasselblad and took a photo of me. He set the photo to my parents. I have the notebook, business card and photo locked away in a secure archival storage facility. His notes were about capturing the light, focus on the details and when you think you have focused on the details focus again, be patience and diligent in the process of capturing the image. After graduating from UW I went to work for the Department of Interior for the Bureau of Land Management, photographing cultural resources, landscapes, wildlife, etc. in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado with a 4 x 5, 8 X 10 and 11 X 14 cameras. I spent several months each year in Washington, DC going through the photos that I had captured, cataloging and storing them. I spent many hours looking and studying the negatives and photos that had been produced by Ansel Adams and other great photographers. This influenced the early part of my career. I take exception to the notion that Ansel Adams highly modified his images in the dark room. He left detailed notes about how he processed each one of the images but many of his images had very little manipulation. Many had instructions on cropping and details on the development chemicals to be used. He was a perfectionist and he believed in previsualization of the image and using the proper technique’s to get the image as close as perfect on the negative. Processing the negative was to correct the limitations of the camera, film and photographer. Many other photographers have influential to this day on my photography and will continue until I cannot take another image. My Arts degree got me started on my love for photography but ultimately was very insignificant to what I was able to learn from other photographers (professional and amateurs). I look at the works of some of the leading (great) photographers today and I believe they follow many of the same techniques and place values on the same things that Ansel Adams believed were important. Many have taken the principles and added to or enhanced them and I am constantly challenged to improve my skills and abilities as a photographer.
I actually do not like bright sun as the dynamic range is too great for good people photos...
Architecture or landscapes, good with harsh shadows in many cases. But portraits.... I like glamour lighting, then post process to reach the result I am seeking....as an example, this would not have worked with bright sun...
I hope I am not coming across as a purist because that is not my intent and I do not remotely consider myself a purists. I lived in Seattle for a little over 4 years and shot what seems like a lifetime of photos with gray and dreary skies.
Looking at the before and after photos that Jeff posted it seemed that he was trying to hard to pull something from the photo he had taken. The last image that he posted has great composition but to me it seems to be over processed. The clouds have a strong blue color to them that does not seem natural. Giving the clouds more gray tones may have been a better choice. Jeff's compositional skills are really good and I believe that is what draws people to his work. I am not sure if his strong use of color adds that much value.That just my personal opinion that with $5 will get you a cup of Starbucks Coffee and I am not trying or suggesting that Jeff change his style.
I am not opposed to post processing. However, I do believe that there is a growing trend to over use some of the post processing tools and I am not alone in this belief as many blogs are discussing this as well. Knowing when and how much post processing to use on a given photo is challenging. Post processing a poor image will rarely produce a great image.
I agree with your comparison of the digital negative to the use of the dodging and burning of the film negatives but just as you can take dodging and burning too far you can do the same with the digital negative. I disagree with your comment "Once can choose to be "pure" and only shoot what was there or one can be creative and create beauty". I believe and know from experience that beauty can be found and photographed all around us and does not need to be created but I also believe that any photograph can be enhanced by the tools that we have available to us now to express this beauty as well. But it all starts with the initial image irregardless of the medium and process used to capture it. Several years ago the Ahwanhee Lodge in Yosemite NP contacted me about taking some photographs to update their website. When we arrived there was a large forest fire burning in the park and the valley was full of smoke and haze. I brought 2 other photographers with me and we spent most of the week photographing the interior of the hotel. We tried getting some images of the exterior of the hotel and some of the valley but the smoke and haze was a real problem. Every night at the bar we heard the tourist and photographers complaining about the smoke and not being able to get a decent photo of the Half Dome, El Capitan, etc. Late in the afternoon of the day we were suppose to leave we noticed that the wind had shifted. Due to the new wind direction we thought that it would blow the smoke and haze out of the valley. We all gather in the lobby and planned out were each one of us were going to go an the images that we would take. By 6PM most if not all of the smoke had been blown out of the valley. I went to Wawona Tunnel overlook to capture the sunset with the valley in the foreground. Normally, there is a huge flock of photographers there with their cameras and tripods and if don't get there early you might not get a spot to setup. When I arrived there were two families and one photographer present. Only a couple of photographers showed up before the sunset. The sunset was spectacular. Everyone had blown off getting a decent shot that day because of the conditions earlier in the day. They had missed out on something beautiful. We all met at the hotel rushed our film and cards into a lab in Fresno. We had very little time for post processing or adjustments but we knew we had great images because we were disciplined in our process and techniques. We presented the images the next day to the lodge management. They were surprised that we were able to get the images outside the hotel with the smoke and haze. They loved the images and we have gone back several times each year since then to do work for them. They used several of the photos (including the sunset) in a email campaign to announce to their customers that they were open and that the park was a beautiful as ever. Being diligent in our process and capturing quality images to start with paid off for us.
@Msmoto
Great examples. I agree with you about overcast skies and portraits. Love the Great Dane, he/she is beautiful, beautiful photo too!