Based on an interview I saw but cannot find he found digital photography fascinating anf if you have read his camera negatine and print books I believe he would use photoshop
Any other photographers?
- Thread starter Reddo
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
He would have seen it as the culmination of his theory and practice made possible for the masses.
dead on, i think.
adams painted with light.
when you read his books you realize the magic came after the shot.
a lesson most photographers should take to heart.
especially with high res cameras (the enormous number of pixels available) you can take an everyman's "kodak moment" and edit it into art.
all the tools adams used and more are available to you in even the most rudimentary editing software.
the one thing that either you have inside you or must learn is compostion.
whether it's the simple application of thirds or something more sophisticated.
a picture is just a snapshot without some tension.
within reason the camera you use doesn't make the shot work, it's the eye (and mind) behind it.
one of the least-inspired shooters i ever met won an amateur contest with one of his landscapes (the picture actually was excellent).
he was proud but he said he'd taken thousands of pictures and this was the only one anybody liked.
i said, so...this one makes all the rest worth the work.
the truth is he was always enjoying himself.
what's wrong with that?
Photography is another hobby of mine. I have a Samsung GX10, and l love to take photos, but since becoming a Dad, time has been scarce. I'm by no means a good photographer, some like some of my photos, others (including me most of the time) don't like my stuff.
Those interested, my "best of" flickr set can be found here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/16741019@N07/sets/72157622849208465/
Feel free to browse around the rest of my flickr, but bear in mind I use it for a dump of images as well, so there are a lot of just "snaps".
Great thread, I'm enjoying looking at peoples photos, and it is stiring up the passion again.
Those interested, my "best of" flickr set can be found here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/16741019@N07/sets/72157622849208465/
Feel free to browse around the rest of my flickr, but bear in mind I use it for a dump of images as well, so there are a lot of just "snaps".
Great thread, I'm enjoying looking at peoples photos, and it is stiring up the passion again.
Very true.
I heard it said that you can make a silk purse out of a sows ear in Photoshop but that's just not true.
It can certainly make a good picture better but you still need to have the bones of a good shot in the first place.
One of my old tutors used to say "f8 and be there..."
This was in the days when film was still King but it was recognised even then that the important thing was to see and capture the picture in the first place and that is the skill that no amount of technology can ever replace.
Exactly. Photoshop is a tool, not a magic maker! Not only that, using it is a skill in its own right!
The way I see it, it's kinda like polish on a sports car. A sorts car will look good, but clean it up and polish it, and it's looks far better. Apply the same to a rusting wreck, it might look better, but will still be a wreck.
The way I see it, it's kinda like polish on a sports car. A sorts car will look good, but clean it up and polish it, and it's looks far better. Apply the same to a rusting wreck, it might look better, but will still be a wreck.
wayland you really are an amazing photographer and well sir i just hope that one day i can be as good as you are sir.
the problem i have besides using the camera and its techniques and photoshop and its techniques is i never no what to use as a subject matter because i dont feel like i have a creative mind to see if i set certain things up or took a picture in a pitcular way it look good and so even though i like taking photos my subject matter choice is for me a bi of a let down
drew
the problem i have besides using the camera and its techniques and photoshop and its techniques is i never no what to use as a subject matter because i dont feel like i have a creative mind to see if i set certain things up or took a picture in a pitcular way it look good and so even though i like taking photos my subject matter choice is for me a bi of a let down
drew
I'm a hobbyist. I took an evening course in photography and image editing a while back and that piqued my interest. I don't kid myself that I have an especial gift for it, but I do enjoy it.
One of these days I'll need to get myself a better camera. I bought the best one I could afford (a Fuji S8000fd), but being a "bridge camera" it is neither one thing nor another. It is too big for a compact, and not high performance enough for an SLR. In retrospect I wish I had bought something like a Canon Powershot G12. A good camera, but still compact enough to take bush-crafting, hiking and cycling with me.
One of these days I'll need to get myself a better camera. I bought the best one I could afford (a Fuji S8000fd), but being a "bridge camera" it is neither one thing nor another. It is too big for a compact, and not high performance enough for an SLR. In retrospect I wish I had bought something like a Canon Powershot G12. A good camera, but still compact enough to take bush-crafting, hiking and cycling with me.
I'm a hobbyist. I took an evening course in photography and image editing a while back and that piqued my interest. I don't kid myself that I have an especial gift for it, but I do enjoy it.
One of these days I'll need to get myself a better camera. I bought the best one I could afford (a Fuji S8000fd), but being a "bridge camera" it is neither one thing nor another. It is too big for a compact, and not high performance enough for an SLR. In retrospect I wish I had bought something like a Canon Powershot G12. A good camera, but still compact enough to take bush-crafting, hiking and cycling with me.
if you used your fuji for this shot, what makes you think you need a "better" camera?
as an old-timer told me.."ya done good bud."
the image stands well on its own and you could crop it for its constituent parts if you wanted to.
you have two or three good pictures inside your one good shot.
that's what editing software will give you, flexibility after the shot.
one of the downsides to auto-everything cameras is the inclination to center and shoot.
i personally think that if people are going to do that, fine. get the shot. especially candids or action shots.
then load them up when you get home and make them into what you imagined when you took the picture.
The dynamic range on the Fuji isn't great for one thing. Normally on a photo like that one, the sky would be washed out, or the glen massively underexposed. The above image is actually several shots I stitched into a poor man's HDR image using layer masks (well "faked" layer masks in Photoshop Elements, but that's another story). You can see the joins around the tree branches if you look closely. Getting the snow cap distinct from the sky was quite challenging in post hoc editing.
The Fuji also doesn't shoot in RAW which is frustrating, only JPEG.
And it is a muckle huge thing, but without enough features to justify the bulk. For example the maximum exposure time only goes up to 4 seconds. The Canon I had my eye on goes up to 15 seconds. I fancied trying my hand at "light art".
But for now it is certainly not a bad camera by any stretch. A better camera would however allow me to make my pictures more like what I see with my eyes without needing so much editing after the fact. The above image is pretty accurate to how Glen Clova looked that day, but that is not what the unedited photos my camera produced looked like. They needed some work to make them an accurate record of the Glen that day.
Although I definitely turned the saturation up a tad high
The Fuji also doesn't shoot in RAW which is frustrating, only JPEG.
And it is a muckle huge thing, but without enough features to justify the bulk. For example the maximum exposure time only goes up to 4 seconds. The Canon I had my eye on goes up to 15 seconds. I fancied trying my hand at "light art".
But for now it is certainly not a bad camera by any stretch. A better camera would however allow me to make my pictures more like what I see with my eyes without needing so much editing after the fact. The above image is pretty accurate to how Glen Clova looked that day, but that is not what the unedited photos my camera produced looked like. They needed some work to make them an accurate record of the Glen that day.
Although I definitely turned the saturation up a tad high
Last edited:
The dynamic range on the Fuji isn't great for one thing. Normally on a photo like that one, the sky would be washed out, or the glen massively underexposed. The above image is actually several shots I stitched into a poor man's HDR image using layer masks (well "faked" layer masks in Photoshop Elements, but that's another story). You can see the joins around the tree branches if you look closely. Getting the snow cap distinct from the sky was quite challenging in post hoc editing.
The Fuji also doesn't shoot in RAW which is frustrating, only JPEG.
And it is a muckle huge thing, but without enough features to justify the bulk. For example the maximum exposure time only goes up to 4 seconds. The Canon I had my eye on goes up to 15 seconds. I fancied trying my hand at "light art".
But for now it is certainly not a bad camera by any stretch. A better camera would however allow me to make my pictures more like what I see with my eyes without needing so much editing after the fact. The above image is pretty accurate to how Glen Clova looked that day, but that is not what the unedited photos my camera produced looked like. They needed some work to make them an accurate record of the Glen that day.
Although I definitely turned the saturation up a tad high
all good reasons, obviously.
i thought that you had used somr hdri magic...the lovely steel blue of your stream seldom occurs in nature.
nice shot anyway.
Some awesome shots here. 
I buck the bush craft trend and I'm actually a semi-pro motor sports (mainly motocross) photographer.
Photoshop features heavily in most of my shots. Just running a <generic> filter doesn't cut it but learning to use PS and really bring images to life is an art in itself in my opinion.
I Have been known to dabble in other genres though:
This set taken At Spean Bridge in the Highlands this year:
Looking to get into landscape a lot more.
I buck the bush craft trend and I'm actually a semi-pro motor sports (mainly motocross) photographer.
Photoshop features heavily in most of my shots. Just running a <generic> filter doesn't cut it but learning to use PS and really bring images to life is an art in itself in my opinion.
I Have been known to dabble in other genres though:
This set taken At Spean Bridge in the Highlands this year:
Looking to get into landscape a lot more.
It has to be said that if you can make a picture out of the proverbial "wet weekend in Wales" then you are a photographer. My latter day digital cameras do not like the wet. Mind you it can't be said that traditional ones do either. My Fuji fell out of my rucksack today onto a hard pavement with an awful thump. The case cracked open, but I managed to put it back together when I got home and nothing was lost. Wouldn't have been the case with 35mm.
I have recently started to learn the tricks.
Check me out on flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrmelproductions/
No outdoorsy stuff as yet!
Let me know what you think
Check me out on flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrmelproductions/
No outdoorsy stuff as yet!
Let me know what you think
I have two digital cameras in the repair shop at the moment, both well treated, both with unexpected electronic problems.
One is repairable (New shutter assembly, 90000 actuations short of expected shutter life) the other not (Main board gone, spares not available).
I never, ever had a film camera that needed fixing for no discernible reason and I have to say I'm not very happy.
One is repairable (New shutter assembly, 90000 actuations short of expected shutter life) the other not (Main board gone, spares not available).
I never, ever had a film camera that needed fixing for no discernible reason and I have to say I'm not very happy.
My Fuji Finepix had an unfortunate incident about a week ago, it fell out of my rucksack onto a hard pavement. The case cracked open. However when I got it home I managed to put it back together without any harm. The scary thing is that I had been crossing a brook moments before, and I am glad it did not fall out into the water. That being said I am really impressed with it's reliablily, there seems to be no harm done that I am aware of.
Is your 5D repairable? Canon make some great cameras but let themselves down with reliabilty at times. The number of shutter failures with the 40D being a case in point.
Regarding Photoshop, I started my working life as a darkroom assistant; I was doing things under the enlarger with filters, masks and varying exposue of the seperate RGB light sources that I now do more easily with editing software. Same results, different methods. However using Photoshop to correct a shot that wasn't really right at the time of taking is like a blacksmith using an arc welder.
Yep. I should have my 5D back soon. Lets hope this one lasts more than 8000 exposures.
I used to bend reality more in the dark room than I do in Photoshop these days.
It used to be part of the art as it were but now it's just too much of a cliché.
I used to bend reality more in the dark room than I do in Photoshop these days.
It used to be part of the art as it were but now it's just too much of a cliché.
Similar threads
