Discussion
Nice.
If you want my opinion... they start off pretty good... and get worse!
Very very hard to take pictures in a dark church, in the evening, without a flash or a tripod. They've not come out that well, I don't think. Sorry about that!
The top few landscapes are much better - they could do with some post processing to punch them up though. More saturation, a bit lighter perhaps?
If you want my opinion... they start off pretty good... and get worse!
Very very hard to take pictures in a dark church, in the evening, without a flash or a tripod. They've not come out that well, I don't think. Sorry about that!
The top few landscapes are much better - they could do with some post processing to punch them up though. More saturation, a bit lighter perhaps?
Love the first pic.
A lot of the others have a lot of potential, and with a bit of photoshop work could look a little better. Just my opinion though.
Hope you don't mind, but i tinkered with one of the pics just to show you what i mean. Hope you don't mind.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5836/lanscapepq...
Keep up the good work.
A lot of the others have a lot of potential, and with a bit of photoshop work could look a little better. Just my opinion though.
Hope you don't mind, but i tinkered with one of the pics just to show you what i mean. Hope you don't mind.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5836/lanscapepq...
Keep up the good work.
Edited by Blukoo on Monday 7th January 12:44
Blukoo said:
Love the first pic.
A lot of the others have a lot of potential, and with a bit of photoshop work could look a little better. Just my opinion though.
Hope you don't mind, but i tinkered with one of the pics just to show you what i mean. Hope you don't mind.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5836/lanscapepq...
Keep up the good work.
Looks good Murray. A lot of the others have a lot of potential, and with a bit of photoshop work could look a little better. Just my opinion though.
Hope you don't mind, but i tinkered with one of the pics just to show you what i mean. Hope you don't mind.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5836/lanscapepq...
Keep up the good work.
Edited by Blukoo on Monday 7th January 12:44
Curves & contrast, or more to it?
Fetchez la vache said:
Looks good Murray.
Curves & contrast, or more to it?
Lightened some areas by going to Image > Adjustments > Shadow/Highlights, then i increased constast and saturation to intensify the colour. Think i changed the hue of the sky a little bit too.Curves & contrast, or more to it?
A lot of people don't agree with improving pictures to that degree with photoshop, especialy if they're into more traditional methods of photography. But it was photoshop that got me into photography, so i always use it to help me out a little.
people who disagree with photoshopping images, even to do slight adjustments, are idiots.
What did we used to spend hours pissing around in the lab adjusting the filter at development time etc - exactly what we use photoshop for now.
I did a course with a tutor who insisted digital photography was not real photography. I suppose 35mm shooters got the same when it was released.
What did we used to spend hours pissing around in the lab adjusting the filter at development time etc - exactly what we use photoshop for now.
I did a course with a tutor who insisted digital photography was not real photography. I suppose 35mm shooters got the same when it was released.
stigmundfreud said:
I did a course with a tutor who insisted digital photography was not real photography.
I did an HND in Multimedia design and production 3 years ago. It was 100% computer based until it came to photography. Really surprised me when we were told it wasn't going to be digital. (although i guess thats why it was called "multi"media).It was cool learning how to develop photographs old fashioned way though.
GetCarter said:
stigmundfreud said:
What did we used to spend hours pissing around in the lab adjusting the filter at development time etc - exactly what we use photoshop for now.
/\ Wot he said - and cropping and burning ... longer in fact than I ever take in PS.stigmundfreud said:
people who disagree with photoshopping images, even to do slight adjustments, are idiots.
What did we used to spend hours pissing around in the lab adjusting the filter at development time etc - exactly what we use photoshop for now.
I did a course with a tutor who insisted digital photography was not real photography. I suppose 35mm shooters got the same when it was released.
What did we used to spend hours pissing around in the lab adjusting the filter at development time etc - exactly what we use photoshop for now.
I did a course with a tutor who insisted digital photography was not real photography. I suppose 35mm shooters got the same when it was released.
I was on a photography course and couple of years ago. 3 of us with DSLR and one guy with film who insisted we were cheating and that DSLR's were not "real" photography. The tutor told him that the post processing on a PC meant it was very much still an artform and no different to stuff the guy did in his own darkroom. You always get luddites!!I suspect I'm about to sound somewhat old-fashioned, but having tried both digital and 'proper' photography, I've gone back to film.
To me digital photography was a bit like driving the 'ring on a playstation - good fun, but not the real thing.
I think a lot of the problem is that modern digital SLR's are over complicated and very hard to learn photography on with coupled with being able to bracket limitlessly and then fix any problems in the comfort of photoshop at a later date. The other thing that put me off is that they are bloody heavy and fairly delicate which is no good if you like to hike to difficult locations and take landscapes. I've gone back to a 1979 Nikon FE, 50mm, 75-150mm and few sundries. Weighs very little, has been trodden on, dropped, and submerged but has never failed to take great pictures.
Yeah, yeah - I know I'm odd!
To me digital photography was a bit like driving the 'ring on a playstation - good fun, but not the real thing.
I think a lot of the problem is that modern digital SLR's are over complicated and very hard to learn photography on with coupled with being able to bracket limitlessly and then fix any problems in the comfort of photoshop at a later date. The other thing that put me off is that they are bloody heavy and fairly delicate which is no good if you like to hike to difficult locations and take landscapes. I've gone back to a 1979 Nikon FE, 50mm, 75-150mm and few sundries. Weighs very little, has been trodden on, dropped, and submerged but has never failed to take great pictures.
Yeah, yeah - I know I'm odd!
biglepton said:
I suspect I'm about to sound somewhat old-fashioned, but having tried both digital and 'proper' photography, I've gone back to film.
To me digital photography was a bit like driving the 'ring on a playstation - good fun, but not the real thing.
I think a lot of the problem is that modern digital SLR's are over complicated and very hard to learn photography on with coupled with being able to bracket limitlessly and then fix any problems in the comfort of photoshop at a later date. The other thing that put me off is that they are bloody heavy and fairly delicate which is no good if you like to hike to difficult locations and take landscapes. I've gone back to a 1979 Nikon FE, 50mm, 75-150mm and few sundries. Weighs very little, has been trodden on, dropped, and submerged but has never failed to take great pictures.
Yeah, yeah - I know I'm odd!
I'm also old...To me digital photography was a bit like driving the 'ring on a playstation - good fun, but not the real thing.
I think a lot of the problem is that modern digital SLR's are over complicated and very hard to learn photography on with coupled with being able to bracket limitlessly and then fix any problems in the comfort of photoshop at a later date. The other thing that put me off is that they are bloody heavy and fairly delicate which is no good if you like to hike to difficult locations and take landscapes. I've gone back to a 1979 Nikon FE, 50mm, 75-150mm and few sundries. Weighs very little, has been trodden on, dropped, and submerged but has never failed to take great pictures.
Yeah, yeah - I know I'm odd!
...and you need to get proper pro DSLRs if you don't want them to break! I moved from pro Nikons to pro DSLRs and they are a lot heavier, but never found them less robust. Unfortunately they cost twice as much and are obsolite after 3 years. But hey - there is NO WAY ON EARTH I'm getting back to film - I just can't afford that sort of money! I've saved a bundle changing to digital, and more importantly my photography has come on leaps and bounds, as I can experiment as much as I want - at no cost.
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 7th January 20:52
GetCarter said:
I'm also old...
I said 'odd', not old! GetCarter said:
...and you need to get proper pro DSLRs if you don't want them to break! I moved from pro Nikons to pro DSLRs and they are a lot heavier, but never found them less robust. Unfortunately they cost twice as much and are obsolite after 3 years. But hey - there is NO WAY ON EARTH I'm getting back to film - I just can't afford that sort of money! I've saved a bundle changing to digital, and more importantly my photography has come on leaps and bounds, as I can experiment as much as I want - at no cost.
Are you sure you're saving money in the long term with hugely expensive cameras that are obselete by the time they need an MOT? 
The other thing that keeps me with my old FE is the obvious superiority of Nikons manual lenses, compared to modern AF ones. Still, I'm not here to start a film versus digital argument - everyone to their own personal favourite. 
biglepton said:
GetCarter said:
I'm also old...
I said 'odd', not old! GetCarter said:
...and you need to get proper pro DSLRs if you don't want them to break! I moved from pro Nikons to pro DSLRs and they are a lot heavier, but never found them less robust. Unfortunately they cost twice as much and are obsolite after 3 years. But hey - there is NO WAY ON EARTH I'm getting back to film - I just can't afford that sort of money! I've saved a bundle changing to digital, and more importantly my photography has come on leaps and bounds, as I can experiment as much as I want - at no cost.
Are you sure you're saving money in the long term with hugely expensive cameras that are obselete by the time they need an MOT? The other thing that keeps me with my old FE is the obvious superiority of Nikons manual lenses, compared to modern AF ones. Still, I'm not here to start a film versus digital argument - everyone to their own personal favourite. As for saving money, well I guess I'm spening about £75 per month in depreciation, but that has to be balanced against the cost of developing over 50,000 photos that I've taken with this body. Of course, If I'd still been using a film camera I would have taken far, far fewer shots... but therein lies my reason for loving the digital medium - when I take photos of the local fete, I take well over 1000 shots and could if I wanted, take twice that - with a film camera I would probably take less than 100.
That does enable me to take several dozen, just to get that one shot...
It's also probably why I'm known as 'Carpet Bomb Carter'... but as you say - everyone to their own personal favourite.
ETA... sorry for the thread hi-jack... my landscapes here: http://www.stevecarter.com/2005/2005-0.htm
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 8th January 10:25
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff