Enhancing or just a dogs dinner

KenCo1964 · 28-03-2005, 11:17

I would like to know from you members how much processing you put into your digital pics. Once you’ve took your shot and got home only to find it’s just not right (I speak from personal experience) would you try and rectify large areas, or just when possible go out and shoot again.
The camera I use is an Olympus c-450, with no manual settings for focus or metering certain areas in frame. So most of my shots tend to come out with the foreground to dark and sky to light. I don’t particularly mind the silhouette foreground so much but the light skies in some are disappointing.
I tend to take most of my pics while out walking the dogs and because of which the intention was never specifically for photographic purpose, most of which are just point and click which is basically all the camera will let me do anyway. The reason I ask for your opinion is, as to whether I am overdoing the processing part?
Here is an example.
Pic1 as it was taken. I like the pic, although I don’t really know why.

Pic2 after a trip to Photoshop, have I asked to much from a poor first shot or gone over the top in PS.

Thanks in advance.
Ken.

Matty · 28-03-2005, 11:24

for me, there is no detail in the foreground, so i cant see whats happening..use a shodow/highlight option in photoshop to bring out the detail..

CT · 28-03-2005, 11:39

I agree with EOS I think there's far too much blocked up shadow area in the foreground with no detail at all. None of that really matters though Ken, the main thing is you've got into Photoshop and done a good job of switching that sky. Every minute spent playing around in PS is money in the bank for your future shots. If you're really determined to try to save this shot though, crop it just at the top of the green area in the centre. :wink:

and straighten that tower up

Edit. If you want to keep that green area you could crop through the centre of it or just below centre and it would work quite well. I'd lose that wide border though and have a very simple thin black or white border.

KenCo1964 · 28-03-2005, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by EosD

for me, there is no detail in the foreground, so i cant see whats happening..use a shodow/highlight option in photoshop to bring out the detail..

Damn i had you down for half a dozen. :lol:

Aeryk01 · 28-03-2005, 15:13

Just my opinion here, Ken, but I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to get the observer to focus on in the photo. When I look at it...all I see is the nice orangy glow of the sunset(rise?). I agree with the others, that there is too much dark nothing in the foreground, and I would crop it & just highlight the beautiful sky, but leave a tad of the foreground for some added pizazz.

Again, this is just my opinion.

Eric

CT · 28-03-2005, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenCo1964

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Damn i had you down for half a dozen.

:lol::lol::lol:

Matty · 28-03-2005, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenCo1964

Quote:

Originally Posted by EosD

for me, there is no detail in the foreground, so i cant see whats happening..use a shodow/highlight option in photoshop to bring out the detail..

Damn i had you down for half a dozen. :lol:

lol, ta

Arkady · 29-03-2005, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenCo1964

I would like to know from you members how much processing you put into your digital pics.

As much or as little as required. There's no 'right' or 'wrong' in this business, just a consensus of opinion. When your opinion coincides with everyone else's, it can be deemed a 'good' shot, but really the only valid opinion is your own at the end of the day.
Unless you're trying to sell - then it becomes a different matter altogether.

KenCo1964 · 31-03-2005, 08:31

Thanks Arkady, I’m beginning to realise (I think). There is so much to learn with this photography lark, it’s not just pointing and shooting and at times I wonder if getting a new camera just at the minute is a good idea. I am thoroughly enjoying going out with the camera I have and when I come home and view the shots I’ve taken it is all so very rewarding. My head is full of shutter speeds, aperture settings and iso ratings from books I have got from the library in preparation for my new purchase, that I’m beginning to put myself off slightly.

CT · 31-03-2005, 10:25

Ken,

You'd be struggling to come up with any image you see today in magazines or anywhere else, which hasn't been subjected to post processing and manipulation and usually lots of it. A classic case is the top models we see in fashion mags, and you wonder how such flawless creatures exist. The answer is they dont. The shots selected for publication are massively manipulated- spots and minor blemishes are removed, their teeth and whites of their eyes are whitened, stray eyebrow hairs are removed, eye colour is enhanced, in short, anything which delivers the image they want us to see is done. I read of one top model who has to have tattoos removed by post processing for all her shots where they're on show.

It's actually always been this way, it's just that digital photography has made so much more possible. In the film days the same techniques were carried out laboriously by manipulation in the darkroom, airbrushing of the actual print, and even by incredibly skilled people working on the negative itself, scraping away tiny bits of emulsion to improve shots. Fleet Street photographic printers were some of the worlds best at producing good prints from poorly exposed negatives from all sorts of laborious darkroom techniques. There can't be many left now who haven't 'gone digital' so they can now do so much more.

We should always strive to get the best images we can at the time of taking, because whether you post process them or not they're the ones that really produce the goods, and give YOU most satisfaction.. There's no substitute for getting it right in the first place. All that really matters though is the final print or the image on your screen, that's where we judge the shot. The argument about whether photography is an art form or not is as old as the hills, and personally I don't really know or care, but it's a powerful medium for self expression which is a hundred times more flexible with the advent of digital post processing. For me, regardless of what you do to your pictures, they only lose integrity if you deny it. :wink:

As for your SLR predicament - it's a no brainer, your photography will improve in leaps and bounds. I'd have hesitated to recommend a DSLR only a couple of short years ago, but just taking two obvious choices for you, the Canon 300D and the Nikon D70, they'll both produce superb results and are both bargains at the price. The only thing I'd say is that there are some great compacts on the market which now come with built in zooms giving respectable wide angle and good telephoto coverage. There really isn't much point in buying an SLR unless you're going to change lenses so the bad news is you're always going to be wanting and striving for that next lens, but that comes with the territory. :lol: The whole point of an SLR is that it's just the basis of a huge system of lenses and accessories which ensure you wont outgrow the camera as your experience and your needs grow. For starters though, try and buy your DSLR with the most flexible and useful zoom you can if possible, which will reduce some of the urgency to add extra lenses.

KenCo1964 · 31-03-2005, 11:26

Thanks CT. I would like to purchase a camera that is likely to last and I can add too, rather than outgrowing like the one I have now. Just on price I think the Canon 300 is looking the more likely and hopefully a couple of weeks to a month which is when I’m hoping to purchase will see the price come down that little further. I really would like a zoom lense, as I’d like to photograph wildlife and maybe some candid stuff. Could you recommend a reasonable priced lense that would suit my needs for now? I only ask as I have not got a clue myself.
Thanks.
Ken.

CT · 31-03-2005, 11:36

I think the 'kit' lens usually offered with the 300D is quite a useful zoom anyway.The best advice I can give you is do a Google search on Canon lenses and see what's available. The other option is look at Sigma lenses as an alternative, they're usually cheaper than Canon ones and Sigma are well respected as an independent lens manufacturer.

I'm sure Dixons or Currys are currently offerng the 300D with kit zoom lens for around £489? If you wanted a different lens the best time is when you're buying the body when you can usually haggle a bit off the price.

lolyton · 31-03-2005, 12:11

Just noticed an e-mail i got, 7dayshop are doing the 300d+18-55mm lens for £449, if this is any help. I've been using them for years (10ish) and have never had any problems. Don't forget you MAY have to add postage cost, but will be small if at all. Also you will have to wait approx 7 days for delivery! If for nothing else it is a brilliant place to price check stuff......

Also big help for everyone, JESSOPS used to Price match 7dayshop, great way of getting the bargain prices and product straight into your hands, (this was a couple of years ago i last did this, but is allways worth a try again, could save enough to treat yourself to an extra memory card or new batteries).

CT · 31-03-2005, 12:22

Some Canon lens terminology you need to know Ken.

USM is Ultra Silent Motor. Any lens with this feature has incredibly quiet autofocus focusing.

IS is image stabilisation. These lenses are expensive but enable you to hand hold the lens 2 or 3 stops slower in poor light than you would normally be able to and still get sharp (shake-free) results.

Any lens which ends in L is a top end Canon lens, guaranteeing great results at a price!

A new range of Canon lenses has started to appear designated EF-S These have the advantage of being designed as digital lenses from the outset, but they're only compatible so far with the 300D, 20D and the new 350D. They wont even fit any other Canon body. It's a bit of a worry committing to these lenses if you upgrade to a different body at some stage and can't fit them.

28-03-2005, 11:17	#1 (permalink)
KenCo1964 Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Co. Durham England Posts: 1,069	Enhancing or just a dogs dinner I would like to know from you members how much processing you put into your digital pics. Once you’ve took your shot and got home only to find it’s just not right (I speak from personal experience) would you try and rectify large areas, or just when possible go out and shoot again. The camera I use is an Olympus c-450, with no manual settings for focus or metering certain areas in frame. So most of my shots tend to come out with the foreground to dark and sky to light. I don’t particularly mind the silhouette foreground so much but the light skies in some are disappointing. I tend to take most of my pics while out walking the dogs and because of which the intention was never specifically for photographic purpose, most of which are just point and click which is basically all the camera will let me do anyway. The reason I ask for your opinion is, as to whether I am overdoing the processing part? Here is an example. Pic1 as it was taken. I like the pic, although I don’t really know why. Pic2 after a trip to Photoshop, have I asked to much from a poor first shot or gone over the top in PS. Thanks in advance. Ken.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Gone to the Dogs....	Glen	Photo Sharing	2	25-03-2006 19:24
Cats Vs Dogs	Madpup	General photography questions and answers	49	29-12-2005 12:37
Who let the dogs out	KenCo1964	Photo Sharing	12	15-12-2005 16:00
Let sleeping dogs lie.	Mike Aiken	General photography questions and answers	14	04-09-2005 22:23
A couple of dogs I know	Paul B	Photo Critique	0	11-04-2005 00:05

28-03-2005, 11:24	#2 (permalink)
Matty Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: kings hill Posts: 5,269	for me, there is no detail in the foreground, so i cant see whats happening..use a shodow/highlight option in photoshop to bring out the detail..

28-03-2005, 11:39	#3 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	I agree with EOS I think there's far too much blocked up shadow area in the foreground with no detail at all. None of that really matters though Ken, the main thing is you've got into Photoshop and done a good job of switching that sky. Every minute spent playing around in PS is money in the bank for your future shots. If you're really determined to try to save this shot though, crop it just at the top of the green area in the centre. :wink: and straighten that tower up Edit. If you want to keep that green area you could crop through the centre of it or just below centre and it would work quite well. I'd lose that wide border though and have a very simple thin black or white border.

28-03-2005, 15:13	#5 (permalink)
Aeryk01 Quite Chatty Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bucks County, PA Posts: 70	Just my opinion here, Ken, but I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to get the observer to focus on in the photo. When I look at it...all I see is the nice orangy glow of the sunset(rise?). I agree with the others, that there is too much dark nothing in the foreground, and I would crop it & just highlight the beautiful sky, but leave a tad of the foreground for some added pizazz. Again, this is just my opinion. Eric

31-03-2005, 08:31	#9 (permalink)
KenCo1964 Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Co. Durham England Posts: 1,069	Thanks Arkady, I’m beginning to realise (I think). There is so much to learn with this photography lark, it’s not just pointing and shooting and at times I wonder if getting a new camera just at the minute is a good idea. I am thoroughly enjoying going out with the camera I have and when I come home and view the shots I’ve taken it is all so very rewarding. My head is full of shutter speeds, aperture settings and iso ratings from books I have got from the library in preparation for my new purchase, that I’m beginning to put myself off slightly.

31-03-2005, 10:25	#10 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	Ken, You'd be struggling to come up with any image you see today in magazines or anywhere else, which hasn't been subjected to post processing and manipulation and usually lots of it. A classic case is the top models we see in fashion mags, and you wonder how such flawless creatures exist. The answer is they dont. The shots selected for publication are massively manipulated- spots and minor blemishes are removed, their teeth and whites of their eyes are whitened, stray eyebrow hairs are removed, eye colour is enhanced, in short, anything which delivers the image they want us to see is done. I read of one top model who has to have tattoos removed by post processing for all her shots where they're on show. It's actually always been this way, it's just that digital photography has made so much more possible. In the film days the same techniques were carried out laboriously by manipulation in the darkroom, airbrushing of the actual print, and even by incredibly skilled people working on the negative itself, scraping away tiny bits of emulsion to improve shots. Fleet Street photographic printers were some of the worlds best at producing good prints from poorly exposed negatives from all sorts of laborious darkroom techniques. There can't be many left now who haven't 'gone digital' so they can now do so much more. We should always strive to get the best images we can at the time of taking, because whether you post process them or not they're the ones that really produce the goods, and give YOU most satisfaction.. There's no substitute for getting it right in the first place. All that really matters though is the final print or the image on your screen, that's where we judge the shot. The argument about whether photography is an art form or not is as old as the hills, and personally I don't really know or care, but it's a powerful medium for self expression which is a hundred times more flexible with the advent of digital post processing. For me, regardless of what you do to your pictures, they only lose integrity if you deny it. :wink: As for your SLR predicament - it's a no brainer, your photography will improve in leaps and bounds. I'd have hesitated to recommend a DSLR only a couple of short years ago, but just taking two obvious choices for you, the Canon 300D and the Nikon D70, they'll both produce superb results and are both bargains at the price. The only thing I'd say is that there are some great compacts on the market which now come with built in zooms giving respectable wide angle and good telephoto coverage. There really isn't much point in buying an SLR unless you're going to change lenses so the bad news is you're always going to be wanting and striving for that next lens, but that comes with the territory. :lol: The whole point of an SLR is that it's just the basis of a huge system of lenses and accessories which ensure you wont outgrow the camera as your experience and your needs grow. For starters though, try and buy your DSLR with the most flexible and useful zoom you can if possible, which will reduce some of the urgency to add extra lenses.

31-03-2005, 11:26	#11 (permalink)
KenCo1964 Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Co. Durham England Posts: 1,069	Thanks CT. I would like to purchase a camera that is likely to last and I can add too, rather than outgrowing like the one I have now. Just on price I think the Canon 300 is looking the more likely and hopefully a couple of weeks to a month which is when I’m hoping to purchase will see the price come down that little further. I really would like a zoom lense, as I’d like to photograph wildlife and maybe some candid stuff. Could you recommend a reasonable priced lense that would suit my needs for now? I only ask as I have not got a clue myself. Thanks. Ken.

31-03-2005, 11:36	#12 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	I think the 'kit' lens usually offered with the 300D is quite a useful zoom anyway.The best advice I can give you is do a Google search on Canon lenses and see what's available. The other option is look at Sigma lenses as an alternative, they're usually cheaper than Canon ones and Sigma are well respected as an independent lens manufacturer. I'm sure Dixons or Currys are currently offerng the 300D with kit zoom lens for around £489? If you wanted a different lens the best time is when you're buying the body when you can usually haggle a bit off the price.

31-03-2005, 12:11	#13 (permalink)
lolyton Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Granada, Spain Posts: 803	Just noticed an e-mail i got, 7dayshop are doing the 300d+18-55mm lens for £449, if this is any help. I've been using them for years (10ish) and have never had any problems. Don't forget you MAY have to add postage cost, but will be small if at all. Also you will have to wait approx 7 days for delivery! If for nothing else it is a brilliant place to price check stuff...... Also big help for everyone, JESSOPS used to Price match 7dayshop, great way of getting the bargain prices and product straight into your hands, (this was a couple of years ago i last did this, but is allways worth a try again, could save enough to treat yourself to an extra memory card or new batteries).

31-03-2005, 12:22	#14 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	Some Canon lens terminology you need to know Ken. USM is Ultra Silent Motor. Any lens with this feature has incredibly quiet autofocus focusing. IS is image stabilisation. These lenses are expensive but enable you to hand hold the lens 2 or 3 stops slower in poor light than you would normally be able to and still get sharp (shake-free) results. Any lens which ends in L is a top end Canon lens, guaranteeing great results at a price! A new range of Canon lenses has started to appear designated EF-S These have the advantage of being designed as digital lenses from the outset, but they're only compatible so far with the 300D, 20D and the new 350D. They wont even fit any other Canon body. It's a bit of a worry committing to these lenses if you upgrade to a different body at some stage and can't fit them.