I'm just wondering, of all the pictures I took, (2K+), not all I would say I am proud of. (~30% OK perhaps) cos of too dark, underexposed, blurry, etc.

When I compared it with some of LYN's forumers galleries, I am embarassed. Then again, i just want to find out exactly how many of you also face the same issues as me and do manual touchup using photoshop/gimp etc.

Be truthful. I'm already at a low point in terms of my photography skills.

I hate these blurry shots. need IS on my next Canon Lens. (Kitlens now)

i don't do PP , is the ori photo tht i m showing . unless i wanto see a fresh looking for the photo, i will adjust abit of the color...but never upload...

canon kit lens?
maybe u should go for some "L" Lens

17-40L
28-70L
70-200L

;p would be better

Good got you lor.. I especially hate taking indoor pics. Chasing my nephew around was bad for the AF, not to mention have to use up to ISO1600 to get shutter speed OK and then the Background very dark.


I'm thinking of the 28-135 IS USM (not sure if this is L)
or the 70-300 IS

Need IS.

Tie them to a chair or get something to catch their attention....i tried to shoot dog indoor oso difficult until i get her something to bite, but shot still poor, wait......

---

Added on June 4, 2007, 10:53 amthird time i m seeing u poison ppl today....

This post has been edited by yewkhuay: Jun 4 2007, 10:53 AM

if "L" there is a red ring around the lens

L = Lansi Luxury

i do use some photoshop. have to admit im not pro. well, maybe pro in photoshop.
my dad is different, he is an experienced photographer, all his pic can b view/submitted jut like that. raw~!

If tied to chair, then no more spontaneity lah.. Not "cute"
yeah Man.. stop poison me lah.. Poison also no use, where find Moolah??

Looks like not "L" see link below. USD400 cheaper than KL (Canon KLCC selling Rm2600)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1496...F_28_135mm.html

If the "L" version price shoot up like Crazy man... USD1059 here
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3976..._4L_IS_USM.html

Beh Tahan man..

Canon 70-300 IS (Non L) USD549
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3976..._5_6_EF_IS.html


See, the poison working already.. Aargghhh.. die.. diee...

when u start searching about L, means u oready kena poison....one victim down....

shoot outdoor 1st lor
still objects

hehhee, can always check the Histogram first after your first shot, then you'll know if ur shutter speed , exposure and ISO is enough. After that.... PP is just a matter of maybe WB off a bit of some minor color and curve adjustment to up a bit.

lol TRUE TRUE

Yeah.. I use histogram... but sometimes, still don't know how to use.

eg: Too dark, I put the +ev a bit, but there got some places where is overexposed. eg: Shoot Jungle where some of the top part is sky, there will be Overexposed. Dunno what to do in those circumstance.

If put -ev, then other places too dark and that area still too bright.

How??

-0.7 EV F/7.1 24mm


-2.0 EV F/7.1 24mm


-1.7 EV F/5.6 24mm


BTW, how do you guys resize the pics for I-net ah and still have the EXIF data intact?

Here are the 30% which is OK to me





What do you guys think or is my standard very low?

This post has been edited by myjunk: Jun 4 2007, 12:47 PM

For this kind of situation, it is near to impossible to get all the area properly exposed unless u are doing HDR.

either ur sky overexpose/jungle proper exposed or sky proper expose/jungle underexposed. coz u are facing backlight

What is HDR??

Anyhoo, there are situations where this is the case right? It may not be the sky, maybe it's a bulb/florescent behind then how?? How do I compensate? Or do PP later. (again something else to learn about then...)

here SOmething u can learn about HDR

HDR


got to use tripod, i think this techic cannot use when taking human potrait.

simple, avoid this kinda situations ?

IMO PP is fine. just don't over do it.

in my latest gallery, probably only 1/4 received touch up and that also VERY VERY VERY minor contrast adjustment.

Where can learn these sort of techniques? I tried my 1st PP to brighten up a dark picture. Came out not very good, but brighter lah..

Rule #1 of PP - don't attempt to turn shit into gold. for me, i only touch up the shots that are already nice. those that are too dim, shaky, overexposed - nahh i don't bother to save it.



brightness and contrast are good enough for PPing IMO. normally i adjust constrast only that also very very very minimal adjustments.

if you look at my gallery (latest) the only shots i increased contrast were the scene with the hills, and some inanimate objects like the deco in the garden. the rest like flowers, lamps and such were as it is.

hehe

ps? why not?

http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/464150

though i strive not to depend on PS too much, but can't run away. Sometimes when the scene is composed of the element of perfecto timing. Rather than fumbling around the controls for even a split second, i'd rather shoot, then salvage it later.

At least i have a picture and not a expression... heh

No CP or ND? at least there's HDR or PS
Fast action with no flash? At least i've got a not-too-blurry pic with acceptable Noise using Noise Ninja or what ever equivalent.

sometimes i think its unavoidable... for me at least

Yup, agreed that PP is needed sometimes, but I'm trying not to rely on it too much.

Getting the shot is more important than getting the PERFECT shot, since you may never get a second chance to shoot the subject. If it didn't turn out perfect, then you can use PP to nudge it towards the PERFECT edge of the PERFECT-CRAPPY continuum.

yeah, especially composition issues, sometimes you just have to make do with what you have and compose it later. better than missing the shots.

I'd take it anyway, and then decide if I want to return when the lighting is better.
There is a chance you might never get to return to the scene (expensive foreign vacation, perhaps?) so might as well take an 'OK' photo rather than no photo at all!

For the first pic (the -0.7EV one), notice the sensor blooming phenomena around the coconut tree leaves.
The exposure is too much already until voltage leaks over from the filled-up CCD photosites to the less full ones representing the silhouette of the leaves. This is something extra to watch out for, even when two different pics of different exposures have nearly all of their histogram within limits.

There's an alternative to HDR but involves some medium-level of skill in Photoshop: shoot the sky separately and then merge as a background layer with the trees in the foreground.

anotehr way is to meter the sky and take a few flash guns out to light up the subject

the foreground is forest from the previous posts, how to use flash?

Well, Im not a DSLR user, but i dont usually touch up my pictures. Unless they are very pale, or underexposed.

Normally the adjustments i do are just adding in photofilters so that they look better.

honestly,i think it's nothing wrong to edit the photos, but then, if your photos are blurry, there's nothing can be done already, so you have to atleast make sure the pictures you took doens't come out blurry

You can't spend all day tweaking the pictures also, for me, i only do minor adjusting. For those really bad pictures, u just have to delete them.

Sometimes when i feel like messing around with PS, i do select a couple ones to play with them, that's about all

technically it is possible...you just need many of them placed at different position....practically....it's a picture not do-able.

I use photoshop to either adjust exposure, brightness and tweak about with the curves abit. Still in the process or learning how to work those HDR or Velvia styling to get the really cool look.

I went for a photography workshop once by a wedding photographer and if you check most photography workshop's itenary or plan, you would definitely see a part would be to focus on post shooting, which is the PP part.

i agree, wedding shots have a good deal of Post-processing on it... i.e, softness for that dreamy look. i think clients prefer that as well.

Also, I think the clients like the fact that their complexion suddenly became nicer as well... hehe

you guys might wanna consider getting other graphic designer/photographer PS actions to help save your time on editing pictures

just one click and within seconds finish

definitely not for me.

not every picture requires the same treatment.

I found some actions that are really helpful and can be use on most of my pictures, sometimes i do add some more treatment to them if i want them to look different from one another. however if you want completely different' styles for each pic then i agree with you

what wrong anyway if you need to touch up or edit your picture?
you just want to make it look nicer only what..why have to be embarrass cause u touch up your photos using PS or anything?

lao..got that swarmy river just beside the pool..lol
later can suddenly have buaya one in the pool..

WTH, buaya next to the pool. Friggin scary man.....

coz some ppl will feel 'superior' or ego that they didn't touch up their photos and yet can produce decent output and look down on those that spent their time in front of pc more than with their camera..

What we really need are CCD or CMOS sensors that have enough exposure latitude as film negatives, we wouldn't have so much trouble with these sort of high-contrast situations. So far none exists, and the Fuji SuperCCD system has the highest dynamic range of all sensor designs.

---

Added on June 7, 2007, 8:45 pmYou tell those fellas that "I'm also an artist! Not *just* a photographer!" and then watch them sneer at you.


This post has been edited by cjtune: Jun 7 2007, 08:45 PM

hello there,

quite interested to join in dis club of u guys .

but 1st , may i ask wat "PP" refers to ?
.

wahsei .........

goldfries , u macam saya ke , never sleep till now?

post processing ...... in digital , meaning tat editing thru software la , isnt it ?

i never heard dis term in digital b4 . anyway , tat doesnt matter , now i understand wat u guys talk about "pp"

good point

i've also noticed that ppl that are against post processing are mainly ppl that don't have any knowledge about PS, to me it's so *sour grapes*

and even worse, i dunno what is the intention when ppl post up their photos, some of them will mentioned "all the photos are unaltered, no photochopped, just resized". seems like they want to tell everybody "hey, my photos no PP and it still great"

for me if u want to post, just post it, no need to mention whether it been PP or not, unless other forumers request or ask for it, or the photos are use fro benchmarking lens or camera.

I don't think with Fuji taking the picture with 400% dynamic range could capture the whole range yet I just recalled that the picture can probably be captured with HDR

The thing about people saying that certain picture is taken without any PP is probably mainly to show what the camera/lens could give (or to tell you that they can expose properly).

Try taking a picture of a bikini chick running across the backdrop of an evening sun on a beach. I want the babe and the sky and the beach nicely exposed. I would say not many high-contrast situations give you enough time to nicely take multiple, same-spot shots for HDR.

great example there shinchan

another great example

but i see alot of ppl still post those pics and i go like siao eh...