I wanted a usable 'out of camera' usable JPG

[Sutton Warrior]

Edited April 9, 2009 by Sutton Warrior

[Sutton Warrior]

Edited April 9, 2009 by Sutton Warrior

[danny_b]

Her we go, a little more tweaking in the Saturation menu adding a '-'. I was able to take this shot in the evening sun, rich colours, but I think I've toned down the greens that were a bit in the face. I was able to adjust the compensation completely by looking at the histogram on the camera viewing screen, although evening sun it was very bright, and fooled my eye into setting 1/3rd of a stop to high at -0.7, the histogram showed a tad of clipping, re set to -1.0 and took the shot again. PS'ing was minimal, just a tweek to the right hand 'levels pointer', a minimum of 'unsharp' and re size to 800pix.

 

 

SW

 

 

Just wondering, why are you so against touching up images in photoshop? Its often the best way to do it, better then in camera stuff. There is a lot to get your head round in digital photography.

 

Danny

[Sutton Warrior]

Just wondering, why are you so against touching up images in photoshop? Its often the best way to do it, better then in camera stuff. There is a lot to get your head round in digital photography.

 

Danny

 

Hi Danny, I simply prefer things as original as possible, perhaps its the old fashoned side of me. Bit like prefering things of 'yester-year' as I often do 'dont make em like that any more' . Strange, I have posted similar questions on other sites, seems to provoke a very hostile reaction??? My dislike of PS'ing is taken personaly . . .

 

I do tinker in PS, but get very little satisfaction? Ho hum I will get there, but it looks like under my own trial and error method?

 

SW

Edited April 8, 2009 by Sutton Warrior

[DelJ]

Got to agree with you SW I know we all tend to use photoshop or something like it but like you I would like to have it straight out of the camera.

 

After all it is called Photography not Computergraphy.

[Sutton Warrior]

Got to agree with you SW I know we all tend to use photoshop or something like it but like you I would like to have it straight out of the camera.

 

After all it is called Photography not Computergraphy.

 

 

A man who understands "I dont believe it"

 

A little tweaking may be, but some of the faked up garbage that is being produced these days under the banner of 'photography', what happened to 'the photographer's eye' and 'what you see is what you get'. I must be getting old . . . Sorry to offend, just my humble opinion??

 

SW

[Sharkbyte]

Hi Cliff

 

If I'm honest, the shot of the boats is extremely over saturated and clipped. I am surprised that nobody else has commented.

 

Surely subtle, and manual, tweaking within Photoshop is preferable to any kind of automated 'eye candy' effect.

 

 

Just because you never observed a true representation of the scene, before the internal processing occurred, does not mean that it never existed.

 

Aren't you just kidding yourself a wee bit?

Edited April 8, 2009 by Sharkbyte

[Sutton Warrior]

[

Edited April 9, 2009 by Sutton Warrior

[Sharkbyte]

The only reason that I posted is that you seem to go through extreme turmoil on the forums searching for answers that are right under your nose.

 

Why do you routinely over complicate matters so much?

 

It was only five minutes ago that you were telling the forum that SLR's were an unnecessary inconvenience, were only wielded by 'anoraks' sporting 'cheap glass' and that compacts were the way to go.

 

 

 

Anyway, if you want simple, take the shot in RAW / JPG, with the 'correct' / most honest settings available and make minuscule adjustments to suit. Job done.

[danny_b]

Hi Danny, I simply prefer things as original as possible, perhaps its the old fashoned side of me. Bit like prefering things of 'yester-year' as I often do 'dont make em like that any more' . Strange, I have posted similar questions on other sites, seems to provoke a very hostile reaction??? My dislike of PS'ing is taken personaly . . .

 

I do tinker in PS, but get very little satisfaction? Ho hum I will get there, but it looks like under my own trial and error method?

 

SW

 

 

Hello! I wasnt being hostile at all, its just something you hear fairly often. Photoshopping is often done to excesses i agree. The thing is, with a colour negative from a film slr, there is alot of twicking done on it when printing to get the correct colours and exposure, it often takes a couple of hours to get the correct colours. Twicking images in Photoshop is no different to what you have to do in the dark room, believe me i have done my share of both while at uni. The difference is in Photoshop you can do a lot more to an image and people do tend to do to much.

 

It was rare to get an image from a colour negative correct straight away. People who never printed colour negatives seem to think that there was no tweaking or changes done to them like there is in photoshop

 

I miss having a darkroom