The Photography Thread

[DaiSuki]

Yeah, I should point out that I've got nothing against post-work; I just can't do it myself because I generally can't tell the difference (on the shots above, the second one looks a bit brighter and that's all).

[Magnakai]

It's more than just brighter, the colours are generally much more vibrant. I think it could use a little sharpening meself, but whatever. It's a nice shot - that's the important bit.

I'm going to try to exclusively use my mobile for a month when I finally get a cameraphone. I think it'll be an interesting experiment. There'll probably be a lot more spontaneity to my shots... We'll see!

[Gareth C]

More photos from Indonesia (bit of a mixed bag)...

[Paleface]

I post-process a moderate amount on any of my decent pictures, but no more than being in a darkroom - I rarely ever clone/touch-up, but I go to town on curves, levels, etc.

If you're shooting JPEG, then your camera is doing post-processing the moment the picture is taken - it takes the raw data from the CCD and renders it (according to the settings you've chosen) as a JPG.

If you're shooting RAW, than that in-camera PP never happens, but you always end up doing some PP that way around, because, you know, that's the point of RAW. The stuff you can do with after-the-fact white balance is staggering.

But yeah. In general, as I shoot, I always leave the viewfinder in "highlights" mode (occasionally checking the histogram), just so that it's not over-exposed. If it's under, you can always fix it. If it's over, you never can.

[Gareth C]

Two more... I think that my B&W's in particular may appear flat. My computers workflow is set up specifically for Print so when doing stuff for screen I get confused! That and the fact that I am not very good!

[Ish]

I really liked the one on the other page in the alley with the man and guitar.

[PeteJ]

Buddy Christ?

Love the second shot Gareth

I find the key to post processing is restraint - its so tempting to wack the satuation bar a few clicks further to produce great impact, but ultimately you will struggle to make a bad photo a good one via photoshop, no matter the editing. Subtle changes can make the world of difference, but it is easy to go overboard.

[Gareth C]

Buddy Christ?

Not sure what you are referring to there.

As for post-processing...I'm with you Pete. Bad material is bad material but PP can add to an image a lot. The problem I have is that I do some work, think it looks good then a week later realise that the image is still too flat, or oversaturated etc...it all takes time to learn, just like the photography itself.

And, of course, photography is so subjective. one of my favourites is the one I took of the girl working on the ground. It evokes lots of memories of our trip, but technically its a pretty average (at best) shot.

[Alastair]

Back from India on Saturday, took over 200 shots but have only post processed 20 so far and uploaded 8.

Take a look at the set and let me know what you think. Would love to hear any comments or suggestions/critique.

Sure I'll add more to the set soon but I've already used 69% of my upload for the month with 8 pics so will be buying a Pro account ASAP.

[MartyG]

Only 200 shots ? Couple of nice ones on there, did try to work out what the bird of prey was, but I'm not a skilled spotter I'm afraid, and it's difficult to pic of the detail.

Have taken a few shots whilst on hols, but didn't really like any of them. Took a photo of a wierd looking flying insect and two dark black slugs this evening in the nice light, but neither shot is very impressive tbh. I desperately need a decent macro lens.

[Ginger Tosser]

Went to Birdland at Bourton on the Water today, weather a little changable so inbetween rain and the dullness of the day i managed to get these.



Marty, i know where your coming from with the macro, sadly my old Sigma macro wont work with my 5D (firmware issues on the lens apparantly!). Went out the other day to try some close up buds and the results were disapointing

[DaiSuki]

Firmware on a lens >_< Things are getting too damn complicated, I tell you

Seems we've all been in a macro mood of late

Here's something I've always wondered. Why isn't macro just part of autofocus? Why does it have to be turned on and off? I'm probably being utterly dim, and I appreciate that a lens with macro capabilities can't necessarily go from it's closest macro to infinity with no problem distances (or can they?), but I've never really understood why macro should ever need to be turned off. It never is on my little Sony, and it doesn't seem to cause me any problems with focusing right across the range. It just means that I can instantly focus on something little without having to press an extra button before I can do so.

Is it just so it's easier to get out-of-focus foreground without having to worry about focusing on something distant before you line the shot up? Or is there a real reason for it?

[bangaio]

A macro lens lets you focus close enough to get a 1:1 ratio. The macro mode on the camera does nothing really. I true macro lens will therefore be (usualy) fixed focal length and let you get close enough so that if say you use 35mm film, the image on the neg will be the same size as in real life.

Also, my old sigma lens doesn't work with my 20d and there's no fixing it either!

[DaiSuki]

Indeed, macro mode certainly doesn't do anything on mine except prevent me from close focusing when it's switched off, right enough.

I see what you mean about a fixed length 1:1, but my mate uses a Sigma 80-300 that does pretty good macro (I forget the ratio, but the imaging is impressive enough) and it has a switch for macro on and macro off. That's what confuses me. Why? Why can't you just focus down to that level anyway? What advantage is there to being able to switch it off?

[Ginger Tosser]

Also, my old sigma lens doesn't work with my 20d and there's no fixing it either!

I think only the newer lenses can be chipped to work, however as my old sigma was cheap (?70 i think) its not worth it.