Photography

[CentralCaliBike]

 

[CentralCaliBike]

One of my personal favorites but I am having difficulty getting it to post on here > not too bad for a cell phone.

 

[hektoren]

The 1857 RR depot outside my window.

I dug up my 10 year old, very first digital camera recently and have been playing around with near infrared imaging. Been using two different IR filters and in-camera settings only, no post processing.

Infrared is a world above 720nm that we really cannot see. Your guess as to what it really looks like is as good as mine. I've experimented a lot with IR, and love to tweak the color response on a per-channel basis, even switching them, and this is one of my IR-images

I've been doing a lot of photography since 1966. Here's a few:

 

[Anonymous]

dreamy

nice IR hektoren. Why is it that images made with unseen "light" nearly always have a dream-like quality?

 

[hektoren]

nice IR hektoren. Why is it that images made with unseen "light" nearly always have a dream-like quality?

A lot can be said about that, Jeff. Part of it is because we've gotten used to the look we get from B&W-IR-film. The first thing most people notice is that (in B&W converted infrared images,) all foliage and greenery look "frosty", because infrared light is reflected from plants with chlorofyll-pigment. Also, clear sky goes all black, and people's eyes suddenly lose its iris, and caucasian skin seems wax-like, almost transparent and "dead". Atmospheric effects like hazing, so evident in all "normal" photography vanishes, giving an eerie clarity that makes judging distances difficult.
If you'd like to know more about infrared (and ultraviolet photography) you can't do better than reading a friend of mine's excellent article "All you wanted to know about infrared and ultraviolet digital photography but couldn't afford to ask" at http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev00.html#top_page

Don't know why the last three links in my post didn't work, but I'll try again here.

 

[craig1985]

If that last photo wasn't photo shopped, then wow, that is a good photo.

Of the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia (taken from Q1, on the 77th floor which is the observation deck, the tallest residental building in the world). The windows were a bit dirty, but then I'm not going outside and be a window cleaner some 300m up in the air. Here they are;

Thoughts?

I had a 300mm lense in my Sony A300 and using a Manfrotto tri-pod.

 

[hektoren]

If that last photo wasn't photo shopped, then wow, that is a good photo.

Of the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia (taken from Q1, on the 77th floor which is the observation deck, the tallest residental building in the world). The windows were a bit dirty, but then I'm not going outside and be a window cleaner some 300m up in the air. Here they are;

Thoughts?

I had a 300mm lense in my Sony A300 and using a Manfrotto tri-pod.

There's a lot to be said, really. First of all, a photoshopped photo doesn't differ from a photo straight out of the camera. There is no "truth" in photos. They're photos. All photos are manipulations. They're not reality. Even selecting and deselecting what to include in the frame and choosing a lens for the job constitutes degrees of manipulation. Photoshop is a necessary step in the postprocessing of most photos. Sharpening, small changes in whitebalance, increasing or decreasing saturation, any or all of them (often) necessary to match your perception of the motive.
As for your photos taken with the A300, they're probably technically adequate, but content-wise I find them less than engaging. The light is flat, and there's a lot of haze.

 

[Tugboat]

There's a lot to be said, really. First of all, a photoshopped photo doesn't differ from a photo straight out of the camera. There is no "truth" in photos. They're photos. All photos are manipulations. They're not reality. Even selecting and deselecting what to include in the frame and choosing a lens for the job constitutes degrees of manipulation. Photoshop is a necessary step in the postprocessing of most photos. Sharpening, small changes in whitebalance, increasing or decreasing saturation, any or all of them (often) necessary to match your perception of the motive.

Well said... the manipulation that goes on today in a computer is really no different than what used to happen in a darkroom.

 

[elapid]

Well said... the manipulation that goes on today in a computer is really no different than what used to happen in a darkroom.

Sorry, I don't necessarily agree. There is a lot that can be done in camera that now is compensated for by computer manipulation, such as composition, exposure, and white balance. Many of us are worse photographers for ignoring the basics and fixing them up later in PS or similar programs. I am all for doing some of the more advanced techniques on computers, such as HDR and dodging and burning, but I would rather get my photos as perfect as possible out of the camera than spend hours in front of a computer. After all I consider myself a photographer and not a computer geek.

 

[Anonymous]

i think there is a big difference between post processing and manipulation..

post processing to remove small blemishes, problems with lighting etc is one thing, then you have the manipulation of changing what the camera actually saw, changing what is there by removing, or moving aspects of the photo..

i think any little changes in lighting, exposure etc is fine, anything beyond that qualifies as photoshopped (or whatever software you happen to use.. we dont all use PS)

prime example...
1....

2... exposure changed, some of tent removed

3... microphone removed

4... final picture

am i happy with it.. yes.. is it the photo i took.. kinda...

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Sorry, I don't necessarily agree. There is a lot that can be done in camera that now is compensated for by computer manipulation, such as composition, exposure, and white balance. Many of us are worse photographers for ignoring the basics and fixing them up later in PS or similar programs. I am all for doing some of the more advanced techniques on computers, such as HDR and dodging and burning, but I would rather get my photos as perfect as possible out of the camera than spend hours in front of a computer. After all I consider myself a photographer and not a computer geek.

Don't agree! Maybe it's a generation thing, but why not use the posibilities we have? Photographing now is not the same as photograpy in the '70 or so, but this doesn't make us worse photographers.
It's always the result that counts, not the technique...

 

[hektoren]

i think there is a big difference between post processing and manipulation..

post processing to remove small blemishes, problems with lighting etc is one thing, then you have the manipulation of changing what the camera actually saw, changing what is there by removing, or moving aspects of the photo..

i think any little changes in lighting, exposure etc is fine, anything beyond that qualifies as photoshopped (or whatever software you happen to use.. we dont all use PS)

No, I believe you've misunderstood a wee bit. All aspects of all photography and, indeed, all storytelling, involves manipulation to some extent. Just by shooting and telling the story you deem interesting, you'll put an emphasis on only some of the possible outtakes of a complex reality. A reality that's probably too complex to fully take in all at once. That in itself constitutes a manipulation of your audience. If you put a wideangle-lens on your camera, any object or person close by will appear as large and "important" - a manipulation! If you use a tele-lens you will compress the perspective, and very distant objects will appear to be in plane with objects a mile closer - another manipulation! Or, you use a wide aperture to give a narrow depth of field in portraits of young women with less than clear skin. Manipulation!
You want your message, your story, to come across, and perform a sleight of hand, a manipulation. This is a fundamental aspect of all storytelling, whether the stories are objectively "true" or "false". It doesn't mean that you are telling a lie, and it certainly mustn't be confused with photojournalists telling lies, having an agenda other than being an objective eyewitness to history, by juxtaposing elements that never really were close in time or space, projecting images that isn't rooted in reality, glossing over defects, be it physical or moral, exaggerating the drama, with sales and the bottom line in mind.

Do you believe photojournalists are objective witnesses, and that the press presents a more or less "true" image of the world at large? Think of Africa for a second. If you, like me, have a mental image of an Africa with gun-toting semiclad youths, starving children, destitution, rubble, genocide etc. etc. you'll be very surprised (like I was) to find an Africa with more people showing happiness than you'll find in dour Britain. And why is that so? Because the press and organizations like Red Cross, Care etc. feed on controversy, scandals, war, murder, hunger, catastrophes etc. In other words, they don't paint the whole, or true, picture.

The most objective and "true" photography you're likely to find is in automated speedtraps and in medicine. But even though the speedtrap takes a photo of you, liquor-bottle in hand, you won't be prosecuted for a DUI-offence, because you might have filled the bottle with water, it might be the bottle you just snatched from your overly inebriated wife etc. In other words, it doesn't tell the whole story either. In medicine, clinical photos are regarded as "only" snapshots of dynamic processes, and must be correlated with a lot of other objective facts over time to paint a true and complete picture.

Neither you nor I are photojournalists and we're not under the constraints of objectivism. We can, luckily, project the stories we want to, and postprocessing, really any postprocessing, is allowed. Some people believe that an absence of "photoshopping" is a quality guarantee, a specially desirable certificate of truth. It just ain't so.
Photoshopping can give supertrue photos, photos that are more in accordance with how I remember the factual situation to be, or more in accordance with my vision of what I would like it to be. Cameras get fooled, cause they don't see diddly. We see, we remember, we tell.

Here's a photo for you, Dimspace. From what I've gathered you're a bit sick of being the local wine-pusher these days, so I thought I'd inject a harmonious story involving wine:

 

[hektoren]

Sorry, I don't necessarily agree. There is a lot that can be done in camera that now is compensated for by computer manipulation, such as composition, exposure, and white balance. Many of us are worse photographers for ignoring the basics and fixing them up later in PS or similar programs. I am all for doing some of the more advanced techniques on computers, such as HDR and dodging and burning, but I would rather get my photos as perfect as possible out of the camera than spend hours in front of a computer. After all I consider myself a photographer and not a computer geek.

Let's try to clarify a bit.
I agree totally that all that can be done right, done in-camera, should be done. It saves time in post-proc. I have no beef with that. There's no substitute for knowing what you're doing, as it gives files that are more pliable than the less than ideal shots.
But I'm also sure that the advent of digital cameras has bred a style of shooting that gives hindsight a chance. Clever post-processing with the available WYSIWYG-tools can salvage some less-than-ideal shots. Learning from the shots you snapped, semi-consciously aware of a creative potential, can make you a better photographer in no time, in a way that film didn't allow. Most things you can do on a computer "could" be done in a darkroom also, but only by going through a very steep and very expensive learning curve.

Then there's also the fact that to make your photos really shine, some post-processing must be done. At least some sharpening, adjusted to the format of the end-product. There's also the fact that most if not all cameras get fooled under various conditions such as fluorescent lights etc. Knowing what to do in post to maximize the appeal of your photos is now an integral part of photography, I'm afraid. IF you want to be the best you can be, that is.

 

[fatandfast]

hektoren that wine shot is really cool.

 

[hektoren]

hektoren that wine shot is really cool.

Yeah, it's even remotely cycling-related as it's from the cellars of Jose Maria Da Fonseca, the producers behind "Lancers"

 

[elapid]

Let's try to clarify a bit.
I agree totally that all that can be done right, done in-camera, should be done. It saves time in post-proc. I have no beef with that. There's no substitute for knowing what you're doing, as it gives files that are more pliable than the less than ideal shots.
But I'm also sure that the advent of digital cameras has bred a style of shooting that gives hindsight a chance. Clever post-processing with the available WYSIWYG-tools can salvage some less-than-ideal shots. Learning from the shots you snapped, semi-consciously aware of a creative potential, can make you a better photographer in no time, in a way that film didn't allow. Most things you can do on a computer "could" be done in a darkroom also, but only by going through a very steep and very expensive learning curve.

Then there's also the fact that to make your photos really shine, some post-processing must be done. At least some sharpening, adjusted to the format of the end-product. There's also the fact that most if not all cameras get fooled under various conditions such as fluorescent lights etc. Knowing what to do in post to maximize the appeal of your photos is now an integral part of photography, I'm afraid. IF you want to be the best you can be, that is.

I definitely agree with you. But I see a lot of photographers preferring to rely on their computer skills rather than developing their photographic skills. It takes no time to adjust the white balance if shooting with fluorescent lights, set your camera up on a tripod to get a good composition, look at the histogram and adjust your exposure, use your depth of field preview and adjust your aperture, etc. I post-process the majority of my photos as well, often sharpness and saturation, curves, conversion to monochrome, dodging and burning. Most of what I do on the computer though is stuff that I cannot do originally through my camera.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Some pics i took today (lots of post-processing )

 

[fatandfast]

Buffalo those are great where are they from ? English your first language? If you are from Belgium I am really hurting for curry ketchup. I try and avoid looking at images of Belgium because they make me want kebabs and get those little plastic cup things,you put them on top of the cup and then pour thru hot water and you got a great cup of coffee.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

This is Belgium! (near Ghent, Flanders)

And I love kebab

 

[craig1985]

None of my photos have ever been post-processed.

 

[hektoren]

None of my photos have ever been post-processed.

Fine with me, but I'm positive that your photos would have even more impact given proper post-processing.

 

[Anonymous]

composition

Fine with me, but I'm positive that your photos would have even more impact given proper post-processing.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Life.

You have such strong composition, very geometric and your digital darkroom work really enhances them. You must devote a lot of time to that and the results are wonderful.

For my part I have just been "snapping" pictures for close to 50 years and hoping for the best. My post processing is mostly to fix mistakes a real photographer would have avoided.

Here a passing cloud seemed to make the derelict smoke stack live again.

 

[hektoren]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Life.

You have such strong composition, very geometric and your digital darkroom work really enhances them. You must devote a lot of time to that and the results are wonderful.

For my part I have just been "snapping" pictures for close to 50 years and hoping for the best. My post processing is mostly to fix mistakes a real photographer would have avoided.

Here a passing cloud seemed to make the derelict smoke stack live again.

Beautiful! You've swapped some color channels here as well, I believe. As I did here:

Regards,

 

[craig1985]

Fine with me, but I'm positive that your photos would have even more impact given proper post-processing.

Partly because I don't have the programs (either to buy it, nor the bandwidth to d/l it) But it is interesting that I'm friends with a pro photographer, and he doesn't believe in it too much, with a preference to not doing it at all (he obviously has photoshop), as if you do it too much it takes away the quality of the actual photo and instead turn it into a piece of art that you would stick into a museum. But then I guess there are some photographers who prefer to use film and a dark room.

For me, I like to see the actual photo at hand and see how good the person's skill is, not a prgram to make themselves look good. But in saying that though, some of the post-processing of photos on here have been very good and make the photos have a different perspective. If I were to do it, it would only be very subtle and make any changes look minor. Like the photos I posted, the outside ofthe windows were dirty, so I would look to remove it or any sun reflection that was on the windows. That would be about it.

These two are some of the best photos I have taken:

BTW, hektoren are you a pro photographer, or somebody who has been doing it for a while?

 

[Anonymous]