The Slide

Dwayne Oakes

Thanks for taking a look. Jpeg no pp, Nikon D80/Nikkor 18-70mm.

http://dwayneoakes.zenfolio.com

Take care Dwayne Oakes

CatOne

It could use some PP. The water is under exposed and in general it's a bit flat. Getting the exposure right, and a little levels/curves work could go a long way.

jeffmeyers

CatOne wrote:

It could use some PP. The water is under exposed and in general it's a bit flat. Getting the exposure right, and a little levels/curves work could go a long way.

Why no pp? Almost every image captured with a digital camera NEEDS pp. Sometimes the in-camera pp will do it. Even so, there's very little difference IN PRINCIPLE between pp done in the camera and that done in dedicated software like PS or Capture NX. In camera processing is getting more and more sophisticated. Nevertheless, out of camera pp usually allows you to do a better job of tweaking the image so that you can see what you saw when you clicked the shutter.

In the case of your shot, however, you are not trying to reproduce exactly what you saw. You're going for an artistic/stylized version of what you saw. Even if you are a landscape purist there's no reason not to use pp in shots like this. Right?

Dave Clee

This shot definitely comes across as real flat...I also dont understand the no PP. Are you trying to say that it needs nothing ? Or that you just havent had the time to do it ?

Cheers

Dave

Dwayne Oakes

Thanks for the comments everyone, all good points.

The reasons why I don't shoot RAW and no pp,

1-my memory is lousy and for me to try to remember the WB, quality
of light, the colors 4 hours after a photo shoot I will get it wrong

2-when I do pp I tend to overcook my photos, I make them appealing
to the eye "eye candy" not what the sene was at point of capture, I find
that jpeg engines are more tamed at keeping things real and
natural looking, this is subjective of course

3-using jpeg with no pp keeps my photography skills sharp
all there is little room for error in the field, I only have one chance to
get it right


Also I see what you guys are saying about the photo being
a bit flat, I like a lower in-camera contrast setting as it opens up
the shadows and gives the photo more DR but of course
at a trade off in contrast

Thanks again for the comments !

http://dwayneoakes.zenfolio.com

Take care Dwayne

CatOne

This sorta doesn't make sense, though, it's like shooting Black & White and only ever making a straight print in the darkroom.

Straight prints usually look like crap compared to a shot that has had a little massaging done.

It's not imperative to remember exactly what it looked like. Often the capture isn't exactly what it looked like to your eye -- because the camera doesn't "see" the same way the human eye does. You can reduce the contrast in an attempt to get a bit more dynamic range, but you then need to get the exposure right. And this shot is at least 1/2 stop under exposed: Water should not be "grey." I would use levels to bump the dynamic range of this shot to 4-4.5 stops, instead of the 4 that it has now.

In this tweak, I just used levels to pull the highlights up to where the water should be:



And in this one, I bumped the exposure of the photo by 0.4 stops and then bumped up the black point slightly with levels:

Dwayne Oakes

Thanks CatOne

Nice tweak !

http://dwayneoakes.zenfolio.com

Take care Dwayne Oakes

Dave Clee

I have to agree with Cat on this one. Those tweaks took all of 3 mins to get done after the fact and have definitely helped your image.

I have studied a fair bit of Ansel Adams work and can assure you that he was the master of the dodge and burn as well as alot of other techniques after the fact. Nobody questions his work or worries what did it look like that day. They simply admire his representation of that moment in time.

In any case I guess we are all different, but there have been a few of your posts now that I have noticed the "straight outta the camera line" and then look at the image and think, wow it could be so much better with a small amount of post work. Not saying you need to go HDR crazy or anything but
levels / curves would do it alot of justice..

Cheers

Dave

jeffmeyers

Dwayne Oakes wrote:

3-using jpeg with no pp keeps my photography skills sharp
all there is little room for error in the field, I only have one chance to
get it right.

Dwayne: I sympathize with your desire to keep your photography skills sharp. Look at the slogan under my signiture!

But your photography skills only begin with your camera work. I spent countless hours in the darkroom in the 70's and early 80's. We ALWAYS had to work with images right out of the camera. The camera is a machine. It does not see things like we see them. It does not capture the dynamic range that we humans are capable of receiving and then processing in our brains. The lens is not as sharp as our eyes. The lens does not capture the same color that our eyes do. There are all sorts of problems with images captured by machines that must be fixed after the capture. That's true for film and digital cameras. That means, even if you are not looking to create "eye candy," every photographer must nevertheless learn how to bridge the gap in the darkroom and/or with post processing software.

In the old darkroom we would choose chemicals carefully, worry about the lens we use to project the image from the negative, dodge and burn areas that needed it, learn which kinds of papers gave the results we were looking for, and we did the original unsharp mask thing. That's photography. We do the same thing in digital post processing. That's also photography. And if we don't do our post-processing with skill, we are skirting the hard work of finishing our images.

To allow only the lame processing that takes place in our digital cameras may sound really "pure" when we announce it to others, but when we do that we are choosing very mediocre images and avoiding the difficult darkroom/computer work that is also necessary for photographers. Ken Rockwell may encourage everyone to shoot jpeg and do little or no post processing (actually he does a lot more than you might think with his special images) but he ratchets up his in-camera processing to compensate. It's certainly not "realistic." He knows that if he didn't do that, the image would be flat and boring.

Rant mode off, Dwayne. I mean nothing personal. But it took me a few years to get over the same kinds of misconceptions. When I started digital photography I would send images to people and proudly say that it's "straight out of the camera." A few seasoned photographers explained the problem to me and I realized I was making a huge mistake.

What do you think?

Dave Clee

Great stuff Jeff, I have an "old timer" at work that is constantly bashing me and my digital gear....He has just converted to a DSLR but takes great pride in reminding me that all of his shots are still straight out of the camera. As if he just yanked the film right off the sensor...Little does he know that b/c his shots are jpeg, he is actually looking at what the camera has decided is the best look for that particular frame. I havent really told him yet
Using film was all about capturing the frame and then having the control in the darkroom to adjust where needed to produce a final product.
Well these days that darkroom doesnt have to be dark and comes with a power button.
Dwayne you obviously are putting in the effort to get out there and take the shots. Dont sell them a bit short by not spending the time after the fact to make them that much better.

Cheers

Dave

jeffmeyers wrote:

Dwayne: I sympathize with your desire to keep your photography skills sharp. Look at the slogan under my signiture!

But your photography skills only begin with your camera work. I spent countless hours in the darkroom in the 70's and early 80's. We ALWAYS had to work with images right out of the camera. The camera is a machine. It does not see things like we see them. It does not capture the dynamic range that we humans are capable of receiving and then processing in our brains. The lens is not as sharp as our eyes. The lens does not capture the same color that our eyes do. There are all sorts of problems with images captured by machines that must be fixed after the capture. That's true for film and digital cameras. That means, even if you are not looking to create "eye candy," every photographer must nevertheless learn how to bridge the gap in the darkroom and/or with post processing software.

In the old darkroom we would choose chemicals carefully, worry about the lens we use to project the image from the negative, dodge and burn areas that needed it, learn which kinds of papers gave the results we were looking for, and we did the original unsharp mask thing. That's photography. We do the same thing in digital post processing. That's also photography. And if we don't do our post-processing with skill, we are skirting the hard work of finishing our images.

To allow only the lame processing that takes place in our digital cameras may sound really "pure" when we announce it to others, but when we do that we are choosing very mediocre images and avoiding the difficult darkroom/computer work that is also necessary for photographers. Ken Rockwell may encourage everyone to shoot jpeg and do little or no post processing (actually he does a lot more than you might think with his special images) but he ratchets up his in-camera processing to compensate. It's certainly not "realistic." He knows that if he didn't do that, the image would be flat and boring.

Rant mode off, Dwayne. I mean nothing personal. But it took me a few years to get over the same kinds of misconceptions. When I started digital photography I would send images to people and proudly say that it's "straight out of the camera." A few seasoned photographers explained the problem to me and I realized I was making a huge mistake.

What do you think?

Dwayne Oakes

Well said and great points Jeff and Dave. Thanks for the insight !

http://dwayneoakes.zenfolio.com

Take care Dwayne Oakes