Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2012 · vertical vs horizontal
  
 
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · vertical vs horizontal


AuntiPode wrote:
Some photographers are so experienced with film, they think reality looks like and ought to look like a film rendition. It doesn't and it need not.


And which film is it that most represents reality ...


All films have profiles ... I shot Fujichrome 50 for most everything but weddings. For those I shot Vericolor VPS160. Two very different animals, yet both could pull off sweet realistic imagery. Of course, there were myriads of other films that were fav's of other photographers and still a myriad of others that were available options as well.

The amount of contrast and saturation in a film was as varied (well sorta) as we have at our options with digital ... particularly when you consider that the negative was/is equivalent to the raw and the processing was/is equivalent to ... well, the processing.

For the vast majority of film shooters ... the processing that was used was simply the "standard" processing @ development and computer automated processing at color correction and thus the profile of the film was retained as "correct" ... yet Kodachrome was "more correct" for some subjects than others ... same could be said for other films as well.

AA spent an enormous amount of time & effort designing his processes to yield, his look ... which was anything but "reality" ... just that it was done in such a way that it was strikingly plausible (until you REALLY studied it). The mastery comes much like a successful magic trick ... it only works if the how or where "the cheat" occurred is undetected.

It wasn't until after my "He Cheated" revelation that I came to recognize how much deviation was involved in such image making. The trick of course is to have it remain undetected ... while still making it become what you want it to be. But, is it really cheating if you use Capture One's processing for enhanced saturation vs. if you dial in your own enhanced saturation ... i.e. what's the diff ... as long as the detection isn't realized. There have been MANY images of intense saturation lauded as great images ... yet they aren't "reality" any more or less than a B&W is "reality".

Most everyone knows that magic isn't real, yet people enjoy seeing it ... until they realize how it was performed, confirming the charade. How far one can "push/pull" the processing until it reveals itself as "overprocessed" largely lies in the combination of plausibility and telltale signs of manipulation. Digital was designed to be linear at capture ... and processed from there. To the degree that the profile deviates from that baseline is infinitely variable ... i.e. a "wishlist/dream" extension from the practical limitations that film profiles could be brought to market.

A well processed image can be presented as boldly or as sublimely as one wants to render it and it is typically well received, despite variance of preference. But, toss out a poorly processed image that renders implausible or with telltale signs ... and few will like it no matter their preferences otherwise.



Sep 04, 2012 at 08:26 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · vertical vs horizontal


There is various kinds of cheat, and also various personal goals. My personal goal when I click the shutter is to nail it such that the only post processing required is to correct the AA filter blur and get the color and saturation right.

But of course that is still a lot left to personal judgement.

So far as I know, AA got the images sharp, well exposed and probably nearly perfectly composed when he clicked the shutter. The cheat was to work on contrast, dodge and burn and maybe some USM. Of course that was a lot.

If the light needed to be better, I prefer to go back. If sun or clouds did not cooperate, or my comp was off, I want to do it over. After all, I am not selling this stuff so if it is not as good as I can get when I click the shutter, I can return. No need to fix it in post.

But if the raw is as good as I could hope for, and the technology is lacking, I am not afraid to add something. Color, saturation and contrast, and DR are all fine with me.

But it is easier to add it later than to post and then have to explain yourself. Of course too little has other issues.

As Aunti said, most criticism of my web stuff had to do with clumsy over sharpening, too much large radius small amount usm, halos, bad clone or brush work. Now I think most of my issues are color saturation related.


Edit, well I left out the biggest problem, poor subject choice and composition.








Edited on Sep 04, 2012 at 09:29 PM · View previous versions



Sep 04, 2012 at 09:14 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · vertical vs horizontal


ben egbert wrote:
There is various kinds of cheat, and also various personal goals. My personal goal when I click the shutter is to nail it such that the only post processing required is to correct the AA filter blur and get the color and saturation right.





Is that your expectation ... working from the RAW ... or working from the sooc?

i.e. what are you using as your baseline gamma/profile ... and how are you relating it to the DR of your scene vs. the DR of your presented image?



Sep 04, 2012 at 09:27 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · vertical vs horizontal


RustyBug wrote:


Is that your expectation ... working from the RAW ... or working from the sooc?


No clue what sooc means. Edit: Guess it means straight out of camera. No to that, I shoot raw.

I have an idea that I wrote about above regarding AA, maybe its off. But that is sort of what I mean. The RAW should not need stuff corrected that is possible to get right in the camera. Subject, time, focus, exposure for example.





Sep 04, 2012 at 09:50 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · vertical vs horizontal


sooc = Straight Out Of Camera

Gotcha @ in camera stuff @ it's best ... understanding that the out of camera stuff remains an integral part of the total process, that isn't precluded by in camera excellence ... nor should be an excuse for lesser in camera workmanship.



Sep 04, 2012 at 11:01 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · vertical vs horizontal


Someday I am going to write about what I think AA did versus what he did not do. One thing I am not sure about is if he did any composites or cloning.


Sep 05, 2012 at 12:12 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password