General Photography Chat - Page 61

diskojoe · #**1201** Posted **Dec 23, 2011, 8:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by toyota74

^^^Cool pics....Im so tempted to convert but I would have to post the camera to the UK and changing the Euro to Sterling sucks.

Do it! Its pretty cool if you get the conversion done.

diskojoe · #**1202** Posted **Dec 23, 2011, 8:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nexsus

The photos taken here are so clear. sometimes with my 1.3 pixel camera pictures come out clear sometimes they don't. should upgrade or something!

Yes, you should!

mr.John · #**1203** Posted **Dec 23, 2011, 9:35 PM**

^^ 1.3 pixel,didn't Fred Flintstone use one of those?

photoLith · #**1204** Posted **Dec 25, 2011, 5:02 PM**

I havent had photoshop for 4 years and have not really been editing my pictures since Ive just had iphoto, but I got photoshop lightroom 3 today for Christmas and its pretty freaking amazing. Heres one of my more favorite pictures I took this year and then a before and after with photoshop. Its amazing how just adjusting the white balance can make a photo so much better.

Before

After

Before

After

Im going to love this photoshop stuff!

Okayyou · #**1205** Posted **Dec 26, 2011, 2:57 PM**

wow, I can't believe you have been using iphoto this whole time. PS can really add to your images if you know how to use it.

photoLith · #**1206** Posted **Dec 26, 2011, 2:58 PM**

What do you mean add to your images?

Okayyou · #**1207** Posted **Dec 26, 2011, 3:20 PM**

maybe add isnt the right word. Enhance maybe? I just meant that the software is pretty powerful in its ability to alter an image.

photoLith · #**1208** Posted **Dec 26, 2011, 3:38 PM**

Yes it is, you can do a billion things with photoshop. I would never add or delete things to pictures though, as that's cheating. But changing the white balance and brightness of a picture is perfectly fine IMO.

Robert Pence · #**1209** Posted **Dec 26, 2011, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

Yes it is, you can do a billion things with photoshop. I would never add or delete things to pictures though, as that's cheating. But changing the white balance and brightness of a picture is perfectly fine IMO.

It all depends.

Like when that carefully-composed near-perfect shot includes a fat girl in tight neon-pink shorts who walked into the frame just as you tripped the shutter, and you don't realize it until you get home, four days and 600 miles later. Often easy to fix in Photoshop.

ue · #**1210** Posted **Dec 27, 2011, 10:17 PM**

Stanley Kubrick's photos of New York (black and white)

http://www.businessinsider.com/stanl...-york-2011-12#

Click the link above for the whole set of 27 images + article

toyota74 · #**1211** Posted **Dec 28, 2011, 3:09 PM**

Question for Americans!...I have some cousins in the states who are looking to buy some prints from me.Here in Ireland I have my own guy that sorts out my printing and its a good thing to be present while my prints are been done.Its gonna be alot of effort to post stuff to the US and the worry that something could get lost.So Im looking for a good online printing service in the US....not sure who are the main players there etc..

I just want to upload and let them print and post....

ue · #**1212** Posted **Dec 28, 2011, 4:12 PM**

Try MPIX, I've heard it is very good, but of course I can't speak from experience as it is U.S. only. You could also try B&H, Adorama, Snapfish, etc.

diskojoe · #**1213** Posted **Dec 28, 2011, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

Yes it is, you can do a billion things with photoshop. I would never add or delete things to pictures though, as that's cheating. But changing the white balance and brightness of a picture is perfectly fine IMO.

i do some awful disrespectful things to my photos that would make some photographers gasp.

but no photoshop explains a lot. I always wondered why some of your photos would look a bit off. I thought you just liked to keep it natural.

diskojoe · #**1214** Posted **Dec 28, 2011, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Pence

It all depends.

Like when that carefully-composed near-perfect shot includes a fat girl in tight neon-pink shorts who walked into the frame just as you tripped the shutter, and you don't realize it until you get home, four days and 600 miles later. Often easy to fix in Photoshop.

LOL. Im wondering how many years ago this happened and how hot was this woman that this memory is still so vivid.

But yeah you can edit a lot of unwanted things out with PS that you could never do with film. Or at least not nearly as easy.

diskojoe · #**1215** Posted **Dec 28, 2011, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by toyota74

Question for Americans!...I have some cousins in the states who are looking to buy some prints from me.Here in Ireland I have my own guy that sorts out my printing and its a good thing to be present while my prints are been done.Its gonna be alot of effort to post stuff to the US and the worry that something could get lost.So Im looking for a good online printing service in the US....not sure who are the main players there etc..

I just want to upload and let them print and post....

shutterfly.com

bulliver · #**1216** Posted **Dec 28, 2011, 10:22 PM**

I guess no one has tried the print service built right in to flickr? Or is it crap?

ue · #**1217** Posted **Dec 29, 2011, 4:43 AM**

^ That's Snapfish, IIRC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diskojoe

LOL. Im wondering how many years ago this happened and how hot was this woman that this memory is still so vivid.

But yeah you can edit a lot of unwanted things out with PS that you could never do with film. Or at least not nearly as easy.

That's simply not true. You know Photoshop was originally made to edit film photos? You can do HDR, selective colour, or other out there and heavy editing techniques to a film photo just as easily, you just need to scan it (which isn't that big of a deal). But I don't even see why you would bother, if you know how to make a proper exposure in general (and keep in mind you need not be on the dot with negative film anyways, due to genuine HDR), the film photo should turn out fine on its own, what with the special looks each film has.

Ramsayfarian · #**1218** Posted **Dec 29, 2011, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ue

^ That's Snapfish, IIRC.

That's simply not true. You know Photoshop was originally made to edit film photos? You can do HDR, selective colour, or other out there and heavy editing techniques to a film photo just as easily, you just need to scan it (which isn't that big of a deal). But I don't even see why you would bother, if you know how to make a proper exposure in general (and keep in mind you need not be on the dot with negative film anyways, due to genuine HDR), the film photo should turn out fine on its own, what with the special looks each film has.

If you scan a photo and turn it into a digital image, you're essentially editing a digital picture.

vid · #**1219** Posted **Dec 29, 2011, 6:36 PM**

HDR predates photoshop. It predates computers. The first HDR photos were actually produced in the 1930s, while the basic idea behind it (combining multiple images of different exposure values) dates back to the mid 1800s.

A digital photo made in a digital camera is the same thing as a film photo scanned into a computer. The technology simply allows you to achieve the same result without using film. These days, even cheap digital cameras (like my $95 Samsung) have features built in to mimic film in many ways.

The biggest different between film and digital is that the photographer has to understand more about the film and the process of exposing it to achieve what they want. It isn't as simply as just going into the menu and choosing an artistic style, and the process of editing film before it is developed, or scanning a positive and altering that, is more tedious than bringing photos into Photoshop straight from the camera. Also, since film cameras have a limited number of exposures, you have less room for error unless you can afford and carry many rolls of film.

A roll of film has 18 to 32 exposures. I'll take that many exposures on a digital camera to find the composition I want. A film photographer has to put actual thought and skill into getting a decent photo, unless that one photo is all they want and they're willing to spend the money for the film and to develop it.

ue · #**1220** Posted **Dec 29, 2011, 11:10 PM**

A roll of film has between 1 and 37 exposures, actually. The standard 35mm exposure amounts are 12, 24, and 36, though. Then there's sheet film, but I don't know much about that.

I find it ridiculous wasting time taking 36 slightly different exposures of the smae thing with a digital camera. Just takes up more space on your hard drive, especially when you may only want to keep 1 or 2. So why not just take the time to actually look through the viewfinder for a few minutes and try different angles and perspectives? Saves a lot of time on the computer. But, to each their own.

Film tends to make a photographer think a lot more about the photo they're creating instead of just firing off at every single thing 36 times. The motivation to think about your photo comes from the cost and limited number of exposures. Because you're actually thinking about what your doing, you're more likely to get a nice photograph right off the bat. Of course if you're a millionaire and a hardcore film user, then that's moot as you can buy tons of rolls/sheets.

Oh, and "film mimicry" is horrible. I mean if you want the look of a 50 year old negative that's been in direct sunlight for all those years, then sure, but well taken care of negatives/slides? Hipstamatic is the biggest culprit, but it happens with DSLRs and P&S cameras. If you want the "film look" so badly get a cheap ass AF SLR for $25 and some Velvia or Tri-X. If you aren't already an SLR user, throw in an old 50mm f1.8 or f2 for another $50. Voila! There is a clearly different look between genuine film and film mimicry.

Yes, technically as scanned negative is a digital file. But the resulting image on your monitor is still different from that of a genuine digital camera. All a scanned negative does is digitizes real film characteristics in high resolution.