 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I still consider there to be a difference between, for example, a white
> balance filter and, for example, compositing an image from several source
> images. There's a drastic difference between those two. The latter has
> something the camera didn't "see" (at least not at one single shot), so
> it has a sense of "faking" to it.
Do you consider dark frame subtraction a fake, then? It's compositing
two images (in the camera) to eliminate noise.
What about sharpening? That's applying an algorithm to your picture to
make it look fairly different from what the sensor saw. Same goes for
contrast and saturation. White balance is relatively minor compared to
those.
Finally, maybe your concern for fake comes from looking at HDR photos?
Many of those really do look fake. Compositing two images to get better
dynamic range (different from what people usually refer to when they
talk of HDR), however, is an old, old trick that results in an image
that looks closer to what the eye sees than any camera can ever hope to
achieve with a single frame. Which is faker? Furthermore, people with
more money to burn achieved this with a single frame using a grad
neutral density filter. Done well enough, both photos will look the same
- why would one be cheating and not the other? (And BTW, compositing the
two usually produces more realistic photos than a grad neutral density
filter normally would).
Finally, I abandoned worrying about fakeness long ago. Trying to make
photos look realistic will often involve faking, by your criterion. The
point of my taking an artistic photo is not to show the world how my
camera takes photos, but to use it as a tool for displaying art.
That, and realizing that most of the photos made by professionals that
I had appreciated (even in the film days) had been edited - using
software or in the dark room. It's somewhat unrealistic to get that kind
of quality without editing photos.
Perhaps there is something to be said about setting your camera to
minimum contrast, minimum sharpness, no dark frame subtraction, and try
to get the best photo possible under those circumstances. For me,
though, that's a totally different art, and is more of an academic
exercise.
--
It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:45:41 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>
>>Does it look
>>fake/better/worse?
>
>
> Well, the part that I'm looking at is the huge white bloom from the main
> windows on the street corner. The problem is that the details are lost
> because of the exposure, and that data isn't recoverable from the
> original image AFAIK (ie, the CCD just registered white). The issue is a
> faster exposure will make the rest of the image too dark to pick out the
> details.
>
And there was a lot of interesting detail in that window, multiple
parallel nean lights in different colors I think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
A few grabs from last night
http://map-lecturer.deviantart.com/gallery/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:03:23 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:45:41 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Does it look
>>>fake/better/worse?
>>
>>
>> Well, the part that I'm looking at is the huge white bloom from the
>> main windows on the street corner. The problem is that the details are
>> lost because of the exposure, and that data isn't recoverable from the
>> original image AFAIK (ie, the CCD just registered white). The issue is
>> a faster exposure will make the rest of the image too dark to pick out
>> the details.
>>
> And there was a lot of interesting detail in that window, multiple
> parallel nean lights in different colors I think.
Yeah, I was thinking that might be the case - would be great to be able
to get that detail into the photo.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 17 May 2008 21:26:04 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:03:23 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:45:41 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does it look
>>>> fake/better/worse?
>>>
>>> Well, the part that I'm looking at is the huge white bloom from the
>>> main windows on the street corner. The problem is that the details are
>>> lost because of the exposure, and that data isn't recoverable from the
>>> original image AFAIK (ie, the CCD just registered white). The issue is
>>> a faster exposure will make the rest of the image too dark to pick out
>>> the details.
>>>
>> And there was a lot of interesting detail in that window, multiple
>> parallel nean lights in different colors I think.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking that might be the case - would be great to be able
> to get that detail into the photo.
To get that level of detail I don't think you have any option other then
bracketing and compositing, but that would screw up the shots of the
people (unless they all stood still for you). I don't think even a shorter
shutter speed with a higher ISO would capture the detail around the
windows, but it may be worth a try.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 16 May 2008 19:23:17 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> You can try and fake it to an extent from the one image.
>
> lol, so we're up to a double fake now?
Heh well of course that's what HDR is supposed to be for, match what you
see with what you take. I think I posted these links before, but anyway -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65496354@N00/1113600679
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65496354@N00/1276433203
The first is the unadulterated image, the second is one I adjusted and IMO
matches what I actually saw colour-wise. So is the second one a fake, if
it matches what the eye saw?
>> Does it look fake/better/worse?
>>
>
> That looks noticeably better, at least in terms of diminishingoverall
> bloom and getting getter saturation.
The only part that was changed was the lit building to drop it to the same
level as the surroundings. In theory I could have reversed the mask and
raised the levels to match the lit building, but I didn't even attempt
that I think it would have looked wrong.
> More skills for me to learn.
I think the trickiest bit to learn is how masks work, get that and the
rest is cake.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>
>>Hmmm, I suppose, but I also thought that the lines of people ready to
>>muse upon truth and artifice in photography were wide and deep. Analogue
>>cameras were bad enough, but now that the capture is digital and
>>probably filtered digitally from the start, at least that is what I
>>assume my camera's different shooting 'modes' are,...it seems that
>>'faked' is an increasingly relative term.
>
>
> I still consider there to be a difference between, for example, a white
> balance filter and, for example, compositing an image from several source
> images. There's a drastic difference between those two. The latter has
> something the camera didn't "see" (at least not at one single shot), so
> it has a sense of "faking" to it.
>
> A very wide panoramic image which has been composed of several images
> taken in quick succession is a rather border case. Personally I consider
> it "faked, but it doesn't bother me too much".
>
Yes, I take your point, along with your own admission that the
distinction gets difficult in some cases.
There is no real right or wrong in any of this, I think we all construct
meaning in slightly irrational ways. Perhaps a parallel situation for
me would come from the years I spent painting. My interest there was
entirely with mimesis. Synthesized images were of no interest. Nor was
mimesis from a photograph. For me it was all about the embodied
experience of reproducing the subject from 'life'. While I have no
problem with other people working from photographs, either in some
conceptual mode, or even as a seemless extension of first hand
observation, in some realist's need to enhance observation, doing that
myself is boring. I have done it, and the results are fine, but I tend
to forget the paintings afterward and never really consider them as
something accomplished. Yet, I also spent hours studying, say, human
anatomy, so that my observational powers would be enhanced by
understanding of a subject.
Here is a hobbiest photographer whose work I enjoy:
http://www.ranum.com/gallery/
What I like is how he is totally relaxed with a studio look, controlled
and artificial, using a 'sweep' as a background to show off his subject,
then plays with the lighting. He talks about his works almost
exclusively in terms of the lighting and posing of the model. This is
exactly how I used to paint. But he also talks about his
'post-processing' in photoshop in an equally relaxed way and in a way
that suggests that it is seemless in his mind with the actual camera-work.
There are some interesting examples of this here:
http://www.ranum.com/fun/lens_work/articles.html
Again, none of this is to suggest that any approach or opinion is right
or wrong. It is more about how people construct meaning, sense truth,
focus their emotions. What they pay attention to and what they need to
eliminate when enjoying 'art'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 17 May 2008 18:00:08 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
did spake, saying:
> Jim Charter wrote:
> A few grabs from last night
> http://map-lecturer.deviantart.com/gallery/
Dusk was the one that attracted me to click on it first. Um taken when -
Jan 10, 2007; you been hiding these from us? ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Sat, 17 May 2008 18:00:08 +0100, Jim Charter
> <jrc### [at] msncom> did spake, saying:
>
>> Jim Charter wrote:
>> A few grabs from last night
>> http://map-lecturer.deviantart.com/gallery/
>
>
> Dusk was the one that attracted me to click on it first. Um taken when
> - Jan 10, 2007; you been hiding these from us? ;-)
>
Hee hee, took me awhile to even see to what you refer; guess I should
set the date on that camera.
Actually, during the same time frame that I got the camera I also bought
a wireless router and seem to have set up a more or less usable network
at home here. I am so full of myself over this modest little
accomplishment that the camera has taken a back seat. I did snap a few
shots during the commute home tonight though, the light was just
gorgeous, and I snapped a few shots of the maps I drew for today's
lectures. The camera goes with me everywhere now, just in a timewarp.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 23 May 2008 01:04:39 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Sat, 17 May 2008 18:00:08 +0100, Jim Charter
>> <jrc### [at] msncom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Jim Charter wrote:
>>> A few grabs from last night
>>> http://map-lecturer.deviantart.com/gallery/
>> Dusk was the one that attracted me to click on it first. Um taken
>> when - Jan 10, 2007; you been hiding these from us? ;-)
>>
> Hee hee, took me awhile to even see to what you refer; guess I should
> set the date on that camera.
EXIF data - a boon to snoops everywhere.
> I did snap a few shots during the commute home tonight though, the light
> was just gorgeous,
Dawn and twilight are great, trouble is for the first I'd have to wake up
:-) and the second I'm either stuck in traffic with nothing to see or it's
cloudy :-(
> and I snapped a few shots of the maps I drew for today's lectures. The
> camera goes with me everywhere now, just in a timewarp.
Now wouldn't that be tres cool if true?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
