|
| T O P I C | |
|
The Photography Thread
July 26th 2007, 19:59 CEST by Jamie So there's three purposes for this thread. First, a few crappers are talking about getting fancy new cameras or fancy new toys for fancy existing cameras. You may have questions or want to discuss options. It's only natural. Run with it. Let it out. Second, You can talk about photographic techniques, technical or artsy. How to get this effect or that effect. Third, everybody who's not interested in either of the above can share links to their Flickr (or whatever) photostream, their public photoalbums on blogs/websites, self portaits (hrmm...), or whatever other random photographic detritus you have lying around. Click! |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: The Photography Thread
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
omg, did I offend you? You can upload whatever the fuck you want, I was just pointing out that perhaps people's kids are more interesting to them than they are to random people. Shocking, I know. |
|
Thanks, gabe! |
|
I don't mind the pictures of kids (though I don't necessarily disagree with Gabe's point), but one thing to consider is that this group/thread/whatever might give people the impetus they need to break out of their usual subjects, be it kids, pets, flowers, sunsets, whatever. jj and I take a assloads of pics of our kids because they're what's handy (and I use them in a weekly parenting entry on my blog) but we've also both made the effort to seek out additional subjects and types of shots as well. Or, you know, if you're not interested in that kind of exercise, fine. Post tons of pictures of your kids, your vacation, your garden, your pets, your video game collection, whatever. I think it adds some nice context to the PlanetCrap community whatever it is. |
|
I haven't posted any pictures of my cats yet, but I will. You can count on that. |
|
I'm sorry for injecting negative energy. I think this flickr group is a neat and fun idea. I had just noticed a trend towards kid shots and had an opinion. |
|
I don't know if you're being penitent or sarcastic. <Hugin_len> Basically, cheesy doesn't have awful taste in music, he's simply very white.
|
|
Neither. |
|
The penitent man is humble before... gabe? |
|
yeah! of all the variety in the world, he chooses to put up a picture of himself on thanksgabe. The nerve of him! Joker, Ph.D. Procedural Assholian Behaviour, Pedophilosopher
- All your ass are belong to my wang Jafd. Prepare to are penetration. "I fart in THX." - Sgt_Hulka PAY ATTENTION, YA DUMB FUKKAN CACKSUKKAN IGNORANT MORANS. |
|
#89 by Shadarr Assemblerer, what's EXIF data? Those shots are all scanned. Yeah, like Jamie said, it's an JPEG extension used by all digiatal cameras. It was just a lazy/stupid way to ask "what exposure time / aperture size did you take that with, and if it was taken by digital, what mode did you use?". I was curious especially because of color of those clouds. I was disappointed when I found out that all my 35mm photos were manually calibrated (RGB, CMY and HSL) or even photoshopped sometimes in photolab. Those bastards. Also, Kodak Gold film seemed to produce best colors from the brands I've tried (Fuji, Polaroid). Expect for the B&W Ilford. #86 by CheesyPoof So, for uploading pictures to flickr, what resolution should I use? It's a free account, I don't resize shit. I figure flickr will re-size it to the max allowed anyway. I supposed you could resize to cut down on the upload time, but, meh. Those bastards resized my 7MPix photos to 1024x768! But I still suspect they store it in original size. Pro account has probably fewer limitations. Free account is limited to 100MB upload per month, but you've figured it out already. Panoramio, on the other hand, offers 2GB storage and has much better "place it on map" features that Flickr and its lame Y! maps. Taking pictures of strangers on the street is weird, but I've been doing it since 16. Most people didn't notice it, even when I used rather loud SLR cameras like the one I posted on flickr. It's a drug, but I've stopped publishing those photos unless they're really interesting. |
|
The penitent man is humble before... gabe? Oooh, sorry, wrong call on that one. When you try to pass the blades, you have to give a thumbs up while eating a sandwich. Maybe they can reattach those arms... Lady, people aren't chocolates. But you know what they are, mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
Blog. 203 lbs. 23 to go. |
|
Yeah, like Jamie said, it's an JPEG extension used by all digiatal cameras. It was just a lazy/stupid way to ask "what exposure time / aperture size did you take that with, and if it was taken by digital, what mode did you use?". I was curious especially because of color of those clouds. I was disappointed when I found out that all my 35mm photos were manually calibrated (RGB, CMY and HSL) or even photoshopped sometimes in photolab. Those bastards. Also, Kodak Gold film seemed to produce best colors from the brands I've tried (Fuji, Polaroid). Expect for the B&W Ilford. Yeah, one of the things I'm looking forward to with digital is that nobody is going to try to "correct" my pictures. Pretty much all of the night photos I've ever taken ended up blown out in printing, making the black almost brown. I added what I remember about the pic to the comments. And I've always shot Kodak. Supposedly some people like Fuji better because it makes skintones warmer, but I like the Kodak look better. |
|
I'd be interested in hearing about what you think of the transition from film to digital. I find I can spend quite a bit of time doing post processing in Photoshop. |
|
Shadarr Yeah, one of the things I'm looking forward to with digital is that nobody is going to try to "correct" my pictures. Pretty much all of the night photos I've ever taken ended up blown out in printing, making the black almost brown. God yes. The number of times I purposefully took pictures in limited light and ended up with the shitflaps at the local chemist brightening them up to make the whole thing a horrible grainy wash of grey. - words and stuff -
|
|
I've dreamt about 35mm scanner and ended up with digital camera many years later. A cheaper solution, new photos are unadulterated by strangers, but I'd still love to scan my old photos. I think some of them were really good. I've got stomachache when I remember what a pain it was to scan photos individually with old flatbed scanner which loved inclining to red, which had to be then painfully edited. Yeah, like I said, 35mm film scanner or shot in the face. |
|
Speaking of EXIF data, it seems that at some point in my workflow it's getting stripped out of my files. None of them has it by the time I publish to the web. My workflow roughly looks like this: 1. Shoot in RAW 2. Import into Adobe Bridge 3. Open from Bridge to Adobe Camera RAW and work with it 4. Open from ACR to Photoshop and work with it further 5. Do "save for web/devices" and save as a .jpg 6. Upload to web My first suspicion was that step #5 is the culprit, but I can't seem to find any settings that would nuke the EXIF file. Any thoughts? |
|
Adobe Photoshop is known to me as übersoftware with ünterconfiguration when it comes to saving. It just misses some important options. |
|
#99 by LPMiller Jamie, that's a poor way to analyze it. If I were to just upload my 300 pictures from the latest vacation would that make it not kid oriented? LP's pics are mainly kids, you like to post pics of your kids, JJ likes to post pics of his kids. See what I'm saying? Don't look. Or upload something cool. I take pictures of my kids. I suppose I could take pictures of my toes or sit out there for hours waiting for the perfect light in hopes of capturing the essence of a rabbit nibbling on a blade of grass. I mean jeez, I uploaded 5 pictures I thought didn't suck, I didn't think I had to be worried about the subject matter. You don't. |
|
WTFF? I don't mean to be cruel, but that kind of freaks me out a little. |
|
I think we all know that most babies just don't look right until they get at least a few days old. Lady, people aren't chocolates. But you know what they are, mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
Blog. 203 lbs. 23 to go. |
|
And what's with the comment saying they're jealous of the baby werewolf. |
|
#120 by Jibble I think we all know that most babies just don't look right until they get at least a few days old. This is true, and both my kids (girls, even) had a fine fuzz across their brows and cheeks that fell out after a few days. But man, nothing like that. But that kid is probably going to have some super awesome hair for the rest of his life. Probably be able to grow a beard just by thinking about it for a few seconds. |
|
Jamie I can think of two reasons for the EXIF data to be going away. First it may not be getting nuked only changeing, adobe products tend to convert metadata to it's native XMP when the format of the file is changed. This shouldn't be a major deal since any decent photosite should be supporting XMP now or at least should shortly. Second the "save for web/devices" might be nukeing the metadata to conserve file size. This dialog is after all intended to help create the smallest file possible so storeing 'unnessecary' data would be a waste. Try using the normal 'save as' instead. |
|
Thanks, I'll give that a shot tonight. This, by the way, is a neat little FireFox extension that lets you view EXIF data for an image by right-clicking it. |
|
That sounds neat, but I get "install script not found". |
|
Yeah, sorry, it doesn't seem to work. IGNORE ME! I did find This greasemonkey script that shows some EXIF data on mouseover when browsing Flickr. I'm not sure if I find it more annoying or useful yet, but it works for me. |
|
Works like it should for me. Fx portable 2.0.0.5. Oh, and I can't help it, but here I am on Panoramio. |
|
Jamie I've seen worse. That's actually a very cute little baby.* *No, all babies aren't cute. Yes, some babies are even butt ugly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in
"I'm not sure it's possible to make a "subtle" jab at Matt's writing ability." - Ergo |
|
Do you have to be registered or something to see all the pictures? I can see some but not all, and if I click on a few people's names it shows a page saying "There aren't any photos taken by suchandsuch visible to you in the PlanetCrap pool". I suspect I could get round it by registering and joining the group, but that's not gonna happen. I'd also like to thank Gabe for taking a stand against the photos of sprogs. Unless your kid happens to be skydiving or bare-knuckle boxing or something interesting then I don't care and I'll be forced to leave scathing comments on your flickr page accusing you of poor composition or depth of field or one of the other made-up photographer terms. MP3 Of The Week: should I just put this thing out of its misery?
|
|
Oh FFS, can we stop whining about pictures of kids in the PC group? I like them, and all this attacking of people's choice of uploads is instantly sucking the fun out of the enterprise for me. |
|
Nice, assembler. Also, I will henceforth respond to all complaints about pictures of kids by adding more of them to the group pool. You've been warned. |
|
Hugin's just a whiny bitch. That's another lesson to teach your kids: the correct response to a complaint is not to annoy the complainer more. That's a lesson I never learned. "Games are not novels, and the ways in which they harbor novelistic aspirations are invariably the least interesting thing about them." - Steven Johnson
|
|
I have a pay account. It has unlimited storage. Most my drawings are posted huuuuge. |
|
Hey morans, check out this UFO testimony: Part 1, Part 2 National Press Club Briefing The end of the age of ignorance. Joker, Ph.D. Procedural Assholian Behaviour, Pedophilosopher
- All your ass are belong to my wang Jafd. Prepare to are penetration. "I fart in THX." - Sgt_Hulka PAY ATTENTION, YA DUMB FUKKAN CACKSUKKAN IGNORANT MORANS. |
|
Hugin, I agree. I didn't whine, though. I only do that when bishop beats me in Scrabble. P.S. You people with kids have cute kids (not sarcastic, they really are all adorable). |
|
Don't try to be nice to people Gabe, it doesn't suit you. |
|
#104 by Shadarr I haven't posted any pictures of my cats yet, but I will. You can count on that. Me too. I am soon moving in with someone who has a cat, and I plan to get at least a few nice shots out of it. It has what I would call "bung eyes", so hopefully I can capture that magic. |
|
jjohnson: I've fully embraced your photo a day idea and it's quite exciting. Thanks for the tip. |
|
#113 by Jamie I'd be interested in hearing about what you think of the transition from film to digital. I find I can spend quite a bit of time doing post processing in Photoshop. Generally, what kinds of processing do you do? Post processing is something I have yet to really explore. Every now and again I'll load up a raw into photoshop but I get lost easily. |
|
OwenButler: For my part, I tend to adjust the tones so that they're more evenly spread. So, if you look at the histogram and there's a large spike at either end (in the dark tones or in the light tones) I try to smooth it out a little. A spike at each end of the histogram means that the photo is either under-exposed (spike at dark end) or over-exposed (spike at the light end). You're talking about adjusting the highlights, midtones and darks or - in Lightroom and probably ACR - exposure, fill light and blacks. This isn't always the case though - you could have taken a photo of a tunnel from the outside looking in, for example. Or maybe you've taken an outdoor shot of a group of people. In the former, the darkness of the tunnel will mean that there'll be more darks in your photo. In the latter, the people will be correctly exposed but the sky will tend to be blown out. In either case, trying to smooth out the tones will probably result in a photo that looks washed out and lacking in contrast and definition. Of course, you can tinker with the saturation and contrast to fix that if you're so inclined. To a large extent it depends on the photo - some pictures will only need minor adjustments and in a lot of cases it comes down to taste. Some pictures might be beyond saving and some pictures might look shit at first glance but with a bit of tinkering can be made to look pretty good. Post-processing can even be as simple as desaturating the image so that it's black and white - converting to black and white can give an image a completely different mood and even the shittest photo can look okayish in B&W. Or you can reduce the saturation so that there's only a hint of colour. One thing that's worth pointing out - if you plan on doing any post-processing then you're better off shooting in RAW. RAW files contain a dump of the raw data captured by the CCD (as well as EXIF data and - depending on the file format, which tends to be proprietary - a JPEG preview); there's no loss in quality due to JPEG compression, no artifacting beyond what's put there by the lens and so on. The files tend to be huge in comparison to JPEGs (they're not compressed *at all*) so you won't get as many per memory card but it can be worth it in the long run. Firstly, as you probably know, every time you re-save a JPEG, the quality diminishes because it's a lossy format (JPEG essentially works by selectively reducing an image's fidelity). Secondly, there's nothing worse than taking a rake of outdoor photographs and then discovering that you've set the white-balance on the camera to tungsten, resulting in a bluish tint on all of your photos. This white balance adjustment is made by the cameras built-in post-processor before the image is saved; with JPEGs the image is saved to memory with the colour temperature change permanent. With RAW the change is saved as part of the metadata so the actual image data is unaffected, even if the camera's preview screen has shown the image with the white balance adjusted. |
|
Oh, I should add that you don't *have* to shoot in RAW if you plan on post-processing. Even in the case of the white-balance being incorrect, JPEGs aren't beyond saving; you can fix white-balance problems by adjusting the image's colour temperature, for example. And, of course, you can tinker with the saturation, convert to grayscale, adjust contrast, hue and so on. But each time you save the file you'll be reducing it's quality and introducing more artifacting (unless you save it in a lossless format first and then work on that copy). |
|
deadlock, that was so long that I'm going to gain 2 levels in WoW before I read that. Jamie - just to put that weird photo in context, I was just playing with camera, trying digital zoom and lower resolution pictures, continuous shooting etc. So here is buncha more weird photos. (Upload in progress.) others - stop arguing about pictures of kids. It's so boring that it's not worth even talking about. Some people like shooting their kids, some people don't like pictures of kids or kids at all. Just ask Yot. |
|
#136 by m0nty Don't try to be nice to people Gabe, it doesn't suit you. I thought you'se hating the talk about photography. |
|
#139 by OwenButler Generally, what kinds of processing do you do? It varies, but at a minimum I do the following in Adobe Camera RAW on every photo: 1 - Adjust white balance. In fact, I usually just leave my WB on "daylight" while shooting and never bother to change it. It's easier to fix it in post processing if you shoot in RAW. 2 - Adjust exposure, fill light, blacks level, etc. to get the effect deadlock describes above. I judge based on the histogram as much as I do the image. 3 - Adjust saturation, usually just a little. 4 - Adjust contrast using the Curves tool, usually just a little. Then it's not uncommon to do more fine-tuned post processing in Photoshop. Things I commonly do are: 5 - Use the Clone Stamp or the Healing Brush to get rid of unwanted clutter or flaws in the picture. This can range from removing dust specs or skin blemishes to cloning out entire objects. See this thread I started on the DPS forums for an extreme example. 6 - Using layer masks to alter specific parts of an image. This could include, for example, brightening someone's face or boosting the saturation in their eyes while leaving the rest of the image alone. In this picture for example, I used several layer masks to do stuff like boost the color saturation in the umbrella and raincoat, darken the background, and lighten her face. 7 - Change to black & white or desaturated or sepia or something. 8 - Sharpen the whole image using an unsharp mask. |
|
And speaking of post processing, the Digital Photography School forums do a weekly "what would you do?" thread where someone posts a picture and everyone is invited to take a stab at post processing on it. There's a lot of people who just slap on tacky borders or go crazy with the Photoshop filters, but there are others who do some pretty amazing things. Here's one of the threads where they work on the umbrella/raincoat pic I mentioned above. |
|
Also, what deslock said. Hat trick! |
|
I always wondered how the unsharp mask works in comparison to a sharpen filter, but I have a feeling I wouldn't understand the answer. - words and stuff -
|
|
I don't post process too much, mostly because I have little understanding of what I'm doing. "Testiculos habet et bene pendentes" — "He has testicles, and they dangle nicely."
|
|
I really don't understand what I was doing, but I used the curves tool to adjust the RGB channels separately in this picture and it really made the photo look clearer and sharper. Unfortunately I don't think I kept a copy of the original scan for comparison. Clone stamp is my favourite tool for fixing scanning flaws or just taking out something I don't want. I don't know how to use the healing brush or even what a layer mask is. I also have a bad habit of just brute-forcing things with the pencil and eyedropper even though I'm sure there are faster and more elegant solutions. |
|
Damnit, jamie. After deadlock's (lolhuge) post I was feeling somewhere along the lines of "that seems to be a lot of effort for the pictures I take that generally look okay." And then you hit me with that thread, where the differences are really astounding. Oh well, it gives me something new to play with for the rest of the summer. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: The Photography Thread
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 308 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2004 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|